Talk:List of converts to Christianity/Archive 2

Bob Dylan
Reliable sources are required. Most of the sources provided are Christian sources, or they are secondary sources. They are mired in the agenda of proselytizing. Conversion is not accomplished by record albums and momentary and private conversations with a priest. Most importantly we have no public formal ritual or ceremony. We do not have any accounting of an actual occasion marking the conversion by an unbiased commentator. Bob Dylan's own very often used imagery involving Jesus and Christianity is not evidence of conversion. Conversion should be understood to involve something concrete, otherwise conversion is meaningless, and anyone, under any circumstances, can be said to have converted. He was born a Jew and firm evidence should be required to dislodge him from that status, even temporarily. Not the fact that somebody said something in an offhand sort of way or that Gospel music was his passion during this time. Furthermore the period in question did not last very long. He was shortly into other musical styles and all sightings of "Christian" involvement quickly drop off. There are accountings of his re-involvement with Jewish rituals such as attending upon regularly recurring holidays of the Jewish calendar, since that time. And since that time he has moved on stylistically from Gospel music to other compositional styles, metamorphosing correspondingly into other personas. There is really no concrete evidence of conversion -- nothing even close. Bob Dylan is a superstar. Tons of ink are spilled constantly. Metaphors get interpreted as facts, and that is how you have misinformation. Bus stop 05:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. Let's take a look at the sources in question.


 * 1. Christianity Today: the original source, and says in a second hand way that he is somehow involved in the Christian faith. It doesn't literally, undoubtedly say that he converted, but it mentions his "completion into the Christian faith". It isn't the best source, but it does make the major points, and Christianity Today, while it does have a bias and a specific audience, is a reliable source.


 * 2."Kenn Gulliksen Comment's about Dylan's Status As Believer, April 25, 1999": black text on a white page. Wow, seems like anyone could have written this. But if you actually search for Kenn Gullikson, you'll find a few things: |this, which is a less stripped-down mirror of the source cited, |a site explaining the history of Kenn's church and its beliefs, and |another site which talks about Kenn's life with the church, and happens to mention him as Dylan's former pastor. Both the original source, it's mirror and the last link here were written by Dan Wooding, who is described on the mirror site as "an award winning British journalist now living in Southern California with his wife, Norma. He is the founder and international director of ASSIST (Aid to Special Saints in Strategic Times). Wooding is also the author of some 38 books (the latest of which is called "Blind Faith" with his 91-year-old mother, Anne Wooding -- ASSIST Books and WinePress Publishing), a syndicated columnist and a commentator on the UPI Radio Network in Washington, DC."
 * Regardless of the bias these sites may have, they are still sources which provide support for the veracity of Dylan's conversion.


 * 3.Rightwingbob: This source presents excerpts from an interview with Dylan by Bruce Heiman, which was performed 18 years ago, shortly after the release of 'Slow Train Coming'. Here is the excerpt from the source...


 * Heiman: Well the Atheists are against any sort of religion, be it Christianity ….


 * Dylan: Well, Christ is no religion. We’re not talking about religion … Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life.


 * […]


 * Heiman: OK. They believe that all religion is repressive.


 * Dylan: Well, religion is repressive to a certain degree. Religion is another form of bondage which man invents to to get himself to God. But that’s why Christ came. Christ didn’t preach religion. He preached the Truth, the Way and the Life. He said He’d come to give life and life more abundantly. He talked about life, not necessarily religion …


 * […]


 * Dylan: Well, a religion which says you have to do certain things to get to God - they’re probably talking about that kind of religion, which is a religion which is by works: you can enter into the Kingdom by what you do, what you wear, what you say, how many times a day you pray, how many good deeds you may do. If that’s what they mean by religion, that type of religion will not get you into the Kingdom, that’s true. However there is a Master Creator, a Supreme Being in the Universe.


 * Heiman: Alright. In another one of their statements they say that: “For years Dylan cried out against the Masters Of War and the power elite. The new Dylan now proclaims that we must serve a new master, a master whose nebulous origins were ignorance, foolishness, stupidity and blind faith. The Dylan who inspired us to look beyond banal textbooks and accepted ideologies now implores us to turn inwards to the pages of The Holy Bible, a book filled with contradictions, inaccuracies, outrages and absurdities”. Now this is what they’re saying.


 * Dylan: Well, the Bible says: “The fool has said in his heart, there’s no God … ”


 * Okay... regardless of what interpretation you have of things, it is typically sufficient evidence that someone believes in something when they themselves profess it. Anyone who claims these things could be insincere, but it's not our duty on Wikipedia to make that assumption.


 * 4. Bobdylan.com: The fourth source is a little writing by a man named Alan Jacobs, who apparently teaches English at Wheaton College in Illinois. This source discusses Dylan's conversion from a fan's point of view, and also makes mention of the disbelief and protest from many of Dylan's fans over the matter.


 * 5."Laramie Movie Scope: Bob Dylan -- 1976-1981: Rolling Thunder & the Gospel Years": This is an amateur (from the looks of it) review of a documentary dealing with Dylan's Christian/Gospel period.
 * While the movie in itself may be a sufficient source, I haven't seen it, so the synopsis and review provided by this site is relatively sufficient in determining the content and purpose of the documentary.


 * 6."Insights into Bob Dylan's faith journey": This source is a brief mention about Bob Dylan's faith and the public opinion of it; also, it assesses the album "Bob Dylan: Live, 1961-2000" and the book by Howard Sounes, "Down the Highway: The Life of Bob Dylan". An excerpt from the site:


 * While author Howard Sounes is by no means endorsing Dylan's expressions of faith, he treats the Christian albums, and Dylan's phenomenal Gospel concerts, with evident respect. There are also some intriguing insights. For example, while many commentators have asserted that Dylan left Christianity in the early 1980s, Sounes cites an account by singer Louise Bethune, who toured with Dylan in '86 and '87: "Although there was no longer such an explicit religious element in his albums, and it was reported in the press that Bob had returned to Judaism, Bethune reveals that Bob prayed with his Christian backing singers every night."


 * Yet another source that acknowledges that Dylan was indeed "in" Christianity (how else could people assume he left it?), and that he actively participated in religious worship with Christians, even after his albums lost their religious element.


 * 7."Classicbands.com - Bob Dylan": A general time-line/biography of Dylan's life, which makes mention of his announcement of conversion, his Christian albums, and later suspicions that he was no longer adhering to that faith.


 * 8."Crossrhythms.co.uk": This source discusses celebrity converts in general, and moves on to Dylan. It discusses his Christian period, and suspicions that his faith died out shortly afterward. The source then mentions a new book titled "Restless Pilgrim: The Spiritual Journey Of Bob Dylan" by Scott Marshall and Marcia Ford. The site goes into a detailed analysis of Dylan's music and faith, and speaks much about the information found in the new book. Here is an excerpt from this site:


 * Dylan's faith, we are told, is alive and well. He studied with the Lubavitchers as a Christian we are assured and when he does speak publicly his comments are consistent with belief.


 * According to this site, and the book, Dylan was not only Christian once, but still seems to be. Okay.


 * 9."Bob Dylan's Christian Music, 1979-81": Another site which loosely relays Bob's conversion story, the people involved, and his subsequent albums.


 * This was quite a pain. Many of the sources used for including converts on any of these "religious conversion" lists are from sources directly affiliated with their newfound religion. The fact that a source has a bias towards a particular religion is not in itself a problem, but establishing the reliability of the source is crucial. Considering that these sources are all in generally agreement about Dylan's conversion, and several of them provide details about the conversion story itself. I invite any users to assess these sources to determine their reliability. If a consensus is reached over the unreliability of a source, it will be removed. --C.Logan 07:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The above is entirely irrelevant. No reliable, high profile publication, makes note in a straightforward manner of the religious conversion of such an eminently newsworthy person. Anyone curious why this does not exist? Simple answer: there is no conversion. The basic hallmark of conversion is the conversion process. Not the farfetched reasoning in the above "sources." There is no public, formal conversion process. Therefore a Jew remains a Jew. We don't tar and feather a person based on the flimsy scribbling in the above "sources." Bus stop 12:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * bus stop, you finally used the talk page. Thanks. Bob Dylan's relation to Christianity seems to be all over the internet. It is mentioned on his official home page - this is a RS for his bio. There does seem to be confusion about whether he did convert or not, but according to his website, he did convert. C Logan, the article Bob Dylan may give further clues. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No it doesn't. This is what it says: "About the time I became a Christian, in 1978 or so, Bob Dylan did too. Of course, I didn't know about his conversion at the time." That is attributed to one Alan Jacobs, not to Bob Dylan. Bus stop 13:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And a Google search returning 1,520,000 hits for the three search terms "Bob," "Dylan," "Christianity," indicates nothing. Find a source. We are not debating the notability of Bob Dylan or Christianity. Bus stop 13:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * How about this: "In a dramatic turnabout, he converted to Christianity in 1979 and for three years recorded and performed only religious material, preaching between songs at live shows." -- this is Encyclopedia Britannica. It really is all over the internet. I'm an athiest myself and have no motives of making this initiative but there is some association of him to Christianity and even conversion. Whether he is now a christian, I dont know. Maybe we can add "present faith unknown, but did convert in 1978", or whatever the date is.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Matt57 -- You say, "...there is some association of him to Christianity and even conversion." But not official conversion. Language used fancifully can refer to conversion. Bear in mind that this is a list, not an article. An article is concerned that an assertion be attributable to a source. Grey areas and balance can be built into an article. A list is an either/or situation. In the absence of clear indication of conversion we do not assume the unlikely. On the contrary we require good sources to overturn what is likely. We are not talking about a street gang. We are talking about organized religion -- characterized by ritual and even bureaucracy. If Encyclopedia Britannica got it wrong so be it. It would not be the first time. Conversion is not hanging around on a street corner together. That is a misrepresentation of Christianity. All that the arguments made so far amount to is that Dylan converted to a bunch of guys who mean nothing and stand for nothing. After a person converts, their lives are typically altered. Where is the followthrough we would reasonably expect of a convert? Did Dylan adopt any practices that marked his life as a Christian life after this supposed conversion? Look at the life of Keith Green, referenced in the Dylan article, identified as a Christian singer. He can be seen to be living a Christian life. If Dylan converted, how come it apparently had no bearing whatsoever on his life? All he did is perform Gospel music until it was time for his style to evolve. I see no evidence for conversion to Christianity whatsoever. It is preposterous to list him as a Christian convert, and it is abusing Wikipedia for advocacy purposes, which is against WP:SOAP. Bus stop 16:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources can now be found in the Bob Dylan article, specifically, the New York Times, as indicated by the changes here. And, of course, the Encyclopedia Britannica as cited above is very hard to not consider a reliable source as well. John Carter 16:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've also found a very long article about the subject on 'Jewsweek', found here, which provides evidence to the sincerity of Dylan's faith, and seems to argue against the speculation of his return to Judaism. There can be no claim to bias here, as it is, after all, a Jewish site. There is no real reason for an article on a Jewish website to argue for Dylan's continued Christian-ness as much as this site does... it even acts as an apologetic, reconciling Dylan's Jewishness and his Christianity. It tends to portray him as a 'Jewish Christian', and at one point claims that while his family remains Jewish, he is Christian, and the article continues to provide evidence for his Christian outlook- including several conversations with friends who criticized his newfound belief, including Joni Mitchell. (It seems the site is now having trouble loading... hopefully, by the time people read this later, it'll be working again.)This Google Cache link should work, if the site still doesn't. This site provides evidence that he was sincere in his belief, and as I'm sure you know, a Jewish site has no reason to provide such an argument for Dylan's sincerity if it isn't factual. --C.Logan 18:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * C.Logan -- Yes, I've read the article in "Jewsweek." There is absolutely no indication of conversion in it whatsoever. Would you care to post the except you find in it that indicates conversion on the part of Bob Dylan to Christianity? You will not find a shred of evidence for this, because it simply does not exist, not in this article, anyway. I am looking for evidence for conversion, not vague allusions to his embrace of the Christian life or any such meaningless gobbledygook. We are writing an encyclopedia. We don't put forth half truths as whole truths. I think you and several others should face the clearly emerging truth -- there is no evidence for conversion whatsoever. Conversion to Christianity is not tantamount to joining a street gang. It is not brought about by a wink, a handshake, and a swagger or any other signs and symbols you care to concoct. The Church is an institution. It has ways of accomplishing tasks. Dylan is a Jew. Stop pretending he converted to Christianity. That is advocacy. That is WP:SOAPBOX. By the way, your link to the New York Times article doesn't work. It only links back to Wikipedia. Bus stop 22:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Then please inform me what the governing body of this institution is. As we both know, there is none. Your whole argument falls apart on that basis. Without any such governing body, there is no one to enforce any sort of protocols. Also, I note from your own edits to the Talk:Bob Dylan page that one of the bases for your constant editing to these pages is, and I quote, once again, ""His Jewish heritage doesn't go out the window because he felt like exploring Christianity in 1979". On the basis of that and similar statements, I personally believe the one violating WP:SOAPBOX is yourself. You are free to file a formal WP:RFC for outside input in this matter. However, based on your own failure to provide any documentation for your own position, I believe that right now there is no alternative but to used the sourced information, and to not attempt any further to "qualify" it out of fear "his Jewish heritage [will be] out the window". John Carter 22:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Bus stop- Let's pretend for a second that you've somehow never heard of Protestantism. In case you've forgotten, it is technically the second largest division of Christians in the world. A very large portion of these adherents consider themselves non-denominational(i.e. believing in an essentially Protestant viewpoint, yet not claiming any particular division), and many of those who belong to the clear denominations within Protestantism have a much looser of theology and practice than your typical Roman Catholic. Not everybody believes in sacraments, you know.


 * Many of the Christians I know have never been baptized; they've never gone through any sort of formal ceremony to 'convert' to Christianity. Their belief and adherence to the faith is not questioned. Not all Christianity requires a formal conversion ceremony. Yet it seems that even though the Jewsweek article goes through the pains of including many views expressed by Dylan which quite clearly qualify him as a 'believer in Christ', this is insufficient for you. Never mind the fact that the article makes several references to suspicions of him 'leaving' Christianity.


 * How could a person leave a home if they never actually entered it? If baptism is walking through the front door, and simple belief is coming in through the window, you still end up inside the house.


 * Lets take a look at excerpts from the article:


 * And in one of the most telling statements to his public, he offered up this bitter pill to the folks in Omaha: "Years ago they used to say I was a prophet. I'd say, 'No, I'm not a prophet.' They'd say, 'Yes, you are a prophet.' 'No, it's not me.' They used to convince me I was a prophet. Now I come out and say, 'Jesus is the answer.' [And now] they say, 'Bob Dylan? He's no prophet.' They just can't handle that."


 * [...]


 * He was disarmingly honest with Hughes about his sense of God's call: "I guess He's always been calling me. Of course, how would I have ever known that, that it was Jesus calling me? I always thought it was some voice that would be more identifiable. But Christ is calling everybody, we just turn Him off. We just don't want to hear. We think He's gonna make our lives miserable, you know what I mean? We think He's gonna make us do things we don't want to do; or keep us from doing things we want to do. But God's got His own purpose and time for everything. He knew when I would respond to His call." Dylan was clearly embracing who he thought was the living God. "See, Christ is not some kind of figure down the road," he told Hughes. "We serve the living God, not dead monuments, dead ideas, dead philosophies. f he had been a dead God, you'd be carrying around a corpse inside you."


 * [...]


 * And unlike the previous year, Dylan granted interviews, so the press even received some salve for any wounds that might have occurred. But there was this exchange when Dylan was interviewed by Paul Vincent of KMEL-radio, which showed that his beliefs remained intact:


 * Vincent: Some critics have not been kind as a result of the past two albums, because of the religious content. Does that surprise you? ... For example, they said you're proselytizing. Is Jesus Christ the answer for all of us in your mind?


 * Dylan: Yeah, I would say that. 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. You have to understand that. You have to have an experience with that.


 * [...]


 * Dylan's response indicated that he didn't think overt statements were still necessary; his beliefs were his beliefs, and the season of his articulating them to the public was drawing to an end:


 * "It's in my system. I don't really have enough time to talk about it. If someone really wants to know, I can explain it to them, but there are other people who can do it just as well. I don't feel compelled to do it. I was doing a bit of that last year on the stage. I was saying stuff I figured people needed to know. I thought I was giving people an idea of what was behind the songs. I don't think it's necessary anymore. When I walk around some of the towns we go to, however, I'm totally convinced people need Jesus. Look at the junkies and the winos and the troubled people. It's all a sickness which can be healed in an instant. The powers that be won't let that happen. The powers that be say it has to be healed politically."


 * [...]


 * Dylan: Most people think that if God became a man, He would go up on a mountain and raise His sword and show His anger and wrath, or His love and compassion with one blow. And that's what people expected the Messiah to be -- someone with similar characteristics, someone to set things straight, and here comes a Messiah who doesn't measure up to those characteristics and causes a lot of problems.


 * [...]


 * Dylan may not have perceived a conflicting message between his Jewish heritage and his belief in Jesus, but Harvey Brooks, who toured with Dylan in 1965, and helped record Highway 61 Revisited (1965) and New Morning (1970), was living in Atlanta in 1981, and was clearly struggling with his old friend's new ways: "I was a studio manager and producer in Atlanta, and he came to tour [November 15-16, 1981]. He had just converted to Christianity, and I called up and got passes for the show, but to be honest, I had problems with his confusion and I just couldn't bring myself to go. It led to my own confusion."


 * [...]


 * Bryan Styble, editor and publisher of Talkin' Bob Zimmerman Blues (the first Dylan fanzine in the U.S.) offered up his perspective on the situation: "Some people have found it odd that Dylan maintains his contacts with Judaism as a Christian. Actually, this has been quite natural. His ex-wife Sara and five children are observant Jews, and Dylan has always valued his close family ties."


 * [...]


 * Three years earlier, during the gospel tours, Dylan made some similar (seemingly flippant) remarks about the physical structure of a church during an onstage rap in Buffalo, New York:


 * "As I was walking around today I noticed many tall steeples and big churches and stained glass windows. Let me tell you once again: God's not necessarily found in there. You can't get converted in no steeple or stained glass window. Well, Jesus is mighty to save, if He's in your heart, He'll convert you."


 * [...]


 * Even Mitch Glaser, the man who distributed gospel tracts for Jews for Jesus at Dylan's 1979 shows in San Francisco, wasn't disturbed by Dylan's presence at such a special event: "Well, first of all, the fact that he attended, or paid for, or encouraged his son's bar mitzvah, this would be normal for a Jewish dad. The fact is, there's a real bad presumption in all this: and that is that when you become a believer in Jesus, you don't have a bar mitzvah. And that is really, for the most part, false. I mean, I had a bat mitzvah for my daughters, and I would say lots of Messianic Jews [Jewish believers in Jesus] have bar mitzvahs for their kids. And so that's not disturbing at all."


 * [...]


 * Although Dylan acknowledged that the season of his preaching had passed, he obviously didn't have any qualms about the message he communicated in 1979-1980. "I don't particularly regret telling people how to get their souls saved. I don't particularly regret any of that. Whoever was supposed to pick it up, picked it up."


 * [...]


 * Within a few months of the Christianity Today article (which featured the aforementioned quotes from Rabbi Kasriel Kastel of Chabad and Paul Emond of the Vineyard), Dylan sat in a cafe in New York City and chatted with Kurt Loder for an interview.


 * Loder: You're a literal believer of the Bible?


 * Dylan: Yeah. Sure, yeah. I am.


 * Loder: Are the Old and New Testaments equally valid?


 * Dylan: To me.


 * After asking if he belonged to any church or synagogue ("not really" was the answer) and finding out that Dylan believed the end of the world would be at least another 200 years, Loder still wanted more theological meat.


 * Loder: When you meet up with Orthodox people, can you sit down with them and say, 'Well, you should really check out Christianity'?


 * Dylan: Well, yeah, if somebody asks me, I'll tell 'em. But, you know, I'm not gonna just offer my opinion. I'm more about playing music, you know?


 * [...]


 * Some may view Keohane's interpretation as a bit of a stretch, but Dylan's response to an interviewer's question, in 1984, to whether he believed in evil seemed to bring it right back home.


 * "Sure, I believe in it. I believe that ever since Adam and Eve got thrown out of the garden, that the whole nature of the planet has been heading in one direction -- towards apocalypse. It's all there in the book of Revelation, but it's difficult talking about these things to most people because most people don't know what you're talking about, or don't want to listen."


 * Many of these either contain Dylan stating a belief which is explicitly Christian, or are essentially acknowledgments of some sort of conversion, if only by change of belief.
 * Let's take two quotes from Dylan from the above excerpts...:
 * "'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.'"


 * What does the Central Conference of American Rabbis have to say about this kind of thing?:
 * "For us in the Jewish community, anyone who claims that Jesus is their savior is no longer a Jew and is an apostate. Through that belief [he] has placed [him]self outside the Jewish community. Whether [he] cares to define herself as a Christian or as a 'fulfilled Jew,' 'Messianic Jew,' or any other designation is irrelevant; to us, [he] is clearly a Christian.'"


 * That's funny. I was thinking the same thing. --C.Logan 01:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It has come to my attention that the actions of at least one side in this party are getting rather out of hand. Specifically, around half an hour after I posted information indicating that the church to which Dylan is referenced in sources to have become involved with does not have a policy of keeping records of membership or even baptisms on one of the two threads here, that party posted on the other thread a comment to the effect that what he sought was evidence of a baptism, perhaps in the form of a baptismal record. I repeat, this is half an hour after I had posted a reference to one of our own articles to the effect that this body does not keep such records. Also, he seems to believe that the number of speeches Dylan, whom he apparently sees as being purely a Jew, could deliver enough speeches on Jesus from stage to be collected into a stand-alone book as being adopting a musical persona. Lastly, he also disputes the clear language of many of the sources, many of which have even stricter "libel" and such policies than we do, as not being enough evidence to keep us from being considered for libel for simply repeating and/or referencing published statements from these other entities with generally stricter policies on unsubstantiated material. Lastly, he has demonstrated a rather interesting command of the facts of this discussion.

I should make it clear that my own interest in this discussion is in trying to ensure that we do not now have placed on us such absurdly difficult standards of proof, generally beyond those that the majority of other, often publicly more reliable, sources of information have in place, that it would be all but impossible to have any content relating to living persons. Personally, I regret to say that I have no particular fondness for Mr. Dylan, and didn't even know about articles like this one until I got a message about this discussion on my talk page. Having seen the discussion, I do think that there are a few relevant issues involved which could and should be addressed. These include whether a apparently only three or so year conversion (I would still like to see evidence of a reconversion; I don't think I have) would qualify someone for unqualified inclusion on this list. I have also raised earlier what I think is the reasonable question as to whether we might have separate content on reverts or people who have engaged in multiple conversions. I am happy to see that some of these matters have been addressed earlier today. However, so far as I can see, the other party in this discussion is only interested in the unqualified, absolute removal of this content in its entirety, for what are pretty much, at least in my eyes, poor reasoning. Returning to the point, I notice that the other editor had identified earlier another "convert" who engaged in what may have been more activity demonstrating his conversion than simply annoying his audience with Jesus lectures, which seems to have been the sum of Dylan's activity. Again, this party appears to think that it is reasonable to think a Jew would preach about Jesus from the stage to his audience as part of a "stage persona." Right. Anyway, this other party he had mentioned on the Bob Dylan talk page, Keith Green, was also a convert to the Association of Vineyard Churches, the entity which is described as being involved in Dylan's own conversion. If the other party knew of Dylan's own involvement with this body, then he would also know that they do not keep the sort of records that he has been demanding. On that basis, I regret to say that, as an individual, I am beginning to find it increasingly difficult to unreservedly assume good faith on this party's behalf. John Carter 23:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Published sources for Dylan's conversion, with more to come.
Given the endless nature of this argument, I decided to get a little proactive about the sources. I looked up a few of the Bob Dylan biographies, and sought them out at the local bookstore. This particular bookstore only had two typical biographies, so I decided to work from them. Here are two very clear secondary sources which mention Bob's baptism/conversion. I hope this resolves the issue of sources so that I can waste my time on a video game or with my oft-ignored art projects.

This is copied verbatim (excuse any typos) from the books, and as it's for encyclopedia use, I hope the publisher doesn't mind me printing this long excerpt here.

This first section is from Howard Sounes' book, 'Down the Highway: The Life of Bob Dylan', pages 324-326:


 * There were signs during the latter stages of the 1978 tour that Bob had become caught up in this enthusiasm for Jesus Christ. Bob met his old college friend Dave Whitaker after a concert in Oakland, California, in mid-November, and spoke to Dave's eleven-year-old son, Ubi. "Would you send me a guitar?" asked the kid. The next day a truck pulled up with a gift from Dylan- a brand-new Fender Stratocaster decorated with quotations from the Book of Paul. A few days later Bob played a show in San Diego. He picked up a cross that a fan had thrown on stage and started wearing it. Shortly after this incident Bob felt what he later described as "this vision and feeling," which he believed to be the presence of Jesus Christ in the room. Billy Cross was sitting next to Bob on the bus when he looked over and noticed that Bob seemed to be writing a spiritual song- "Slow Train Coming"- the lyrics of which were only partly formed at this time but which described a resurgence of faith of God. The band played the song at a sound check in Nashville on December 2.


 * The catalyst to Bob's extraordinary full-blown conversion to Christianity seems to have been his relationship with sometime girlfriend Mary Alice Artes, although his relationship with Carolyn Dennis also focused his mind on the subject. Artes was linked with the Vineyard Fellowship, a small but growing evangelical church in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles. The Fellowship was founded in 1974 by Kenn GUlliksen, a singing pastor with a Lutheran background. "I did an album of my own and had a number-one song in the Christian world," he says. "It sounded like The Carpenters, it was so boring." Popular music was used to enliven services at the Fellowship, with people encouraged to get up and play songs. Several well-known musicians were associated with the Vineyard Fellowship, including a member of The Eagles. Church meetings were informal and Pastor Kenn often dressed in shorts. Because the Fellowship did not have a dedicated church building, they would lease buildings or meet on the beach. Ideologically, the Vineyard Fellowship was Bible-based, taking a fairly strong line on drugs, excessive drinking, and adultery.


 * Pastor Kenn says Mary Alice Artes approached him one Sunday in January 1979 after a service in a rented church building in Reseda and said she wanted somebody to speak with her boyfriend at home. Two of Pastor Kenn's colleagues, Paul Edmond and Larry Myers, duly went with Artes to an apartment in the West Los Angeles suburb of Brentwood. It was here that they met Bob. According to Pastor Kenn, who received a report back, Bob told them his life was empty. The pastors replied that God was the "only ultimate success" and Bob indicated that he wanted what Pastor Kenn calls a "lifestyle relationship" with God. "He was apparently ready to ask for God's forgiveness for sin," says Pastor Kenn. Larry Myers spoke to Bob about Jesus Christ, and talked about the Bible, from Genesis through to the Revelation of St. John the Divine. "Sometime in the next few days, privately and on his own, Bob accepted Christ and believed that Jesus Christ is indeed the Messiah," says Myers.


 * Bob later said that Mary Alice Artes was instrumental in his conversion. But she resists suggestions that any one person was responsible. "I cannot lead anyone to the Lord... I could only say that God did what he had to do," she says. "I think that too many people wanna be glorifying themselves in a situation that really should not have any glory at all."


 * Bob and Mary Alice enrolled in the Vineyard Fellowship's School of Discipleship, attending Bible class most weekday mornings for more than three months at the beginning of 1979. At first Bob thought there was no way that he could devote so much time to the project; he felt he had to get back on the road. Soon, though, he found himself awake at 7 A.M., compelled to get up and drive to the real estate office in Reseda where Bible classes were held. "I couldn't believe I was there," he said.


 * Assistant Pastor Bill Dwyer, who taught a class on the Sermon on the Mount, recalls Bob as being withdrawn in Bible class and also when he made rare appearances at church. "He probably needs to be," says Pastor Bill. "The few times he would [come] into church people would glom onto him: Oh, it's Bob Dylan!" Indeed, Pastor Bill, who had all Bob's albums, had to restrain himself from doing the same.


 * It was during this late winter/spring period of 1979 that Mary Alice Ares was baptized in a swimming pool at Pastor Bill's house.


 * "This was total immersion. Because baptism is a symbol of burial, burying guilt, and then pulling the new man out of the water," says Pastor Kenn. Bob attended the baptism and, not long afterward, Bob was himself baptized, probably in the ocean, which was where the fellowship normally conducted baptisms. By being immersed in water, Bob became, in common parlance, a born-again Christian, though he would later shrink from the term, claiming he had never used it. Yet he was clearly quoted in a 1980 interview with trusted Los Angeles Times journalist Robert Hilburn saying: "I truly has a born-again experience, if you want to call it that. It's an overused term, but it's something that people can relate to."


 * An element of religiosity had always existed in Bob's work, and it was particularly strong on the album John Wesley Harding. Religion had in fact been with him since childhood when his father instilled a strict moral code in his eldest son and sent him to study with a rabbi for his bar mitzvah. As a songwriter, Bob had always felt himself to be a channel for inspiration. At the start of his career, he told Sing Out! that words just came to him: "The songs are there. They exist all by themselves just waiting for someone to write them down." In this sense, he had a powerful everyday connection with a mysterious source of information and, over the years, he came to think that the songs arose from God. It was a small step, apparently, from this to flinging himself headfirst into orthodox religion. Yet Bob of course was born and raised in the Jewish faith, and it is fundamentally wrong to most Jews to think of Jesus Christ as the Messiah. "For a person to be a 'completed Jew' is very offensive to them," admits Pastor Kenn. "They think that is an oxymoron, where as I see it, Christians see it, and Jewish Christians see it at the [truth]." Indeed, Bob's embracing of Christianity caused consternation, and some offense, among his Jewish friends and family. "I think it was for publicity, that's what I think. Because he is Jewish-minded, plenty Jewish-minded. He was brought up that way. He was bar mitzvahed," says Bob's aunt, Ethel Crystal.


 * Bob's conversion to Christianity also caused considerable upset to his own children, who had been raised in the Jewish faith. Suddenly, packs of journalists were following their father to the Vineyard Fellowship in the hope of getting pictures of him going to a Christian church, and then staking out his home. The children saw this commotion when they visited their father. It was embarrassing and one of the few times when his celebrity was a problem in their lives.

The second except from Sounes' book is from page 356:


 * In the fall of 1983, Bob's seventeen-year-old son Jesse had a belated bar mitzvah in Jerusalem- Jakob and Samuel had already been bar mitzvahed in California- and Bob was photographed wearing a yarmulke at the Wailing Wall, adding to speculation that he had returned to Judaism. "As far as we're concerned, he was a confused Jew," Rabbi Kasriel Kastel told Christianity Today. "We feel he's coming back." In fact, Jesse was on vacation in Israel with his grandmother, Beatty, when they discovered a bar mitzvah could be conducted quickly and easily at the Wailing Wall and Bob simply flew in to play his part. He still believed Jesus Christ was the Messiah, and kept a broadly Christian outlook, although he had not maintained regular contact with the Vineyard Fellowship since the early flush of his conversion.

The second book is called 'The Rough Guide to Bob Dylan' by Nigel Williamson (2nd edition). This excerpt is broken into 3 sections, as one is from the main body of text, and the other two are from sidebars. All is taken from pages 112-113:


 * 'Jewish roots' sidebar


 * Prior to his Christian conversion, Dylan had shown some interest in getting back in touch with his Jewish roots. After his father's funeral in June 1968, he confessed to Harold Leventhal, Woody Guthrie's former manager, that he had never really known the man who was Abe Zimmerman. Leventhal's response was to urge Dylan to get back in touch with his Jewish faith. Over the next few years he read widely around the subject and held talks with Rabbi Meir Kahane, a founder of the Jewish Defense League.


 * He visited the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem on his birthday in May 1971. Time magazine reported that he was considering changing his name back to Zimmerman. Dylan dismissed such reports as "pure journalese". But he did consider the possibility of taking his family to live on a kibbutz. Bruce Dorfman, the painter who was his neighbor in Woodstock, reported that when he returned from Israel he was seriously considering become a Hasid. Instead, by the end of the decade he had become a born-again Christian.


 * His conversion caused offence to members of his family and is Jewish friends. "I think it was for publicity, that's what I think," said his aunt Ethel Crystal. "He is Jewish-minded, plenty Jewish-minded, he was brought up that way. He was bar mitzvahed." And, despite his Christian conversion, his children all had bar mitzvahs and he attended the ceremonies on each occasion. When he encountered Leventhal at a party in Hollywood in 1980, his old friend confronted him and demanded, "What have you got that cross dangling around you for?"


 * In 1982, there were strong rumours that he was again exploring his Jewish heritage, sparked by a picture of him wearing a yarmulke at the bar mitzvah of his son Jesse in Jerusalem. The following year there were further stories that he had been spending time with an ultra-orthodox sect called the Lubavitchers and even that he had recorded an album of Hasidic songs. Dylan kept silent, which only encouraged the rumours.


 * By 1986, Allen Ginsberg was claiming that Dylan had reverted back to "his natural Judaism". Dylan appeared with his son-in-law Peter Himmelman (husband of his step-daughter Maria) at the annual Jewish Chabad telethon in Los Angeles in November 1989 wearing a yarmulke and singing "Hava Nagila". But ultimately, the importance of his Jewish roots appears to have been cultural rather than religious.


 * 'The Vineyard Fellowship' sidebar


 * The Vineyard Fellowship, to which Dylan's girlfriend Mary Alice Artes introduced him in late 1978, was a small evangelical church that peddled a New Age, born-again version of Christianity. It had been found in Los Angeles in 1974 by Ken Gulliksen, who had previous been a singer on the Christian Music circuit. The church's style was informal. Gulliksen took services dressed in his shorts and counted a number of LA musicians among his congregation, including T-Bone Burnett, Steven Soles and David Mansfield, all of whom had played on Dylan's Rolling Thunder Tour.


 * Body Text


 * In January 1979, one of Dylan's girlfriends, Mary Alice Artes, approached Pastor Kenn Gulliksen of an evangelical church called the Vineyard Fellowship in the San Fernando Valley and told him that he wanted someone to speak to her boyfriend. Gulliksen sent two colleagues, Paul Esmond and Larry Myers, to meet Dylan in the West LA suburb of Brentwood. Within days he had signed up with the Fellowship. Sometime in the coming weeks, he was baptized and he and Artes commenced a three-month series of bible classes at the School of Discipleship.

Hopefully, these sources will come in handy for both the Bob Dylan and the List of converts to Christianity articles.

I'll have to a few other bookstores tomorrow and see if any other useful books can be found. If this is useful to any of you, I have the ISBNs.
 * 'Down the Highway: The Life of Bob Dylan' by Howard Sounes. ISBN 0-8021-3891-8
 * 'The Rough Guide to Bob Dylan' by Nigel Williamson, 2nd Edition. ISBN 1-84353-718-4

Hopefully, I'll provide more excerpts tomorrow. --C.Logan 01:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, I thought you said that the discussion had ended. No? -Scott P. 04:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't remember saying that. Trust me, I wouldn't end a discussion if it's unresolved. Am I confused about what you're asking me? --C.Logan 05:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The text uses the word "probably" in relation to any Baptism of Dylan as concerns where the Baptism took place. It says "probably" in the ocean. We are talking here about someone making assumptions. This is clearly not someone who knows whether or not the act of Baptism took place. If the individual providing the account of Dylan's supposed Baptism had any real knowledge it is very reasonable to expect that they would know where it took place. Furthermore they don't know when it took place. The wording used says over the next few days. We are talking about assumptions complicated by assumptions. Without any real idea if any actual religious conversion took place, why are so many trying to assert that? Is that not pushing a personal agenda? Why is Dylan being put in the List of converts to Christianity as it is very clear that we in fact do not even know if he actually converted? A list is a black or white situation. These sorts of assumptions can find a balanced place in an article about Bob Dylan, but not in a list of converts to Christianity. A list of such converts is an either/or situation. The implication of inclusion on such a list is that the encyclopedia is sure that they belong there. No such surety exists in this instance. I feel that Dylan should be removed right now from that list. Bus stop 12:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * C.Logan -- Besides the fact that at best we have a "probably," for Baptism, we have the fact that he no longer practices Christianity, and probably practices, to some slight degree, his own religion, which is Judaism. I appreciate your efforts in typing all of the above, and I recognize your orientation to fairness. But given that Dylan doesn't practice Christianity, may not have even validly converted, and is a Jew, shouldn't he be removed immediately from the List of converts to Christianity? I would appreciate your response. Bus stop 13:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This entire discussion is getting rather out of hand. It seems that you put more weight into your own argument than into the sources which have actually been presented. The above excerpts are from well known, published sources. Both sources clearly state that he had a conversion. It states that he had a baptism. The fact that the source has no confirmation on the location of baptism has no bearing to this argument. How hard is it to understand that you are the one who is taking undue meaning from the text. You seem to assume that "because the source is not sure where he was baptized, the source can't possibly know that he was baptized". This isn't true. You can know that something occurred and not know where it occurred. You can know that you're friends got married, but you might not know where they happened to get married. Does this have any effect on the fact that they were married? No, it doesn't. The source states that he was baptized. The 'probably' is in regards to location. --C.Logan 22:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologize if my most recent comments above and below seem rude. --C.Logan 22:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Rationale for insertion of disclaimer for lapsed converts in intro paragraph
Now that I know the full scope of the debate above, I have added the disclaimer regarding lapsed converts into the intro paragraph. As noted above, I feel that for clarity's and honesty's sake, it is the responsibility of the editors of this article to do one of the following:


 * 1) Keep the disclaimer in the intro paragraph.
 * 2) Remove the disclaimer in the intro paragraph, but methodically note next to each known documented lapsed convert the fact that he or she is currently a lapsed convert.
 * 3) Remove the disclaimer, but remove all known documented lapsed converts from the list.

Unless one of these three options is followed, then I would have to say that the editors of this page seem to me to be presenting some very incomplete and potentially misleading information to the public.

-Scott P. 14:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I too would support perhaps a separate listing of known "reverts", if there is sufficient content to make such a listing a viable article. Alternately, known "reverts" could be included in a separate subsection of each existing section. Personally, I do believe that the information on the reversion could possibly be even more interesting than the info on the initial conversion, and certainly see that it deserves inclusion as well. John Carter 02:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It might be simpler to refer to the list in the terms of an event that is the sign of conversion to Christianity, namely the public profession of faith by the subject, or baptism as reported by verifiable, reliable sources. The exclusionists seem to insist upon a all-but-impossible high bar of a perpetual and internal conviction to Christ. A separate list of those who have repudiated Christianity might survive an AFD if it not original research or speculation but likewise is based upon verifiable, reliable sources of the subject's public repudiation of their earlier adherence to Christian belief. patsw 12:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * While the above statement is factually true, there are numerous historical events in which given individuals have made a statement or other action of profession of one faith while factually continuing to adhere to an older faith. The Belmonte Jews and Sabbatai Zevi are instances of such in-name-only conversions which would probably qualify for inclusion in this proposed list. On that basis, while I can see how that list might also, in circumstances, be useful, its defined scope would be clearly different from a list of what were apparently sincere conversions. John Carter 16:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: alter the scope of this list
The wording at the top of the list now says: ''The following is a list of people who have at one time converted to Christianity from non-Christian religions. Important note: This list is known to include some individuals whose initial conversion experience may have since lapsed or reverted.'' I don't think this makes sense, because as we have seen in the instance of Bob Dylan, conversion is understood to be accomplished by virtually anything. It was asserted that Bob Dylan was a convert to Christianity because he gave spoken "sermonettes" from the stage between songs. It was asserted that Dylan's "conversion" transpired by way of producing his "Slow Train Coming" album. Obviously this is all absurd. By this reasoning anyone can be on this list. Editors have asserted that no conversion process at all is required by some denominations for conversion. So -- this list is ripe for abuse. It is very open to exploitation. Why should such a list include names of people who ever had any contact with Christianity? That is what has been clearly asserted: that any glancing contact with Christianity constitutes conversion. I think that makes little to no sense. If this list is to be a valid resource I think it's scope has to be altered. I think a more valid scope is a list that includes converts who actually continue to practice the religion. Can we have comment on this? Bus stop 14:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In Dylan's case, he was apparently baptized. This seems to me to be a fairly significant initiation rite into Christianity.  For others, it would seem to me that a simple duly documented statement that one considers ones self to have become a Christian should be enough.  I do agree that the criteria for inclusion on this list should be listed in the intro paragraph.  -Scott P. 14:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We have no real indication of Baptism, only assumptions of it. "Probably" suggests guesswork. Bus stop 14:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The assertion has been made that anything whatsoever constitutes "conversion" to Christianity. Therefore anyone with any glancing contact with Christianity at any point in their life is a candidate for inclusion in the List of converts to Christianity. We have heard that Dylan's described "experiences" of a spiritual nature in which imagery deriving from Christianity was used, constitute "conversion" to the religion. We have heard that Dylan's having a talk with a priest about Christianity constitutes conversion. Basically many editors have asserted that certain denominations require no defined entry point to Christianity at all. Clearly the parameters of this list need some serious redefining. Bus stop 14:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Dylan avowed his acceptance of the teachings of the New Testament. This seems to me to be more than mere contact, but rather an embracing of an entire belief system.  Christianity is the belief system of the New Testament.  -Scott P. 15:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That is your interpretation, Scott P.. And we've also heard about a dozen other interpretations of what constitutes "conversion." The entire notion of putting people on this list who no longer practice Christianity sounds like a contrivance to me to increase the contents of the list. And as much as I would like to assume good faith I am not unaware of Christianity's propensity for proselytizing. It is a resource that is more open to advocating for Christianity than it need be. It goes beyond listing converts to Christianity. It is a compilation of anyone curious enough to explore Christianity in any way whatsoever. We've heard the wide array of explanations given here for what would qualify a person for inclusion on this list. It is simply untenable to maintain such a featureless and boundless set of criteria for "conversion" to Christianity, and therefore for inclusion on this list. And quite frankly, it is rife for abuse. WP:NOT is applicable here. This list should be trimmed back to include only converts who still practice Christianity. That way at least current information can be brought to bear. Trying to reconstruct a glancing encounter with Christianity that occurred 25 years ago is a hopeless task. It is one thing to maintain a list of converts who presently display some endorsement of the religion of Christianity. I just find it a contrivance to expand that list to include anyone who ever investigated or explored it, especially given the argument that was prominently propounded here that many denominations of Christianity do not have any entry process whatsoever. If nothing constitutes conversion then we have no standards here. Bus stop 16:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Unlike Judaism, which I believe generally requires the performance of certain rituals for conversion, Christianity is generally not so formulaic. From the first disciples, who are not recorded as doing anything more than saying, "I believe," to the present, less stress has been placed on any kind of initiation rite.  Islam is similar to Christianity in this way.  According to the Koran, I believe that all that is required to convert to Islam is to profess three things verbally before witnesses.  Things like I believe in one God Allah, that Allah has no helpers, and that Mohamed is his prophet.  True, the Christian rite of Baptism is referenced in the Bible, but nowhere in the Bible does it state that baptism is mandatory for conversion.  True, many churches do make baptism mandatory for inclusion in their membership roles, but many do not, and even the ones that do, still recognize those off of their membership roles who profess Christianity as Christians.  In short, I think it is safe to say that Christianity generally takes an individual at his word.  If an individual says "I believe" then generally he is believed.  For Wikipedia to design and enforce stricter standards in this question than Christianity itself does, seems to me to be unrealistic and innacurate.


 * I think this list need not be pared down to contemporaries, as historical figures certainly are notable and worthy of tracking. It seems to me that the existence of a reasonably credible published account that an individual has "professed Christianity" and the absence of any published counterclaims ought to be sufficient for inclusion in this list.  -Scott P. 18:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The title of the list contradicts what is on the list. Dylan is not a convert to Christianity. Even if we were to accept that he once converted to Christianity, for which there is the absence of evidence, he is certainly not "Christian" now. All arguments that have been presented thus far, by the editors arguing for the perpetuation of the status quo, rest on contradictions and inconsistencies. It is only by claiming that Christianity is almost meaningless that it can be claimed that anyone having any encounter with anything "Christian" is therefore a "Christian." That is inconsistent with the reality of Christianity, which I think has a good deal of meaning and definition. There is also, additionally, a contradiction between referring to someone as a convert to Christianity if in point of fact they are not even at present a Christian. Something is amiss. Perhaps someone can solve the problem by renaming the list. Bus stop 20:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, having an "encounter" and "professing to embrace a belief system" are two different things, at least in most people's minds. Placing the disclaimer in the intro seems to me like sufficient notice to the typical reader that the listed individuals may not be currently practicing Christians. Scott P. 20:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Professing to embrace a belief system" constitutes conversion to you, Scott P., not to many others. Dylan can say anything he pleases, just about, without suddenly becoming a Christian. He can feel free to stand on the mountaintop and preach the best (Christian) sermon anyone has ever heard. But if that particular act is not the act or process required to accomplish conversion, then can we say he has converted? You and others have put forward a multiplicity of proofs, including the catch-all proof that nothing is required to bring about conversion. That indicates that in your understanding conversion is a meaningless term. I don't accept that. Similarly, I don't accept that Dylan is a Christian. Yet the title of the list says, List of converts to Christianity. There is clearly a disconnect between the factuality that Dylan is not a Christian and the heading of the list indicating that it is a list of Christians. I think that contradiction needs to be addressed. Bus stop 22:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally find the above statement almost laughable. Is the above editor stating that some source other than the subject' own directly quoted words are the most reliable source? And, certainly, I would love to see how he can differentiate "professing a belief system" and "conversion" if there is evidence that the subject's earlier beliefs were not virtually identical to those he professed later. John Carter 01:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This entire discussion is getting rather out of hand. It seems that you put more weight into your own argument than into the sources which have actually been presented. The above excerpts are from well known, published sources. Both sources clearly state that he had a conversion. It states that he had a baptism. The fact that the source has no confirmation on the location of baptism has no bearing to this argument. How hard is it to understand that you are the one who is taking undue meaning from the text. You seem to assume that "because the source is not sure where he was baptized, the source can't possibly know that he was baptized". This isn't true. You can know that something occurred and not know where it occurred. You can know that you're friends got married, but you might not know where they happened to get married. Does this have any effect on the fact that they were married? No, it doesn't. The source states that he was baptized. The 'probably' is in regards to location.


 * Bus stop, I have (at some level of frustration) been cooperative with you in finding new sources. I am not sitting here and asking you to accept the original sources, but continuously finding new sources to support the fact that Dylan once converted to Christianity. You have to understand that it is ridiculous that you have made no effort whatsoever to find any sources which clearly state "he did not convert" in the same way these sources state that "he did convert". As far as I am concerned, we are looking at a table of evidence. As it stands, no sources which challenge the idea of his conversion has arisen. You are applying your own personal judgment and presuppositions into the argument and the assessment of sources, rather than actually convincing us with something other than your own opinion of things.


 * You seem to assume that you do not need to apply any evidence of your own. You do not seem to realize that 13 sources which actually claim that he did convert are sufficient evidence that he once converted. Your personal skepticism about what the sources clearly state has no place in this article unless you actually provide sources to back up your argument.


 * You seem to hold to the belief that this list is a tool used by Christians to proselytize. No, it isn't. This is a list used for reference, in the same way that List of vegans is. List of vegans is a list of people who practice or have once practiced veganism. It is compiled for the sake of convenience, as is this list. In this list, you can conveniently see people who have, at one time in their lives, converted to Christianity. They may still be faithful today. They may still be nominally Christian, but not practicing. They may even have converted to other religions, which should be noted at their listing. Suspend for a minute your belief that Dylan never converted. Wouldn't his shorted-lived Christianity still be notable? Would his conversion to another faith later remove the fact that he "converted to Christianity"? Wouldn't a famous Muslims conversion to Christianity be noteworthy, even if he later returned to Islam? If someone was once a Muslim, converted to Christianity, and reverted to Islam, he still 'converted to Christianity'. He was a 'Christian convert', for at least some part of his life. This is notable. This shouldn't apply only to this page, but to every conversion list page. If someone once converted to Islam, and later left the religion, he still 'converted to Islam'. He should be included on the list, with a description of his situation.


 * Now, lets return to the Dylan conversion issue. No matter how things work in Bus stop's world, on Wikipedia, sources are needed to support information. As the other users and myself have taken the time to actually support our information with sources, I think our argument is warranted. You have done nothing but express skepticism and criticize the source by forming your own exegesis of the text.


 * You argue that you don't need to provide sources because you support the 'normal state' and conversion is the thing which must be sufficiently proven. Lets use an analogy. Lets assume that Celebrity A has an entry on Wikipedia. The article says "In the following year, Celebrity A married Random Person A." As singleness is the natural state, it is reasonable that proof would be needed. However, if someone provides sources which say "he was married", "they married", quite explicitly (and especially within a published biography), it would be foolish to say "sources with allusions to marriage are not sufficient. Please show me a source which actually claims marriage." The person who makes this argument should present a source which makes a convincing claim which challenges the fact presented by the existing sources: that Celebrity A did indeed get married.


 * You should make an attempt to provide a source which explicitly states that Dylan did not convert, as we have presented sources which explicitly state that he did. The only thing which is consistently calling these sources into question is your own judgment and dismissal of their claims. Should this really be the case? --C.Logan 22:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My friend, Bus Stop, again we are back to where I cannot comprehend your reasoning. Published sources exist that explain Dylan's conversion.  You are of the opinion that the validity of these sources is questionable, yet so far you have not yet been able to provide a single documented source that supports your opinion on this.  Wikipedia is built on documented sources, not on editor's opinions my friend.  Please either put up or.... you know the rest on this one.


 * By the way, could you please stop starring all of your talk page entries? This is not standard format for Wikipedia talk pages, unless you might happen to feel that you are somehow better than everyone else here working to improve this page.  I find it rather distracting, and that it makes the conversation more difficult and tedious to read than it already is.  We are not here to try to "over-power" one another, but to learn from one another and to try to reach a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.  I wish you might be able to budge at least one inch from your seemingly concrete-like fix on this issue.  Others have accepted the insertion of the disclaimer without complaint.  Are you willing to be flexible enough to at least support your opinion with a decent citation?


 * Please forgive me if I may be over-reaching in my assumption here, but by the level of enthusiasm that you seem to be defending Dylan's "Jewishness", I have a sense that you may have been raised in the Jewish belief system yourself. If so, then how would you feel if suddenly some Wikipedia editor who was not entirely familiar with Judaism started insisting that the standards by which you were raised to to believe that conversion to Judaism were acceptable were not acceptable for Wikipedia and started deleting individuals from the List of notable converts to Judaism page simply because that editor's standards for conversion to Judaism were higher than the ones you knew to be true?  What if that person were going on a one-man crusade, with no citations or references to back up his opinions?  Please think about it.


 * I was raised in the Christian belief system, and after 50 years of familiarity with it, I would have to break many rules about Christian conversion that I know of to meet with what seems to be your demand. I would also have to break many rules about Wikipedia documentation that I know of in order to meet with what you are asking.  Is that what you are asking me to do?  Thanks,  -Scott P. 02:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Agnosticism and Atheism are not religions
Non-religious too isn't also a religion. The entries in this section are dubious at best in the claims of either Agnosticism or Atheism. The entry also conflates the two (three effectively) very different approaches to questions regarding the existence of god or gods (the hidden 3rd view is non-religious). Ask an "agnostic" the question "are you an atheist ?" and the simple answer should be "No". Two approaches to fix this, 1) remove all the entries on the grounds that they have not converted from a "non-Christian religion" 2) alter the criteria to include worldviews that are not unnecessarily religious and segment this section into three groups i.e. one for Agnostics, one for Atheists (both of which there very much so should be a pre-conversion claim or cite in which we can say they were agnostic or atheist prior to conversion) and finally a section for non-religious (which is the catch-all bucket for the above if they are uncited or dubious). Ttiotsw 01:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've altered the heading to reflect the presence of these belief systems. I'd be happy to look for some sources, but it is a pain, so it will take a little while. Perhaps a better alternative to 'non-religious' would be something along the lines of 'unknown former religion/belief system'. This would better reflect the fact that the section is a dump for entries which have no clear citations of former belief claims. --C.Logan 02:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Mmm that change felt worse as it doesn't mention non-religious. I've removed that part because why does it even bother trying to say what they converted from in the lead sentence ?. As we have seen with Dylan, the standards for inclusion in any section should be the same as inclusion in the article itself. Unless someone has explicitly stated they were agnostic or atheist we have to shift them to a new section (e.g. "unclear/unknown former belief system') Ttiotsw 03:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * True, I didn't see the redundancy. --C.Logan 03:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would note that perhaps being a member of an agnostic or atheist group (North Texas Church of Freethought and the Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers) might be considered as eligible for inclusion, unless they somehow indicated that they were only "supporting" members or something similar. Maybe. I dunno. John Carter 15:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Keeping ethnic identity and religious beliefs separate
It seems to me that much of this debate about Dylan may turn on the propensity of some to interchangeably mix Jewish ethnicity with Jewish belief. Undoubtedly Judaism is a belief system that is firmly identified with a certain ethnicity, while Christianity is really not. This debate about Dylan's "Jewishness" appears to me to be far too readily mixing ethnic considerations with considerations of intellectual leanings. These are two different sets of considerations and it might help us in this debate to clearly identify them as such.

When viewed from a purely ethnic/ genetic perspective, Dylan has always been Jewish blooded and always will be. When viewed from a purely intellectual/ faith perspective, Dylan's faith once included accepting Jesus as his savior, and now this appears a little "less certain".

Most commonly Christianity does not contain ethnic overtones, but tends to focus on the intellectual/ faith perspective when regarding its identification of a convert. Judaism apparently has two parallel definitions about what it means to be Jewish, one having strong ethnic and even genetic overtones, and the other which incorporates certain faith aspects.

I think it is safe to say that this article was never intended to address any ethnic or genetic issues that some may have, but merely to address intellectual/ faith considerations. The mixing of ethnic and genetic issues with faith issues appears to be something that is more frequently done by some minority groups such as the Jewish minority than by the majority group which happens to be Christian in the Western world.

I have added some text for clarification next to Dylan's entry on the page which I hope might help some to be more clear about his current faith affiliations, and I hope that this debate about Dylan's faith affiliations, where so much mis-communication seems to have gone on, might soon be put to rest. Personally this has been a learning experience for myself for which I am quite grateful.

Apparently Dylan has never renounced either Christianity or Judaism. An interesting man, to say the least. His mixing of both Jewish and Christian behavior, without renouncing either belief system, may put some who would pigeon-hole him into one or the other box, into a bit of an uncomfortable situation. I personally find his refusal to renounce either belief system, and his mixing of both, to be a bit refreshing.

-Scott P. 12:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you- I tried to create a Category:Jewish converts to Christianity yesterday to include Jews regardless of whether they had practiced Judaism or not but unfortunately a User:Jayjg deleted it claming it had been deleted before- but looking at the discussion Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_8 it doesn't look as if it was really debated to any great extent. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 12:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As an alternative, perhaps a more clearly defined Category:Ethnic Jewish converts to Christianity might be counted as different enought to survive? Or, perhaps, adding a clear statement at the beginning of the content to indicate that the category includes all Jews, regardless of religious background, within its scope? John Carter 14:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I did put a statement on that category that it included all Jews, whether or not they practiced Judaism who converted to Christianity. I'm not sure why we can have a list of Jewish converts on this page and not have an equivalent category when there are plenty of other categories that also seem to be lists. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 14:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would only note that there are several editors who make it a point that they think categories which function primarily as, pardon the expression, "lazy lists" are rather quick to delete them. I myself could be counted as one such when I recently argued on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Saints that creating different categories for the liturgical feasts for every calendar day of all the major Christian denominations was probably a bad idea, and that a single (or group) of related articles could work just as well. It might be possible to include a few more links in various relevant articles to the List of notable converts to Judaism, maybe by inserting a link with the phrase "convert to Judaism" or something similar. That might have substantially the same effect. John Carter 14:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

T.S. Eliot
Eliot was a convert to Anglicanism from Unitarianism, which in the particular variety his family practiced ( see William Greenleaf Eliot) is a Christian denomination, though a non-trinitarian one. His is not a conversion from agnosticism or atheism to Christianity, but from one Christian denomination to another. In any case, no WP:RS is offered to justify his inclusion, so I'll remove him until such a source one is provided. --Rrburke(talk) 21:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Point seems to be well taken. I don't suppose we should include any Monophysites or Arians in the list either, although I don't think (I haven't checked, so I don't know) that any are included. John Carter 21:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion
How about just deleting this article? It seems to me that it very probably violates our Neutral point of view (NPOV) policy. Christianity places a very strong premium on proselytism and conversion; many other religions do not. So it seems odd that this article exists in the first place. It's almost as if its sole purpose is to promote the religion by promoting the standards by which it judges itself--the people who are numbered among the converted.

Recent discussions have brought out other problems. Some conversions are forced, some are secret, in other cases a quite long dalliance that affects a person's view of his life may be followed by a lapse or a resumption of an older religious belief. So the criteria for inclusion can be quite fluid.

I would suggest that it might be better to avoid these problems by abandoning the list. Details of a person's religion, where it is an important part of his public life, should be included in his biography, but that's all an encyclopedia needs to do. We're not here to provide promotional literature for religions. --Tony Sidaway 10:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It has been nominated for deletion twice before. I am considering nominating it again. It is being abused now, in my opinion. I just added the tags at the top of this page, recounting the two previous attempts at deletion. As much I want to assume good faith it is clear to me that there is agenda pushing of the promotion of Christianity variety. Bus stop 11:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry but it would appear you quite clearly wrong on this when numerous other lists and categories exist for other religions i.e.
 * CATEGORIES
 * Category:Converts, Category:Converts to Buddhism, Category:Converts to Christian Science, Category:Converts to Hinduism, Category:Converts to Islam, Category:Converts to Judaism, Category:Converts to Scientology, Category:Converts to Sikhism, Category:Hindu clan conversions to Islam, Category:Hungarian converts to Islam,
 * LISTS
 * Conversion to Judaism, List of notable converts to Hinduism, List of notable converts to Islam, List of notable converts to Judaism, List of notable converts to Sikhism.Regards Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 11:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the categories do exist, but except in the case of Islam and perhaps Buddhism I wonder if they're solely there because most native English-speakers share a broadly Christian heritage and expect such articles to be there. Do you see what I'm saying?  I question the encyclopedia value of these lists and categories, and consider them to be quite possibly to be motivated by a desire to promote the religion in question.  It's worth considering, I think.  --Tony Sidaway 12:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

'''Fix it, don't nix it. ''' I feel that to spin the wheels again of Wikipedia's AFD mechanism for this article for a third shot would be a waste of the time and energies of many. Please carefully review the outcomes of the last two attempts at this. I would not try it again unless there were some real reason to believe that the outcome would be any different on a third try. Should the articles on notable Jewish converts and on notable Islamic converts, etc. etc. etc. also all be deleted as well? Has any new information arisen since the last two attempts at it that would make it more likely to be deleted? History seems to repeat itself, but every 6 months? Oy vey, give me a break!

In as much as this article is accurate and honest, I feel that it provides a service. It seems to me that this debate about Dylan has served to increase the accuracy and the honesty of this article. True, there may be a propensity for some to try to use the article for proselytizing purposes, however that doesn't mean that others can't keep them in check. That seems to me to be what has happened to a certain extent here. Perhaps more of this "checking action" needs to happen here. Rather than attempting to destroy that which one might find not to his or her liking, why can't one try to figure out exactly what inaccuracy one might find in the article and fix it? Thanks, -Scott P. 13:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I can and do see that this article probably has a place in wikipedia. If one were to seek out individuals who would be able to provide good information on how, for instance, Buddhism and Christianity compare and contrast, someone who has converted from one to the other might be one of the best potential sources for such information. Also, it can be, and often is, thought that religious belief is a sufficiently defining characteristic of an individual that that individual can even be categorized by their religious belief. If religious belief in general qualifies for content and even categorization, then I would conclude that religious conversion probably does as well. Regarding the what I think may well be unfortunately biased statement above "it is clear to me that there is agenda pushing of the promotion of Christianity variety" I note that the party who stated that has once again failed to provide any form of substantiation of his comment, and is in effect simply restating what seems to me to be an unshakable POV. As such, I personally think that that party might be trying to do even more "agenda pushing" than the rest of us, and is just upset that s/he isn't succeeding. I could, of course, be wrong, and I honestly hope that I am. It is, I believe, irrelevant that in this regard other religions do not proslytize as much as Christianity often does. Certainly, their have been a number of individuals who have converted without proslytization (I know I can't spell, OK?). Heinrich Harrer, among others, come to mind. The fact that Christianity, particularly in the Western world, has a larger population base, and is thus more likely to have a greater number of converts to and from it than most other religions, is also I believe irrelevant. Presumably, the party who stated that there is "agenda pushing" here is doing so on the basis of the inclusion of the only party s/he has to date expressed any real interest in, Bob Dylan. The arguments for the inclusion of this individual have been made, and that party still has yet to, at least in my eyes, directly address the various comments which have been made which to my eyes make it clear that Dylan's conversion was sufficiently notable through his actions to include him in the list. Presumably, all that falls within the "agenda pushing" he is describing. It is the case that there are probably more editors interested in this article and its related content than in many of the others. That is unfortunate. However, differential interest and activity is not, I believe, considered an appropriate cause for limiting editing of content to an article. On that basis, I can honestly say that I personally can see no just cause for the deletion of this article. However, as always, I acknowledge that is a personal opinion, and I at least will actually formally say as much. John Carter 14:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As an atheist (and a tick under strong I guess) I certainly DONT support the deletion. There is clear criteria for inclusion (i.e. publicly stating or accepting Jesus as your saviour etc) so it isn't that controversial a list. The only controversy to me is what the person was before they converted. I wouldn't trust a Christian saying they used to be 'x' unless they were documented as 'x' prior to their conversion (For example look at Kirk Cameron - he's bananas!). But that's just my "Dawkins' Delusion" theory coming to the front. I see the problem with people like Dylan is due to how they express what they see in life around them and what they personally know in their life into their art and these are conflated as one. We end up having difficulty extracting the soul from the artist so we can brand that soul as a Christian.Ttiotsw 16:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Founders
I have reverted the edit which removed the Twelve Apostles from the list of converts. All these individuals were apparently practicing Jews before they became the founders of Christianity. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that they were all "converts" to Christianity. The only person I can honestly see would not necessarily be included as a "Jewish convert" here might be Jesus himself, if one accepts his status as an incarnation of God. If one does not accept that, or believes that he were himself human, then presumably even he would qualify as a convert to Christianity. In any event, he individually strikes me as being the only true founder of Christianity. All the others, including Mary (mother of Jesus) and the Twelve Apostles, can be reasonably argued as having been practicing Jews before becoming Christians, and thus qualify as "converts" to Christianity. John Carter 20:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would suspect part of the problem here is that until the "Replacement Theology" of Christianity had been fully established (for example I'd include the ideas related to the concept that "Outside the Church there is no salvation") it would be unfair to place the Apostles as apostate from Judaism. It took a few years until the foundation mythology of Christianity to be established enough for there to be a distinction between the two. I would suspect that the Apostles did not see the distinction that we do today between the two (e.g. look at history of circumcision in Christianity). I feel this entry is controversial. Ttiotsw 04:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * They do seem to be stuck in a difficult middle position. However, it would seem that they did believe that Jesus was the Messiah, and that he rose from the dead. Isn't this the main separation between Judaism and Christianity today? Considering the above terms, I would consider them to be Christians. Additionally, the Bible seems to say that the followers of Jesus were first called 'Christians' at Antioch, so you could assume that at the time this was written, many of the Apostles would still be alive and would be categorized as such. I'm not claiming that this isn't controversial; I'm simply claiming that the Apostles share the two main points of Christian belief with Christians today.--C.Logan 04:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Claims of conversion
This list is of little value - this list seems very POV and impossible to verify - as are all claims of conversion even within the Christian church. Should have been deleted.Brian0324 14:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What brings you to this conclusion?--C.Logan 19:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a ponderous list of people. Sooner or later it would have to include everyone who claimed to be a Christian for one reason or another. Where does it end?Brian0324 20:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I can follow through to your argument. This page exists as a simple reference to notable individuals who have converted from any faith to Christianity. It's really not "impossible to verify"... just click the Wiki-links to the individual pages, or the references placed here. The page exists for the same reason the other religious conversion pages exist, and for the same reason pages like List of vegetarian celebrities exist. It simply provides a convenient list of notable people based around a certain subject. It provides a footstool to reaching useful information about a person: for example, a student doing a project on religious conversion. I'm surprised that you believe this page should have been deleted, when there are pages which are much more obscure and useless hiding in the far corners of the Wiki-verse.--C.Logan 20:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * C.Logan -- Obviously Brian0324's above post is indicative of the fact that the much ballyhooed claim of "consensus" is incorrect. While it is from over a month ago, it is pointing out "conversion" to Christianity can be a nearly meaningless concept. That is what I have been pointing out. This posting is sounding a similar note, is it not? The source that has been cited for the fact of conversion for Bob Dylan has been by one individual who did not know where or when such conversion took place. Please cease asserting that you have "consensus." You clearly do not. Your "source" for conversion is someone who said that the conversion for Bob Dylan "probably" took place in the "ocean." Clearly he was not there. He said it took place over a few day period of time. That is a reliable source? That sounds like little more than conjecture. Why do a handful of editors keep on insisting that they have "consensus?" Does Brian0324's above post sound like he is in agreement with with the handful of editors arguing in favor of retaining the status quo concerning a variety of issues having to do with this article? When Brian0324, above, says that, "This list is of little value - this list seems very POV and impossible to verify - as are all claims of conversion even within the Christian church. Should have been deleted," does that sound like the the sentiment of someone who basically is in agreement with you? Why has the assertion been made repeatedly that my argument is against "consensus." Did you overlook the expressed sentiments of Brian0324, above? Bus stop 11:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Would you say that conversion to Judaism, Hinduism or Sikhism is an equally meaningless concept? This list operates from the same caliber of sources from which those respective lists use to determine conversion. Other than that, I'm unsure what point you're trying to get across by the constant rephrasing of that statement.
 * As I have said several times, one does not need to be present to know that such a thing occurred (often using the example of a marriage), nor do they need to know the time or place of occurrence. Even so, this is beside the point. As I've already demonstrated, the biographies used as sources fully satisfy the requirements given for reliable sources expressed in WP:BLP. The men who have compiled this information are all experts on Dylan. It seems that you would rather have us take the word of you and your invisible sources.
 * In regard to Brian, I considered his sentiments from over a month ago, which was 21 days before any of us began arguing here regarding Dylan. At that point, no arguments had been made; no responses given. Additionally, it appears that my own response was to some satisfaction in clarifying the purpose of the article.--C.Logan 16:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

C.Logan -- I did not say that conversion to Christianity was a meaningless concept, or that was not meant to be the intention of my words. But we've seen clearly that conversion to Christianity is accomplished by just about anything. Album cover lyrics, "sermonettes," sitting down and talking with a priest. That reduces the process of conversion to virtual meaninglessness. Or, you could say it means anything. It was argued that the record album "Slow Train Coming" accomplished conversion. Well, if record albums are conversion, does conversion really have a definition? Bus stop 01:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What? No, we are not forming a conclusion based on complicated exegesis of the sources. The sources say things like "his full-blown conversion to Christianity", and per Wikipedia policy, we should take these statements at face value. Several reliable sources use explicit terms such as these. This isn't a game of Clue, and we're not piecing lyrics together to come to a conclusion. While the above things may allude to a certain fact, they aren't being used as proof of it (at least not by me- I can't speak for everyone else and I haven't gone over the talk pages too thoroughly).--C.Logan 01:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * C.Logan -- Sources provide the basis for the use of terms, but only within confined context. That means that if you have a source referring to his "conversion" in 1979, then an editor can refer to "conversion" in 1979. It does not follow that Dylan is a "convert" in 2007. "Convert," in that sense implies "Christian." Dylan is not a Christian in 2007, though I expect one of the fervent editors hailing from the Wikipedia Christianity project will soon be asserting that. Point of view pushing is always distasteful. Dylan is Jewish. It's that simple. But I feel I'm up against some editors from the Wikipedia Christianity project who don't care whether Dylan is Jewish or not. In a sense, this is forced conversion all over again, only this is the Internet version. While I say that jocularly, with tongue in cheek, I actually think it is the very same Medieval mindset at work. As I've been keen to point out, Christianity is firmly founded upon the Messiah-ship of Jesus Christ. Jews don't accept that. It is primary disrespect for both Jews and Christians that motivates forced conversion. That clearly is applicable to the physical variety of several hundred years ago. But it is also applicable to the mindset that insists on placing a man known to be Jewish on a list of converts to Christianity. And you don't have a source for that. Your source, if you have a source at all, is some second hand source from a partisan publication from 1979. Even if that source is valid, it is only usable within context. That context does not extend forward interminably. Dylan has had nothing to do with Christianity for over 20 years. And Dylan has been involved in the Jewish religion. It is pretty amazing that all pertinent material is overlooked to push your point of view, and to malign a Jew. Bus stop 03:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Considering that you've covered this same ground several times before, and it's apparent that you prefer not to take anyone else's statements into account either way, I'll keep it rather short, because there's really only one point which needs to be addressed (as it is a direct misrepresentation).


 * I'm not sure what source it is that you're referring to. Last time I checked, we have 14 sources, 3 of which are extensive biographies by respected experts on Dylan (and by the way, these sources fully satisfy the WP:BLP standards). Have you bothered to even read these sources? The references are given for them (so you can feel free to take a look at them at your local bookstore), and I'd like to point out that I took the time to transcribe and post them on my userspace for review. If you continue to claim that none of these sources are sufficient, then pardon my sardonic laughter if the sources which are presented for his return to Judaism are all from Jewish sites (as I've seen). I trust that you're sensible enough to stick by your own standards, so I don't expect to see this happen, but it's still worth mentioning.


 * I'd also like to thank you for being so fearless when projecting your personal, dynamic dramatization of the situation as a mantle onto the reality. Contrary to what you may believe, there is no great drama or purpose attached to any of this. To quote another user on this page, "To document that an individual converted does not express an opinion on whether this conversion was good, bad, or indifferent. It's a simple reflection of factual historical events that can be verified through attribution to reliable sources, which is what the encyclopedia is all about." --C.Logan 06:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment
There has been discussion at both this page and Talk:Bob Dylan for some time now, as evidenced by the discussion above and there, whether or not the published sources which have been cited on both pages are sufficient to describe and/or categorize the subject, Bob Dylan, as a Christian convert. John Carter 23:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. It should be noted that the person who has instigated this discussion is currently blocked for violation of WP:3RR regarding this article. It is therefore unlikely that s/he shall be posting any comments here anytime soon. John Carter 15:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Having followed this debate, and now having read this discussion on both pages, here and Talk:Bob Dylan, I tend to agree with User: Bus stop. I'm hesitant however to further speculate about another person's religion. I think that is a private and personal issue, no matter how famous, or important or popular the person is. I think this list should be deleted. Modernist 01:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The dictionary defines religious conversion as: "a change from one religion, belief or viewpoint to another". Dylan was raised to disbelieve the tenets of Christianity as expressed in the New Testament, then by his own description he changed his belief system to include them. This seems to me to satisfy the dictionary's definition of a religious conversion.  -Scott P. 01:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Scott P. -- You say that: "Dylan was raised to disbelieve the tenets of Christianity as expressed in the New Testament." Do you know that for a fact? Do you know that, "Dylan was raised to disbelieve the tenets of Christianity as expressed in the New Testament?" Do you have a source for that? Bus stop 13:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * He was raised as a Jew. -Scott P. 14:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Scott P. -- If you don't have a source for that, could you just say so? Bus stop 14:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree fully. --C.Logan 01:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Respectfully I disagree. While Dylan's brilliance is undeniable, even early on he regards religious thinking in a song like "With God On My Side". I think speculation as to his actual notion of belief and disbelief and whether or not he has changed his belief system goes too far. Clearly he is a thoughtful, spiritually conscious artist/poet/musician/ who articulates deeply felt human conditions and convictions. As an artist he seems to change according to his ever turning inner force in defiance of all labels and categories, he has his own roadmap. I don't understand why this debate even exists. Modernist 02:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Modernist. Labeling him is as a "convert" goes too far given the sources available. There are too many sweeping implications connected to use of the word conversion. The issue is a controversial one and Wikipedia must heir on the side of caution as this is a biography of a living person. Cleo123 04:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that Wiki is designed to either redefine the dictionary definition of the word "conversion" or to deny Dylan's own claim that he had converted (changed from being a Jew to being a "born-again Christian"). -Scott P. 05:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Dylan has never stated that he converted - others have. On the contrary, Dylan has gone on record in an interview stating that "I am not a believer in that born-again type thing...The media make up a lot of these words for the definition of people."
 * Several editors involved with these discussions have 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?
 * Whatever passing involvement or interest he may have had in Christianity. He is a Jew. Here are sources: Where conflicting evidence exists, it is best to heir on the side of caution in accordance with WP:BLP. This subject matter is perfectly appropriate for inclusion in an article, where both sides can be presented. This list is too one dimensional a form of presentation, that cannot accomodate a nuetral and balanced POV. Cleo123 04:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In response to your quote alone: Dylan has said many things- I wouldn't suggest you begin to make your own assumptions about what they actually mean. Or rather, go ahead, but don't bring your own interpretations into this discussion. Like I've said before when the above was quoted, I agree fully with Dylan, and such a phrase could likely be found coming out of my own mouth. However, when I say it, it's because I oppose silly labels like that. Does Dylan agree with me on that? Could he share my own faith and my own views on labels? Maybe, maybe not. That's why I'm going to stick to what secondary sources say. After all, this is largely recommended by WP:OR, lest our own bias affects the exegesis of primary sources: "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable 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."
 * For instance, I could take "People are going to be running to find out about God, and who are they going to run to? They're gonna run to the Jews, 'cause the Jews wrote the book, and you know what? The Jews ain't gonna know. They're too busy in the fur business and in the pawnshops and in sending their kids to some atheist school.", which is from the same article. Different people will reach different conclusions when you plop quotes in front of them without care or explanation.
 * In response to your criticism of the NY Times source: While this statement may be relevant to this particular thread, it seems to be a misdirection. Why do you continuously disregard the three sources given which are biographies written by Dylan experts who satisfy the standards set forth in WP:R? Why do you disregard the other ten sources given? Why are we still arguing over whether or not he converted? I thought we'd moved past this.
 * Regarding your sources, I find them mostly acceptable. However, I find it a little troubling how easily such sources are put forth when sources of similar caliber were put forth in support of his initial conversion and were vehemently rejected. If such a high standard is held in one direction, shouldn't an effort be made to find comparable sources in another? Perhaps a biography written by an expert on Dylan, as the biographies currently given are. I'll see if any of the books cited have a detailed treatment of his return to Jewish faith (I doubt it, however, considering that these biographies treat Dylan's involvement in Jewish events as cultural and enjoined with his Christian teaching; this is just what the sources say, and it's not my own opinion, but for a comparable case, see Joel C. Rosenberg).
 * As you cite WP:BLP again, I think it's rather fair to point out that the sources given for his conversion are in greater compliance with the policy than the sources you have given for his return to Judaism. Besides that, what exactly is the issue your concerned with regarding the policy?
 * And finally, it puzzles me why you seem to believe that a list cannot convey this information fairly. The situation can be summarized in three sentences or less- perhaps only one is necessary. If a person has trouble understanding the criterion of the list and reading the notes given for a particular person, then it would seem the issue is not the presentation given in the article but the incompetence of the reader. How hard would it be for a reader to understand that List of people with breast implants contains people who've had their implants removed? The list takes care to explain whether a particular person listed had them removed later. What further treatment of the situation is necessary? A list doesn't have to be overly specific. It doesn't have to explain everything. I don't think a list is incapable of presenting the situation in a fair and reasonable matter. Why, if such an explanation is given (in brevity), can the list not accommodate a neutral and balanced POV? Why is it that such a scenario seems unlikely to you? --C.Logan 07:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

C.Logan -- Contrived parameters for this list make the possibility of this list doing anything without imposing a bias on it nearly impossible. This list does not use the same parameters that the list of converts to Judaism uses. This list does not even use the same parameters that this list used prior to the challenges to Dylan's presence on this list. The parameters were altered in order to bolster the case for keeping Dylan on this list. It had not even been articulated that this was to be a list of all those who ever converted to Christianity, until editors began to point out that Dylan should not be on this list. Editors such as yourself have layered what you yourselves referred to as "disclaimers" onto this list. I am specifically referring to the disclaimers that result in contrived parameters, at variance with the parameters of the list of converts to Judaism. The list of converts to Judaism does not try to compile a list of "all those who ever converted to Judaism. The list of converts to Judaism simply makes a distinction between those who arrived at Jewish identity by way of conversion, as opposed to by way of birth. Both Judaism and Christianity have only two ways of arriving at identity with each of their respective religions. Those two ways are by means of being born into that religion and by way of conversion. Why has the list of converts to Christianity taken on the contrived parameters? Of course, the genesis of those contrived parameters was the defense of Dylan on the list. Those contrived parameters were only articulated in response to challenges from other editors to Dylan's presence on this list. Bus stop 12:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Before you copy-and-paste your next response (or so it seems), you may want to consider a few things. Since it seems that the vast majority of your accusations stem from your own bias rather than from reasonable analysis, it's understandable why no progress in the argument can be made. Even if we were all atheists (a few are), you would still accuse us of using Bob Dylan to 'advertise' the prospect of converting to Christianity. Might I note how odd an assertion that really is. How can one who is clearly noted to have left/rejected something later on be used an advertisement for that thing? Why do lists such as the List of republics, List of vegans, and the List of people with breast implants, amongst other lists, include both current examples and examples which later gave up that identity in favor of another? Are these lists using 'contrived parameters', or do you prefer such terms only when you take personal offense at the inclusion? Are these lists 'advertising' by including people who are not currently accepted in the qualification criterion? No one is trying to 'advertise' anything here. We are just gathering useful information, and presenting it in an accessible form.


 * Additionally, I find it unusual that you continually compare this list to the List of converts to Judaism. As you yourself have argued, there are many fundamental differences in Judaism, not only in belief, but in practice and identity. The situation becomes complicated enough to warrant an article called Who is a Jew?. In fact, the primary purpose of the template used on that page to which you often refer is placed there not as some profound, simple declaration, as you appear to render it, but as an explanatory disclaimer which is present to link to an explanation of the complicated identification system which is used to determine whether or not someone can be considered Jewish. It is partly because of these complicated parameters that someone who is atheist may be considered 'Jewish', and no such differentiation would be made because of their religious beliefs (and in fact, it's likely that several people on the list hold beliefs in another religion/philosophy, or have no religion at all). Even after that, the article offers a lengthy disclaimer which explains further issues with the inclusion of certain individuals on the list. I'm not saying that I take issue with that article, but I really don't see why you style it as a model article when it has its own difficulties and deals with a very different religion than Christianity.


 * I also find it unusual that you argue that this article does not use the same parameters which were in place prior to these present challenges. As you yourself had uncovered, Dylan was on the initial version of this list, which had only a handful of people, and even then, the article claimed that he later left Christianity. Duleep Singh, as well, has been on the list for quite some time. The parameters used have always been the same, but no matter how explicit and obvious one can be, it seems that certain individuals can't seem to use reason to deduce the criterion which is used for this list. We have changed nothing; we have only become more explicit in the introductory paragraph. It's almost humorous to imagine the need for such explanation. Is it such a difficult process to read "later returned to religion x"? A seven-year-old would understand this; there would be no confusion about it. However, you seem to believe that an adult reader of this site would have a logical breakdown and would not be able to understand the purpose of including such an entrant on the list.--C.Logan 16:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * C.Logan -- It is your prerogative to point out any names that you think don't belong on the list of converts to Judaism. Don't complain to me that some names shouldn't be on that list but fail to mention any specifically.


 * We are not concerned with easy processes. We write it right one time. While the article is being written, we write it correctly. We don't write it incorrectly, and then add disclaimers, or other disavowals. Bus stop 01:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yet again, please refrain from asking misleading questions. As I've said in my above response, and in all others regarding that list, I have no issue with the article. I don't feel that anyone should be removed. However, this doesn't mean that others, who may draw greater distinctions or may operate from behind a wall of bias, share in my opinion. As far as I'm concerned, the entries contained within are valid. All these people can reasonably be assumed to have converted to Judaism. However, as the article itself states in a disclaimer, many Orthodox adherents might take issue with the prospect of including conversions not performed under Orthodox standards. Let me give an example:


 * Israel's chief rabbis, Shlomo Amar and Yonah Metzger, along with Shas spiritual leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef and former chief rabbis Mordechai Eliyahu, Avraham Shapira and Eliyahu Bakshi-Doron, declared: "There is no value or weight to `conversions' not performed by an Orthodox rabbinical court in accordance with the conversion procedures specified in the Shulhan Aruch. Any such conversion, under its various names such as `Reform' or `Conservative,' has no validity, and anyone who undergoes such conversion is still a gentile in every respect."


 * So as I state again, I have no opinion that any names should be removed. I'm not eager to look into the details of their conversions, and I'm not coming from any sort of standpoint which would declare a conversion invalid because of the choice to join a certain division within a faith. Note that, in contrast, you've denied (and perhaps still deny) the validity of conversion to Christianity unless it comes by way of baptism. In ignorance, this is acceptable, but as the reality has been explained to you, I hope you've set aside your previous belief. As I consider my own ignorance in regard to the inter-relation of the divisions within Judaism, I refrain from making any judgments about validity of conversion. Please cease asking me to provide the "names I feel should be removed", because it only makes it seem as if you aren't paying attention to what I've already said.


 * You assume that the need for a disclaimer is sign of a flaw in construction? It's simply a clarification which arises from an misunderstanding (likely based in ambiguity). For instance, the List of notable converts to Judaism has several disclaimers which have arisen over time because of the need for clarification on certain issues. This doesn't mean in any way, shape or form that the article was written "incorrectly", but that it is merely "unfinished", as all articles on Wikipedia are, and likely shall continue to be. --C.Logan 02:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * C.Logan -- Then if you have no "opinion that any names should be removed" could you please stop obfuscating? Bus stop 03:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's unfortunate that you find it so difficult to understand the clear statements given in the above comment- it's all in plain terms, really. I don't see how I could make the above any clearer. It seems to me, from the above comment, that you would prefer to avoid addressing any points brought into the discussion by other editors, and that you are content with the blind re-application of your own arguments and opinions. If you don't want to discuss this anymore, that's fine, but I would prefer you simply said so rather than continuously ignoring statements made in your direction. Personally, I've grown tired of this discussion, and wouldn't mind putting it to a rest. --C.Logan 03:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope this argument doesn't continue forever. From what I've read, his baptism is described in the book "Bob Dylan: Behind the Shades", by Clinton Heylin. Obviously, I'll see if the book's available at the local bookstore. His conversion is also described in the book "Wanted Man: In Search of Bob Dylan". If these sources are still insuffiecient, and if this ends up going on much longer, why can't we just do something like this:
 * Bob Dylan - popular musician (has professed some Christian beliefs; whether or not there was an actual conversion is disputed)
 * Wow! Problem solved? Hopefully these eleven words will save us hundreds in the long run.--C.Logan 05:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The remedy to a problem is to avoid the problem in those instances in which that is possible. We are not talking about a note next to Bob Dylan's name saying (inventor of the 7 string guitar) or (first person to identify the malady of subteranean homesick blues). Removal from the list is the remedy for the problem that no evidence for conversion can be found. Why would Wikipedia put a name on such a list if there may not have been "actual conversion?" Isn't this just advocacy? Wikipedia has a prohibition on advocacy. It is called WP:NOT. I find advocacy and proselytizing very similar concepts. Wikipedia defines advocacy, in part, as arguing on behalf of a particular idea. Is it a good faith edit to put someone on a list, and append a note saying that they may not have actually converted? Isn't that advocacy for a cause, in this case Christianity? A good faith edit, I should think, would involve removing Dylan's name, at least provisionally, until this issue gets ironed out. But I see that I am up against some stiff opposition. Despite the lack of evidence that any conversion took place, editors are adamantly refusing to even provisionally remove Bob Dylan's name from the list until some clarity can be achieved. I'm saddened by this. I know I've made some valid points. Yet I'm blocked by a multitude. Bus stop 12:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Bus Stop, I don't understand why you seem to be in a state of denial about the statements of Dylan himself, as well as the reams of published statements of others about Dylan's Christian beliefs as mentioned above. It floors me how after all of this you somehow still remain convinced that "no evidence for conversion can be found".  I concur with C. Logan's suggestion.  Simplify into eleven word statement as suggested. This seems to me to be an accurate and concise statement of the case. Wikipedia is not set up to judge things like this, only to fairly report both sides of such unresolved things.  If Dylan wants to proclaim that he has some Christian beliefs, we are not here to editorialize that he must be insincere, only to report on the fact that he has publicly avowed that he holds some Christian beliefs.  -Scott P. 13:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) There is a serious problem with insisting that the standards for inclusion being sought here are made universal. I will try to present the evidence for such as follows.
 * According to Demographics of the United States, in 2001 7.2% of the US population identified themselves as Christian without reporting a specific denomination, 2.4% identified themselves as Protestant without reporting a denomination, 2.2% identified themselves as Pentecostal/Charismatic, 0.5% as Evangelical, and 1.9% identified themselves as "Other Christian". This adds up to roughly 15% of the American population which self-identifies itself as "Chirstian", or roughly 1 out of 7 self-identified Christians. Based on my own (admittedly limited) knowledge of all these groupings, several of them do not have any of the telltale "identifiers" (or at least do not require them) that are being sought here. This may include, for all I know, several televangelists and others. So, based on the criteria which are being sought here, we could presumably have a case here where several televangelists who might be preaching Jesus on a weekly basis could not qualify as Christians according to the definition which people are seeking to impose here. To my eyes, that is irrational and counterproductive. I should also mention that several of the other churches require some sort of preparation period be completed before baptism for adults, Roman Catholicism (roughly 25% of the self-identified Christian population) among them, and so it could very easily, and presumably often is, the case that a someone who has recently converted to that faith cannot demonstrate having received baptism or some other similar public display of his religious beliefs because they haven't been through them yet. It is also possible that someone could spend several years before finding the "right" church to be baptized by. Such a person would clearly be a Christian, if he were in fact trying to find a church to which to "belong", even if at that time he had not yet found the church he believed in.
 * (2) I acknowledge the possibility that Dylan may have been adapting a "persona" for the two albums in question. If that were the case, I would like to see some evidence to support that contention, which would preferably include a quote or paraphrased statement from the subject in question. None has been provided. Therefore, on the basis of basically extending the principle of Assume good faith to such generally creditable publications as the New York Times, we would have to take their published statements, which have not yet demonstrably been contradicted or questioned with any supporing evidence presented by anyone in any media, as being at least accurate. We would also hopefully remember that the "arts" section of all print media is heavily reliant upon the cooperation of the subjects to actually get articles, including interviews, published in the future, and generally ensures that any subject of an article describing a potential future interview candidate is in fact reviewed by the agent or other publicity people working with the subject for inaccuracies before publication. Not doing so and publishing the content which the subject later disagrees with is, of course, the best way to ensure that the subject never speaks to that particular publication again.
 * (3) The most telling evidence to my eyes is the collection of "sermonetttes" Dylan delivered from stage which have been collected into book form. There is frankly no way to defend those speeches as being adapting a persona for musical purposes, because performance of music cannot in any way, shape or form be said to require delivering speeches talking about Jesus from stage. On the basis of that book of Dylan's speeches, which I have to believe had to be published with his consent (I would welcome direct evidence to the contrary, of course), I think it is reasonable to assume that Dylan at the very least does not object to, and seemingly is at least passively encouraging, or at least permitting, himself to be identified as a Christian. Now, I am aware of one, and I can think of only one, instance in which a person has willfully, falsely, described himself as being something he clearly and obviously is not, and that one is fictional. The X-Men character Beast, who for some time self-identified himself to the public as gay, and appeared in several magazines where he identified himself as such. Several of his teammates, including a mind-reader, told him that statement was a flat lie, and he privately acknowledged it. I acknowledge that in this case we are talking about a fictional character, but it is certainly possible that such a situation might arise in the real world. Were it to arise, I believe that we would have to take the public statements of the subject as being authoritative, and on that basis we would probably describe such a living subject as gay, even if that were, as in this case, factually inaccurate. Now, with this idea in hand, it is frankly all but impossible to say that we in wikipedia can identify anyone living or dead by any characteristics other than height, weight, skin and hair color, and the other objectively verifiable criteria available. After all, even if a person were to appear to convert to one religion or other system of belief (political affiliation, support for a charity, philosophical inclination, etc., etc., etc.) it could be argued that the person was potentially only doing so for the sake of publicity. This is bordering on paranoia. We might as well say, as Capricorn One did, that no one can prove NASA ever landed anyone on the moon.
 * The simple fact of the matter, to my eyes, is that, for no reason which can be defended as assuming a persona for musical purposes, Dylan went out of his way to deliver a number of speeches from stage to audiences which had presumably come to hear him sing, as he was evidently not noted for such attempts from evanglization from stage before. (If anyone can prove he had done such before his "Christian" albums, I would welcome being presented with the evidence). On the basis of those sermonettes, there is reason to believe the Jewish community itself would now identify him as a Christian. When such public idenitification is at least possible, and even presumed, and the subject has made no effort to specifically and pointedly refute it, I cannot believe that there is a good reason not to observe what would be the reasonable conclusion that the subject is in fact what he is clearly presenting himself to be.
 * I would gladly welcome any direct response to any of the points made above, citing sources for any statements to the contrary made. John Carter 14:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S.: It has been noted on the Talk:Bob Dylan page that Dylan was associated with the Vineyard movement. According to our own article on this subject, and I quote from the "Membership" section of that article, "Many Vineyard churches have no official membership procedures or membership records, and such a policy is not dictated by the national Vineyard church." It is at best nonsensical, therefore, to demand official records from a group with does not maintain them in the first place. John Carter 18:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The question is not really whether he converted or not in the opinion of the editor, but that verifiable and reliable sources reported that he did. I found a source who did, and in fact, characterized his conversion as "much-publicized" in 1981 and added it to the article. In order to move the discussion forward, an editor has to cite a verifiable and reliable source denying that he converted, more to the point denying that it was written that he converted. One hopes it will not be a mere denial but with something which can refute the evidence already presented. patsw 19:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * patsw -- Absolutely incorrect. A source has to be found for conversion, or placement on the List of converts to Christianity is a total abuse of the truthfulness expected of Wikipedia. We are not talking about, for instance, the Bob Dylan article. That is an article that can and should present more than one understanding of this. But a much higher standard should be required for inclusion on a list such as List of converts to Christianity. There is no allowance for shades of meaning as concerns a list. If a name is on that list it should be a person who has been verified to have converted. Bus stop 20:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And the sources have been found, and you have been, and are continuing to, say that for whatever reason you do not find them sufficient. Out of curiousity, is your next effort in terms of wikipedia to have a printed record of the birth certificate of every living person who has an article here shown to you before you will accept that their date of birth is accurate? John Carter 20:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Bus stop, really now, what part of "I found a source who did, and in fact, characterized his conversion as 'much-publicized' in 1981 and added it to the article." as I wrote above 30 mins. ago, was unclear? Here's my verifiable, reliable source from the article (and now in its talk page as well): patsw 20:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Dylan showed that neither age (he's now 40) nor his much-publicized conversion to born-again Christianity has altered his essentially iconolastic temperament


 * patsw 20:24, April 28, 2007


 * I found this on Bus Stop's User Talk Page:


 * Maybe this doesn't belong here, but I don't know where else to take this. The above user above has been blocked from editing three or four times now for three reversions of content on pages related to Bob Dylan, specifically regarding his conversion to Christianity in the late 1970's-early 1980's. Sources for that conversion include the Encyclopedia Britannica and New York Times and a published book of his own Christian statements from the stage. He cites "absence of a high profile publication is clear proof that no conversion took place." Evidently none of the above qualify, and in his eyes absence of evidence is clear prove nothing happened. User seeks to see some evidence of a formal sacramental initiation into Christianity, evidently not knowing or caring that several branches of Christianity do not use such practices, or perhaps believing that those Christians should not be classified as such. User has also questioned the good faith of editors seeking to insert such sourced material, using phrases such as "His Jewish heritage doesn't go out the window because he felt like exploring Christianity in 1979", Request user be blocked from editing the pages Bob Dylan, List of converts to Christianity, and List of Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians, as those three pages would seem to contain the only content which causes him to engage in these repeated reversions and other POV matters, that being questions about Dylan's conversion to some form of Christianity. User:Name removed by me 19:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Suggestion, stop wasting our energies arguing with someone who for whatever reason, appears to be in a state of extreme denial over this issue.  Get him blocked again and again using the 3RR rule until he either provides sane supporting citations for his argument, or he tires of this.  If he continues for a sixth block, get his user id permanently blocked.  We do not have time for this.  -Scott P. 21:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I find your remark to be shockingly improper and I have posted it to the community sanction discussion so that it can be reviewed by administrators. By my count their are an equal number of editors on each side of the fence here. I would suggest you stop attempting to target User:Bus stop just because you don't like his opinion. I, too, do not feel Dylan should be included on this list. Whether he did or did not "convert", "join" or "get involved" with Christianity for a brief period of time - he "returned" to Judiasm in the early 80's. To label a practicing Jew as a "convert to Christianity" is potentially libellous. According to WP:BIO, the questionable label must be removed. Cleo123 07:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologize if you might find the existence and application of the 3RR rule and the Ban Rules shocking. I, personally think they are good rules and that repeat violators of these rules deserve what they get.  But that's just me.  I do agree with you Cleo that perhaps this page would be more informative and helpful, and less offensive to some, if either:
 * Beside each convert who was currently "lapsed", this article might make a note to this effect, or else if....
 * This article simply did not list any "lapsed" converts.
 * In either case, this article should clarify in its opening paragraph how it treats "lapsed" converts.
 * Otherwise it seems to me that this article might be seen by some to be a bit disingenuous. Cleo, could you document your assertion that Dylan no longer considers himself as a Christian?  I find this information to be somewhat relevant to this discussion. -Scott P. 11:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a list of people who converted to Christianity. It is not a page which attempts to determine the sincerity of the convert, or their current religious affiliation. This has never been the purpose of this page. It is a simple list of people who converted to Christianity at one point in their lives, regardless of what happened later on. This is not a List of practicing Christian converts.


 * What method did you use to count who's on who's side? After reviewing the continuing discussion on the talk pages for Bob Dylan, List of converts to Christianity and Bus stop's own user page, and I seem to count at least one argument in favor of inclusion from me (obviously), patsw, Mick Gold (who is currently working alongside me to provide published source material), Matt57, John Carter, Scott P, JJay, Walkerma, Tix, SECProto, and Arrow740... 11. Those opposed include Bus stop, you, Modernist, Tvoz, EdJohnston, Tomer, and Reaper X... 7. Did I miss anyone?


 * Please have a look at the published sources which have been added onto this page and on the Bob Dylan page. It is very explicit about the matter of conversion. I hope to add more tomorrow, if time permits.--C.Logan 08:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Scott P. -- Cleo123 is correct in her assertion that Dylan no longer practices Christianity. He is a Jew. That is documented. It is ludicrous that a Jew who in point of fact does not practice Christianity is placed on a List of converts to Christianity, when it is just an incorrect statement. We should not be making incorrect statements. To do so in this instance is a violation of WP:NOT. We should not be advocating for Christianity here on Wikipedia. And inclusion of a Jew in a list of converts to Christianity is grossly misleading. Bus stop 12:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Bus Stop, if Dylan's conversion reversion is true, then I apologize for not understanding why this seemed so out of place for you. I take you at your word that the conversion reversion is documented, and accordingly I have placed a disclaimer in the intro to the page that I hop you will find satisfactory.  Please see the discussion topic on the disclaimer that I have started below.  Thanks Bus Stop,  -Scott P. 14:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Who says it's a page that is to include anyone who ever at any point in their life had any contact with Christianity? By the standards I see argued here, conversion is accomplished by anything imaginable. We've hear song lyrics cited as proof of conversion! But getting to my point, why would an individual be on such a list if they have no involvement in Christianity anymore? You mean to say that a living person is to be categorized a convert to Christianity in the present if in fact they may in fact actually practice a different religion? Is that what Wikipedia is supposed to be doing? Isn't that a bit misleading? Bus stop 12:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * patsw -- There are differences between lists and articles. Certainly articles require sources, as we all know. But lists require a higher lever of verifiability, due to the "black and white" nature of a list. Yes, I agree, you have cited a source, above, which refers to a conversion of Dylan. Therefore, it is justified to refer to Dylan's conversion in the Bob Dylan article. But it, in and of itself, may not provide enough verification to justify inclusion of Dylan in the List of converts to Christianity. Oftentimes words are used loosely. This is common knowledge. Certainly a writer in even the New York Times can casually refer to the point in time when Dylan was "born again." Or, he might even refer to his "conversion." Words are often used figuratively. This is common knowledge. A list implies literal fact. That is the implication of a list. Why is that the implication in a list? I will tell you. It is implied in the "either/or" nature of a list. We have not found real, actual, literal, information focusing specifically on a conversion process. Oh yes, we've had about a dozen concocted reasons advanced by various editors as "proof" for conversion. But really we have heard nothing. The Church is an institution. It is a religious institution. Conversion is a process. There are standards for transition through that process. Now, I know I have heard the argument advanced that some denominations do not have any conversion process to speak of. I can't really address that. We all have to accept what we don't know. But Wikipedia has to require verifiability for inclusion on the list we are talking about. Otherwise it is open to abuse, and error. That is why I say, it is my feeling, that since this search process, lasting several days, has not turned up a source for actual, concrete, real conversion, that Dylan should not be on the list. We do not make assumptions. It is not only I who must accept the shortcomings of my knowledge. I think the supporters of the inclusion of Dylan on the list also have to accept the shortcomings of their knowledge. I think they have to admit that they don't know. They should not be bullishly pushing for a point that they really do not know is true. And that is the nature of a list: if a name is on a list, it should have been vetted carefully first to be sure that it really belongs on that list. What we have discovered, so far anyway, is that we really don't know if Dylan converted or not. Let us all stop pretending we know. And since we don't know, that argues for leaving him off the list. Bus stop 21:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Bus Stop, you seem to have some sort of a personal vested interest in this question that may be clouding your reasoning. I don't know what that interest is, and I don't really want to know.  Please let go of this so we can all move on to spend our time more constructively. Scott P. 21:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Scott P. -- You know what? I've become super distrustful in the past several days. I've been involved in arguments before, but you guys really play hardball. I have no doubt that any infraction I commit several of you will report me immediately. I don't like that atmosphere. I am here for intellectual pursuit. I am not arguing that Dylan should not be on the List of converts to Christianity because I enjoy doing so. I am presenting what I believe is the most intellectually honest position to take on the matter. Don't tell me I have a "vested interest." My vested interest is just intellectual perfection. That's what I aim for. Whether I achieve it or not is a separate question. I thought we are supposed to be assuming good faith? What kind of "vested interest" do you think I have? Do you think I own stock in Dylan's new vacation resort? Give me a break. Bus stop 22:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia is not about what we know:
 * There is no "we". There are only editors, and conflict among editors is common so the Wikipedia has many processes for dealing with that.
 * There is no "know". There are only verifiable, reliable sources which are compiled and edited for readability.
 * This discussion moves forward only if there is a verifiable, reliable source denying that Dylan converted in 1981, and one produces it. patsw 22:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, this discussion moves forward only if there is a new verifiable, reliable source denying that Dylan converted in 1981, and someone produces it. -Scott P. 23:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Dylan did convert to Christianity. He may no longer be a convert, but he does belong on this list.  The article itself should contain adequate detail of his public statements about his religious changes.  The wording at the top of the list is clear enough:
 * The following is a list of people who have at one time converted to Christianity from non-Christian religions. Important note: This list is known to include some individuals whose initial conversion experience may have since lapsed or reverted. Inclusion on this list is not an assertion that an individual is currently a practicing Christian.
 * --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * He is not a Christian, therefore he is not a "convert to Christianity." The parameters of the list are wrong, and I'm not going to start altering them, because someone is going to report me for some technical infraction if I try to do so. Bus stop 23:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Why do you now believe that you can dictate what parameters the list uses, when it has always used these parameters? The disclaimer makes it clearer than ever. It should probably be bolded, or formatted in a way which grabs the reader's attention. The list should still have notes on each listing if that particular person is no longer a Christian, but their conversion is still notable. If he is not a Christian now, that's splendid, but he- according to published sources- did convert in 1979, and as such, is a 'notable convert to Christianity'. You say the "parameters of the list are wrong". This is your opinion, and I'm not sure why you seem to think so. The parameters of the list are what they are. The title and the disclaimer make it quite clear to the reader what criterion is used in decided who will be listed here. --C.Logan 23:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not dictating what the parameters of the list are. Dylan happens to be a Jew. Why do you have him listed on the List of converts to Christianity? Bus stop 01:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you've been following the discussion. See, the sources state that he converted to Christianity, and remained with in that faith for at least a short while. He converted, and this happens to make him a 'convert'. The disclaimer at the top of the list is intended to quite clearly state that this is simply a list of people who have converted to Christianity at some point in their lives, regardless of their current belief system. --C.Logan 02:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * He is not a convert. You are mistaken when you say, He converted, and this happens to make him a 'convert'. A convert is Christian. Dylan is Jewish. Why is a Jew on a List of converts to Christianity? Bus stop 04:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe you haven't noticed that we've provided sources. You have not. The sources state that he did convert, and they also state that he was baptized- which is apparently the only acceptable way to convert to Christianity, in your view. No one is arguing whether or not Dylan is Jewish now. How does this make a difference? We have added the disclaimer and tried to make the intention of this list clearer to you. You once told me to "stop pretending" that Dylan converted to Christianity. I suggest you stop pretending that he didn't, unless you decide to bring some reliable sources which support your position. --C.Logan 04:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * One does not add a disclaimer when the remedy is available of removing him from the list. You are missing the point: Dylan is Jewish, therefore he has no place on a List of converts to Christianity. He is not Christian, so he has no place on a List of converts to Christianity. Bus stop 05:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm missing the point? The fact if he is Jewish (now) or not does not magically erase something that happened in the folds of history. This list does not only apply to current adherents. Dylan converted in 1979, and the sources say that he did convert, explicitly, with ceremony. The disclaimer is the best remedy, as his conversion is a very notable action undertaken by a man of his character. Additionally, could you compile the sources which claim he reverted back to Judaism? I haven't yet seen them.--C.Logan 05:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Bob Dylan is Jewish by means of having been born Jewish. He does not have to convert to become Jewish. Bus stop 05:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's nice to know that you feel that way. However, his conversion to Christianity is notable, and it would be interesting to see any sources which make it clear that he's explicitly renounced his Christian beliefs. Either way, whether he returned to Judaism makes no difference concerning his inclusion, considering the clear criterion for inclusion on this list. --C.Logan 06:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * He need not renounce his Christian beliefs. He is Jewish without renouncing his Christian "beliefs." Could you please stop misleading the reader? All the disclaimers in the world do not counteract putting a Jew on a list of Christians. Bus stop 06:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Misleading the reader? The reader can read the sources presented. He/she does not need to read my comments. The sources are clear, and they hold far more weight than either of our comments do. However, as you have never presented any source for your arguments, it's quite easy for you to mislead people with your arguments. We have only said and continue to say what the sources clearly state. What is it that you are doing?


 * Oh, and another thing: "All the disclaimers in the world do not counteract putting a Jew on a list of Christians." Nice one. Thank you for making your bias quite clear. Additionally, thank you for making it clear that you are offering no ear to reason, and are completely ignoring what I and the other users are saying to you. We have already explained the criterion for inclusion in this list.--C.Logan 07:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not "reason" with a fundamental misrepresentation. I point it out as untruth. You are blurring the lines between Jew and Christian. Maybe there is a good reason for doing that. Can you tell me a good reason for doing that? Putting a Jew on a list of converts to Christianity happens to be a total fabrication of truth. You are making up truth out of whole cloth. I stand by my characterization of your disclaimers as feeble patches on a problem that you are creating in the first place. I said: "All the disclaimers in the world do not counteract putting a Jew on a list of Christians," and I will say it again. Bus stop 11:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * List of notable converts to Christianity does not equal List of Christians. Duleep Singh has been happily hanging out near the bottom of this page, with no complaints, for quite some time. Duleep converted, and it is notable. He returned to Sikhism, and that's wonderful. I'm very happy for him. But see, Duleep converted- and his reversion's not going to erase that fact. Let's take a note from List of vegans. If someone's eating steak and eggs for breakfast, they're not off the list. That's simply because the criterion for inclusion includes both current vegans and those who were once vegan. Well fancy that! It sounds a lot like this article.


 * Conversion in itself is a notable event in someone's life, and much more so when they're publicly known. The fact that Dylan converted is notable. Wait a minute...convert...notable...that sounds familiar... oh, of course! This article is called "List of notable converts to Christianity"! It's notable that he converted. --C.Logan 12:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You do your best to blur distinctions. A list highlights distinctions. A list is like a high contrast, black and white photograph. The Bob Dylan article handles a passage in Dylan's life, actually his professional life, in which Christian imagery figured prominently. The words he used derived clearly from Christianity. A list of converts to Christianity should contain Christians who converted to Christianity from some other religion (or from no religion at all). Clearly Bob Dylan is not a Christian. You are perpetrating the false impression that he endorses Christianity. The use of a Jew to endorse Christianity has a whiff of proselytizing, to me. Any insertion of a Jewish convert onto the list of converts to Christianity is an implicit endorsement of the Christian New Testament supplanting the Jewish Old Testament. I'm not an expert on religion. Forgive my simplification. But the basics are known in world history, I think. There has been a long standing contentious and sometimes uneasy relationship between the Christian faith and the Jewish faith. Those of the Jewish faith have a history of refusing to accept the Messiah in Jesus. The Christians, on the other hand, endorse the Messiah as Jesus, the one incarnate son of God. Jews make no such endorsement of Jesus Incarnate. Except, of course, in the case of a Jew who converts to Christianity. Nothing wrong with this. It is a beautiful thing. We have one life to live. And we should live it in freedom. But you don't have an endorsement for Christianity in Dylan. You don't have an endorsement for Christianity in Dylan because in point of fact Dylan is a Jew. Blurring the distinctions I have tried to enumerate above, by means of putting Dylan on a list of converts to Christianity is a basic and primary error. It is factually wrong: Dylan is not a Christian. It is improper policy: it is an implicit endorsement of an idea (religion). That is why I argue that Dylan be removed from the list. You don't take a black and white photograph and then start painting in gradations of grey in certain areas. I think the better way to achieve what you are aiming for is to take the picture with different "camera settings." The different camera settings are available to you in the Bob Dylan article. In that article the Christian passage in Dylan's life can be handled in depth and with sensitivity. A list of Christians is not the place to place a Jew. It is misleading. Wikipedia shouldn't be about creating confusion. Our strength, as people, is in our differences. Wikipedia should not bury our differences in verbiage that is incomprehensible. That gobbledygook should be abhorred. And besides, as intimated above,WP:NOT applies here. If you don't think it applies, please tell me why not. Bus stop 13:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but considering the criterion for inclusion, Dylan is not stuck somewhere in the in-between. Sourced statements are there which clearly state that he did convert. And this list is for people who have, at one time in their lives, converted to Christianity. This is notable, for Christianity and every other religion, even if they eventually leave that religion.


 * It seems that you are characterizing all the adherents of a faith as petty proselytizers who would intentionally deceive people in order to get them to convert. This makes it very clear that you are dismissing the argument presented by myself and others not because of what we say, but because of why you think we're saying it.


 * It would be nice if none of us made these assumptions. I've never dismissed your argument simply because I feel that there's apparent bias you've shown towards Judaism, from the quotes I've noted before and the ones you continue to make. I'm not sure that I want anyone to disagree with you for that reason. I would hope that they would disagree with you because they'd see the same deficiency in your argument that I'm seeing.


 * You're viewing this page in a certain light which appears to you to warrant the mention of WP:SOAP and such. What exactly are we advocating? Conversion to Christianity? I'm sorry, but this is a list. It's a skeleton of text. It's not a body which can be laced with viewpoints advocating whatever the advocates' little hearts desire. I could understand your argument for advocacy if the header said something ridiculous like, "This is a list of people who have converted to Christianity at one point in their lives, and everything became totally awesome for them afterwards." However, a list of names with short descriptions isn't likely to "win" any converts. Nor would the fact that Dylan is apparently no longer a Christian. I'm sure that Dylan's inclusion will be a "triumph to Christian proselytizing" when the reader clearly sees in his little description that he's no longer a Christian. Wonderful testimony.


 * Once again, assume good faith. I don't believe anyone is arguing on my side of the fence in order to gain any converts. That's ridiculous. If I wanted someone to convert to what I believe, I wouldn't write down a list of famous people who converted to Christianity on a notepad, hand it to them and say "Convinced yet?". Only an imbecile would do that. Including Dylan on the list endorses Christianity as much as having Joaquin Phoenix on the List of vegans endorses veganism. It doesn't- it's just a list. Please don't read it as something it isn't. --C.Logan 14:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This list is not, or should not be, for "people who have, at one time in their lives, converted to Christianity." That is a contrivance. This list is for Christians who have arrived at Christianity by means of conversion. As I have pointed out before: the parameters need to be changed. The very parameters that you are choosing constitute advocacy, in violation of WP:NOT. I am doing my best to assume good faith but this dispute doesn't arrive out of nowhere. It has had a long journey. It is a variation on a theme that has played out over and over throughout history. A Jew will tell you that the Messiah is not Jesus Christ. That has been known, on occasion, to "stick in the craw" of an occasional Christian. Dylan is Jewish, so therefore has no place on a List of converts to Christianity. Please maintain a list of Christians who have arrived at Christianity by means of conversion. That would make sense. That would be my suggestion for revising the parameters for this list. Doing that would remove the inherent bias in your present choice of parameters. Bus stop 15:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Including someone who converted and eventually left Christianity would be advocacy? Yes, that makes a load of sense. How does this endorse a religion if the 'endorser' found it lacking enough to leave the belief? Please tell me the logic in this assertion.


 * The list states the criterion at the top, which any human being with an ounce of comprehension would notice, and if that fails, the individual entry clearly states the person's currently known religious status if it has changed.


 * It's likely than some, if not many, of these people eventually left the belief for agnosticism/atheism or another religion entirely. The purpose of this list is not to keep you updated on their status as Christians. Like I've said, the List of vegans article clearly states at the top of the article that both current and ex-vegans are included, because personal and unusual information such as dietary preferences are hard to keep track of, and their involvement with such a 'lifestyle choice' is notable enough in and of itself. And this article is in the same vein, albeit with a more dramatic subject. Our purpose is to list conversions, not current faith.


 * Dylan's conversion is quite notable regardless of his supposed return to Judaism (and I say supposed only because no one seems to want to present the sources; I do not doubt the likelihood of it), considering the effect it had on his music and public reception. His conversion caused quite a commotion, and it is foolish for one to assert that such a notable conversion should not be listed here (note the criterion for inclusion I've just affirmed, before you repeat your response).


 * And once again, I'm unsure as to why you continue this talk about Jewish and Christian concepts and the relations between these two faiths. It seems that you continue to set up the argument that we are persisting in this argument because of our "religious bias", and then accuse of us this manufactured infraction. You are the only one who is adding Jewish-Christian relations and concepts into the picture. I don't know how I can be any clearer in terms, and yet you continue to bring religious issues into the picture.--C.Logan 21:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

C.Logan -- The list as presently configured is in violation of WP:NOT. You have been asked to change it. Many people on the Bob Dylan Talk page have asked that Bob Dylan's name be removed from this list. Why hasn't that change been made? Why hasn't Bob Dylan been removed from the list? Your assertion that the list should contain any person who has ever converted, even if they are no longer Christian, is an illogical contrivance that does not serve normal encyclopedic purposes and is advocacy for Christianity. Christianity and Judaism happen to be two different religions. Christianity is a religion which asserts that Jesus Christ is the Messiah. Judaism asserts that Jesus Christ is not the Messiah. Bob Dylan happens to be a Jew. Bob Dylan's identity implies that Jesus Christ is not the Messiah. You are conflating mutually exclusive assertions in the definition that you have contrived for this list, making it into a grotesquery. It is not as if you are unaware that Bob Dylan's status has changed. One can accept that a change in religious status that you are unaware of can mistakenly creep into a list or remain on a list because you are unaware of it. But it is incumbent on an editor to remove a name if they are clearly aware that the person is not in fact a Christian, but in fact in this case is a Jew. This list should logically be a list not only of those who have ever converted but of those who are still Christians. It is promotion of Christianity to include the prominent Jew, Dylan on this list. Any other names that come to light as no longer being Christian should also be removed. The list is not a billboard for advertising Christianity. Please understand that I mean Christians no harm. But the twisting of logic is destructive to an encyclopedia, and the promotion of religion is totally out of place in Wikipedia. Bus stop 09:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note that allowing content to be changed because it "stick(s) in the craw" of any person is by definition allowing existing POV to take priority over reality. Also, the title proposed above, while perhaps a bit clearer, is also, as stated, substantially longer, and rather unjustifiably complex, as the definition of convert is already included, apparently without any real objection, in wikipedia, thus making it clear that such a usage is acceptable by wikipedia standards. The above request, while perhaps legalistically correct, fails to take into sufficient account, I believe, popular usage and understanding, something that does have to be taken into account, and instead places almost all of its emphasis on "knuckling under" to an existing POV. Also, I personally think such a comment, as it has little if anything to do with the established content of this particular thread, would be better placed elsewhere. John Carter 16:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Bus stop:I find it amusing that you have stated that you do "not reason with a fundamental misrepresentation" having clearly and blatantly made at least one such fundamental misrepresentation yourself. Specifically, you are saying that someone who is not a convert to Christianity (by the way, you have still refused to substantiate his own current status) does not deserve to be on a list of converts despite the fact that the article itself clearly and explicitly in its introduction makes it abundantly clear that current status is not the only criteria for inclusion. I, and I think most other objective people, find this statement in and of itself to be a "fundamental misrepresentation", and I personally find your own insistence in not responding directly to any of the statements made by others, but rather to your own misrepresentations of the statements of others, to be almost a blantant demonstration of bad faith. And the fact that you do repeatedly at least insinuate that all those who oppose your own possibly carefully phrased(?) misstatements are somehow themselves of as of yet undemonstrated duplicity is something I find amusing. I would welcome your actually bothering to respond to the points actually made by others, and not to your own posssibly carefully doctored misrepresentations of those points. John Carter 15:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Bob Dylan shouldn't be on List of converts to Christianity
Christian proselytizing shouldn't be pursued on Wikipedia. That is exactly what the inclusion of a Jew in the Christian List of converts to Christianity is all about. The proselytizing is accomplished by including a prominent and charismatic and, importantly, Jewish person on the list. That is advocating for an idea, in clear violation of WP:NOT. It is just a contrivance that the proselytizers have defined the parameters of this "list" to retain on the list living people who clearly are Jewish, and who clearly are not Christian. Bus stop 21:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (RfC) The suggestion that Dylan's ethnicity has anything to do with whether he converted to a religion at some point is completely illogical and mildly offensive. Reading this talk page, I don't see a single defensible argument for excluding Dylan from a list of converts to Christianity; and many good, sourced arguments for inclusion.  I'd say include "wins" unless exclude can provide some reliable sources.  I don't think there's a policy that requires one side of a debate to continue to entertain fallacious arguments simply because they are being made. — Demong talk 01:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Demong -- I'm not sure what you are referring to when you refer to Dylan's ethnicity. Who ever mentioned the word ethnicity? Do you happen to know the ethnicity of Dylan? Bus stop 03:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, lol, I'll bite. So you're saying you're not referring to Dylan being ethnically Jewish?  OK, so we're talking about Judaism, the religion, and that's it, right?  If Dylan is notable, and was raised in the Jewish religion, and converted to Christianity, why shouldn't he go on a list of notable converts to Christianity?  It doesn't matter if he worships C'thulu now, he is definitely notable and definitely converted to Christianity... I don't see any room for a dispute, but if you do, please enlighten me.  What about Bob Dylan would have to be different for you to want him on the list? — Demong talk 04:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Demong -- Actually, there is no evidence he has had anything to do with Christianity since 1979. And even then it was largely theatrical. It consisted of Gospel music and "sermonettes" between songs, little more. Who said anything about ethnicity? You are the only one talking about ethnicity, and you still haven't explained what you are referring to. Bus stop 04:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What about Bob Dylan would have to be different for you to want him on the list? — Demong talk 04:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Demong -- For one thing, it would be nice if he were Christian. Bus stop 05:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a different List of Christians. This is a list of converts. — Demong talk 05:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Bus stop, your personal assessment of Dylan's conversion is not a relevant point of argument. Let's not pretend that you've provided any sources. And considering the fact that you have not supplied any sources that clearly state that Dylan is a practicing Jew, your argument that a "Jew does not belong on a list of Christians" can only refer to his cultural/ethnic Judaism (as there aren't doubts about that). I believe that this is what Demong is trying to get across. --C.Logan 05:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And by this statement he has recently put on his own user page regarding this discussion, and I quote verbatim, "Christian proselytizing shouldn't be pursued on Wikipedia. That is exactly what the inclusion of a Jew in the Christian List of converts to Christianity is all about" the above editor has clearly and completely demonstrated a total failure to assume good faith by basically questioning, with no specifics given, the disagreement he has with the majority of other editors who actually disagree with him. It should also be noted that the above editor has displayed a distressing belief that it is appropriate to "read between the lines" (an action which almost by definition cannot be done without relying on a pre-existing POV). It should also be noted that the above editor, to date, has yet to point toward a single source to verify his own position, and has, at least once, demanded that the only evidence he would accept would be a baptismal certificate for the subject in question, half an hour after I posted a link to an existing wikipedia page which stated that the Christian group Dylan belonged to, the Association of Vineyard Churches, doesn't keep such records. The above user has, in my eyes, completely failed to abide by the rules of assuming good faith or even simple decorum, and has clearly demonstrated, at least to me, that the request to have him barred from editing the involved pages is the appropriate one. John Carter 21:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand; does it make you angry that a Jew actually converted to Christianity? Is that so unthinkable to you that you simply will not accept it, despite numerous verifiable sources? It's not "proselytizing"; proselytizing is going out and trying to convert Jews to Christianity. Bob Dylan already converted to Christianity (regardless of whether he later moved away from it); including him on the list may be a problem since it is not clear that he is still Christian, but he never came out and said "Ok, guys, I'm done with that stuff. What was I thinking?" But the fact remains that at one point, Bob Dylan (a Jew by birth) declared and made himself into what most would recognize as "Christian"; thus he appears to fit the description on that page of "The following is a list of people who have at one time converted to Christianity [emphasis mine]."
 * Also, in general, it almost seems that you're just trying to piss people off with this issue; you give no sources and make virtually no coherent arguments. For one to observe and report something that does, I admit, make Christianity look good and maybe make Judaism look bad, is not "proselytizing" if it is actually a true observation and reporting. It almost appears that his conversion simply shakes your deepheld beliefs about Christianity or something, so that you want to deny said conversion no matter what. If there's a valid argument, it's as to whether Dylan lapsed from Christianity in the 80s, and there is good evidence on either side of that debate. But all this hullabaloo about his original conversion really has to stop. Tix 21:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That was intended for Bus Stop, not for John Carter. Tix 21:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it really looks good if he later left Christianity, and that's part of my point- we're not making Christianity look any better by including someone who eventually left the faith, and yet we still insist on his inclusion. This fact makes the claim, that we are aiming to proselytize, look rather silly. For instance, seeing a convert to Islam later leaving the faith could be seen as a 'slap in the face' to the Islamic claim that their religion is the truth. People convert for many reasons, so this isn't necessarily the case, but it should be noted that advertising someone who left your faith most certainly doesn't make it look any better. With that in mind, how can one claim that we are endorsing Christianity? --C.Logan 22:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note also on the Talk:List of notable converts to Christianity I tried to help someone in their attempt to list converts to Judaism (which includes several converts from Christianity). Please tell me how trying to help people find examples of others who have converted from Christianity qualifies as Christian prosletization. John Carter 22:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If Bob Dylan converted to Christianity (as seems to have been demonstrated) then he certainly belongs on the list. No additional disclaimer is required beyond what already exists here, as it is quite clear. If it can be verifiably shown that Dylan later returned to the Jewish faith, or that he renounced his Christain faith, then that should simply be noted as part of his entry on this page. None of the above arguments seem to effectively dispute this clear course of action. We can't reasonably suppose anything about the motives for including Dylan on this list. Also, we should quite reasonably expect this list to be populated by notable Jews. The vast majority of converts to Christianity have been former Jews or Muslims, and the list is explicitly restricted to notable individuals. To document that an individual converted does not express an opinion on whether this conversion was good, bad, or indifferent. It's a simple reflection of factual historical events that can be verified through attribution to reliable sources, which is what the encyclopedia is all about. zadignose 13:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * zadignose -- Anything constitutes conversion. What does that say about this? If anything constitutes conversion, then you have conversion no matter what. Now that we have established that conversion is meaningless, the next question relates to what transpired after said conversion. There is not a shred of evidence Dylan has had an iota of involvement in Christianity since approximately 1980. So it comes back to the really pertinent question: Why do some people want to consider Dylan a convert to Christianity? Do some people just like making meaningless assertions? Dylan was born a Jew. Dylan has been a Jew since 1980. So why are some people so dedicated to perpetuating the myth that Dylan is somehow a convert to Christianity? That is quite ludicrous. The arguments made by the proponents of Dylan, the convert to Christianity, rest on constantly shifting ground. I think it would be useful if people stepped back and just calmly looked at the facts. Forget about the Wiki-facts. You have a guy who went through a Christian phase in his professional musicianship during a few years, about 25 years ago. That's it. Conversion is a word that should be thrown out the window. It has been shown to be demonstrably meaningless. It has been used in every possible permutation. Why say someone converted if conversion means not a thing? Wouldn't it be better to take two steps back and look at the facts? Wikipedia guidelines are not always the best way to arrive at the truth, or to write an article. If you've adhered to Wiki policy and written an article that is patently false, have you accomplished anything? I think people should get real about this Dylan/Christianity thing. Stop pushing your own agenda. Don't even bother referring to "conversion." That is meaningless. If you are going to write an article about this subject you should use your own words that adequately convey in unambiguous terms what transpired. It is best to avoid terms that mean just about anything anyone wants to load into them. Conversion (in the case of Dylan) is one such word. Bus stop 13:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Anything constitutes conversion. What does that say about this? If anything constitutes conversion, then you have conversion no matter what. Now that we have established that conversion is meaningless, the next question relates to what transpired after said conversion.
 * I'm sorry, what are you talking about? Anything constitutes conversion? And it's not very wise to assume that you have 'established' that 'conversion is meaningless' from the preceding collection of deficient assertions (which you have presented as truths).


 * There is not a shred of evidence Dylan has had an iota of involvement in Christianity since approximately 1980.
 * I'm sorry, but an argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. This means that you are incorrect in assuming that a lack of evidence for involvement with Christianity 'proves' that Dylan no longer retains his Christian beliefs. Additionally, it should be noted that you have still not provided evidence of Dylan's reversion to religious Judaism- so why accuse us of a similar deficiency?


 * So it comes back to the really pertinent question: Why do some people want to consider Dylan a convert to Christianity?
 * Quite simply, because the sources which we have taken pains to provide clearly and unambiguously state that Dylan converted to Christianity. Until you bring evidence to the contrary, your argument is rather hollow.


 * Do some people just like making meaningless assertions?
 * Do you just like making meaningless assertions like the one at the beginning of your comment?


 * Dylan was born a Jew.
 * Dylan was born into a Jewish family. Your above statement can only pertain to ethnicity, such as "Martin Lawrence was born Black". Dylan was not born with a religion or culture intrinsically embedded within his soul.


 * Dylan has been a Jew since 1980.
 * Any sources you'd like to provide?


 * So why are some people so dedicated to perpetuating the myth that Dylan is somehow a convert to Christianity? That is quite ludicrous.
 * We are dedicated to perpetuating our argument, which is based on at least 14 sources, all of which make it clear that Dylan converted to Christianity. However, you seem extremely dedicated to denying Dylan's conversion from the 'get-go', without considering what the sources say, and without providing any for your own arguments.


 * The arguments made by the proponents of Dylan, the convert to Christianity, rest on constantly shifting ground.
 * Our argument is, and always has been, that Dylan is a notable convert to Christianity, and thus belongs on this list.


 * I think it would be useful if people stepped back and just calmly looked at the facts.
 * Indeed.


 * Forget about the Wiki-facts. You have a guy who went through a Christian phase in his professional musicianship during a few years, about 25 years ago. That's it.
 * This is your personal interpretation. You have provided no sources for this assertion, and you do not even consider the sources which we have provided. I would suggest that your personal interpretations of clear sources be put into your blog, not into Wikipedia.


 * Conversion is a word that should be thrown out the window. It has been shown to be demonstrably meaningless. It has been used in every possible permutation. Why say someone converted if conversion means not a thing?
 * Shown to be demonstrably meaningless? Are you referring to the 'meaningless assertion' you made at the beginning of your comment? Additionally, conversion has a very simple meaning:
 * con.ver.sion: 2. A change in which one adopts a new religion, faith, or belief.
 * Are we somehow distorting the above definition to make ends meet?


 * Wouldn't it be better to take two steps back and look at the facts?
 * Sometimes, you seem to have little breakthroughs like this one.


 * Wikipedia guidelines are not always the best way to arrive at the truth, or to write an article.
 * Adhering to Wikipedia policies and guidelines is most definitely the preferred way to write an article on Wikipedia.


 * If you've adhered to Wiki policy and written an article that is patently false, have you accomplished anything?
 * Can you please provide an example of how one can adhere to Wikipedia's policies and write and article which is patently false? Oh wait, you were referring to this article? But wait, aren't you the one who consistently accuses us of violating Wikipedia policy? I suppose you'll have to give another example, lest you rescind your previous accusations.


 * I think people should get real about this Dylan/Christianity thing. Stop pushing your own agenda.
 * Bus stop, you give good advice. Why does it seem that you don't practice what you preach? Is this an example of "Do as I say, not as I do"?


 * Don't even bother referring to "conversion." That is meaningless.
 * Considering that the above definition is entirely sound with how it's being used in this article, I don't think there's really any problem.


 * If you are going to write an article about this subject you should use your own words that adequately convey in unambiguous terms what transpired. It is best to avoid terms that mean just about anything anyone wants to load into them. Conversion (in the case of Dylan) is one such word. 
 * The sources say, unambiguously: 'he converted', 'his conversion'. We are reflecting this, not placing our own interpretation of the events into the article. --C.Logan 20:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * C.Logan -- Haven't you, and others, asserted that nothing much constitutes conversion, to Christianity? I know that I have heard that, from either you, or others. You have asserted that no particular rite marks the passage into the Christian faith, didn't you say that? How was it that the "sermonettes" were cited as "proof" of conversion? That is what I mean when I refer to conversion being meaningless. It clearly lacks a definition. If it means nothing, then anything means it. You argue that anything constitutes conversion. Do you not find something particularly preposterous with that? Bus stop 21:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Having several definitions is not the same as having no definition. If there is ambiguity, the lead should specify one of the definitions.  It does. — Demong talk 21:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We don't judge what evidence constitutes conversion. If the source claims it as a conversion, then it is considered a conversion as far as Wikipedia is concerned- it is not up to our own personal judgment. The sources say he converted. Good morning! It should be noted that that conversion was mainly due to your confused assertion that a conversion to Christianity requires baptism- and we argued primarily because you refused to take the sources' word for it, even when published biographies were involved. --C.Logan 06:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I'm afraid conversion to Christianity is defined as being very loosely defined; there are a lot of different denominations. Other religions have stricter rules for conversion. The sources for Dylan show he fits many (indeed, most) of the various criteria for conversion to Christianity. The guideline for lists says lists should lead with a definition of what goes on it, and then proceed with a list of things that fit that criteria. Do you have reliable sources that say Dylan doesn't fit the lead? Or do you think the lead should be different? — Demong talk 21:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Demong -- My input to the article doesn't matter. That article is guarded by an extremely small clique. That 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 that 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 21:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly recommend refraining from accusing anyone of having an agenda. Do you have reliable sources that say Dylan doesn't fit the lead? Or do you think the lead should be different?


 * (addendum) From reading past discussion in other places, I think I understand. The answer to "do you think the lead should be different?" is "yes, it is currently a list of notable people who at some point converted to Christianity, whereas it should be a list of notable Christians who converted as opposed to being raised that way"... is that right? — Demong talk 23:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * Demong -- First of all the notion of conversion to Christianity has little inherent meaning. It has no meaning. This is not according to me. This is according to the editors of this article who apparently feel compelled to find Bob Dylan among their "converts to Christianity." They themselves have argued that a person becomes a Christian by the slightest of means anyone can enunciate. They themselves have argued that one becomes a Christian merely by "showing up." Bob Dylan has been said to be a Christian merely because he sat down with a Christian priest for a learning session. By this notion of conversion merely investigating Christianity constitutes conversion. The proponents for the notion of conversion to Christianity are playing fast and loose with terminology. Bus stop 08:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No, criteria for inclusion in a list must be explicitly defined in the lead. The lead of this article currently defines it as a list of notable people who at some point converted to Christianity. Are you saying it should be a list of notable Christians who converted as opposed to being raised that way? — Demong talk 18:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That is what I am saying, Demong. Bus stop 20:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I could care less whether or not Dylan converted once to Christianity. Technically I am Jewish through my mother's blood, but I don't feel that the faith journey of some guy I never met really has any bearing on who I am, or am not.  That is up to me, not him, or some Wikipedia committee of self appointed experts (no offense intended to anyone, I happen to be one of those self appointed experts myself!)  It seems to me that this tendency by some to somehow get the recognition of their self-worth, or self-identity wrapped up in these bizarre unrelated notions may be one of the reasons that there are so many bizarre misunderstandings in this world.  I am who I am, and you are who you are, whole, good and true, at least that's how I see it.  Sorry if this comment may seem to be a bit "off-topic".  It and $1 might get you a cup of coffee if you're lucky. -Scott P. 10:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No, Scott P., I would say there are bizarre misunderstandings in this world because people don't recognize and respect other people's differences. But we are getting off topic. Bus stop 20:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Sensitivities over conversion to Christianity
I think the reason that many Jewish users may find this list uncomfortable is that they feel, justly in some cases that the conversion to Christianity occured because the state in which they lived was not a free open society for those of other faiths- the most extreme examples obviously being the Spanish inquisition, and then to a lesser but not insignificant extent the pressure to convert later in order to be more accepted in that society and to avoid possible discrimination. Perhaps we could have an explanation at the top of the list of Converts from Judaism which explains this? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I have argued already against the inclusion of any clearly "forced" conversion being included on this page or any other page of lists of converts, on the basis that a "forced" in-name-only conversion is not significant enough to record. Having looked over the list of Jewish converts to Christianity on this page, I do not see any which clearly fall within the general categorization of coercive conversions, although I admit that I am far from being completely knowledgable on all the individuals involved. I have also argued that, if there is interest in listing such coercive conversions, that they would probably best be included in a separate list entirely. Having said all that, if you can find a name on the list which clearly qualifies as a coercive conversion, I personally would support removing that name from the list entirely. John Carter 13:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, obviously some are very obviously forced but many which occured say in 18th and 19th century Europe were not as such forced but there were barriers to those who were not Christian to partake in politics and other professions as well as generally being accepted in society. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 14:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I would not dispute that. And if you, or anyone else, can find any evidence that one or more of the people on the list as it is currently or subsequently constructed may have converted almost solely on the basis of existing social pressures, I would advocate the removal of those names as well. However, and I hope that you can see what I am saying even if I am less than effective in the presentation, I believe that in instances when "social pressure" is the presumptive cause of conversion, and the sole apparent presumptive cause of conversion, that there may be sufficient ambiguity regarding the individual's own, for lack of a better word, "degree" of belief, for the name to be mentioned. Maybe an example to bring into play here would be an example where a party changed religion to accomodate the religious belief of the party they were marrying. Most religions to some degree actively discourage marrying outside the faith, so it could be argued that anyone who actually does do so is already acting against the express teachings of their faiths. Clearly, the number of cases when a truly "committed" adherent to any religion would consider, as it were, endangering their own spiritual status to form a relationship with a "nonbeliever" (or whatever term might be used) is probably negligible. I understand and acknowledge that there may be extreme cases otherwise, and would welcome any direct evidence to support that any particular case may qualify as one. So, please bear with me, if it were to be argued that a Jew converted to Islam in Moorish Spain (or to Christianity in Poland) because conversion of that kind was the only way to achieve a status in society that they sought, that they clearly placed their material welfare over their spiritual welfare and that there status as real "Jews" (in the religious sense) may well have been on at least shaky ground to begin with. If they were truly "committed" to their faith, then it is all but certain that they could have found some circumstances where they could have achieved moderate success without endangering their spiritual status. The same argument could also be said for Christians in Pakistan, India and China, Hindus in the United States, and up and down the line. In cases like these, I think that a simple statement following their name to the effect of "converted when marrying Foo, a practicing (whatever)", or "converted to the prevailing religion of the time" (or to avoid the Spanish Inquisition or whatever), would probably be sufficient "qualifier" to indicate that there is good question regarding either and/or both their original commitment to the faith they converted from and that the conversion may have taken place at least in part due to extraneous concerns. I hope that makes sense, at least of a sort. John Carter 14:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I advise against the attempt to "look inside the heart" of a member of (or candidate for) this list or judge the depth or sincerity of their conversion or the degree of coercion used. It should be sufficient to use the secondary sources like we use in all other cases. If the event of their conversion is affirmed (or denied) by the subject, we have a primary source, or secondary sources such as books, magazines, and newspapers. By event I mean baptism or public profession of faith in Jesus Christ, and not rumor or implication. We're compilers of verifiable sources, not evaluators based upon our own personal judgment. patsw 22:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure I actually disagree. I think what I was trying to say above is that, in the event that if even the sources say that the conversion was brought about by social pressures, such as employment or marriage options, that on that basis the person should be included on the list. In the event a person perhaps covertly or privately continued to practice their original faith, and verification for same is available, however, then there would be sufficient evidence that the conversion was not in fact a true one and it might be possible to rule out their inclusion on that basis. I am thinking here specifically of people who are told, as it were, "convert or die" (or similar) and decide the former option is the more appealing one. However, I do agree that simply asserting that the conversion was a result of pressure, without explicit documented evidence to the contrary, would probably be at best a bad idea. John Carter 22:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely with user patsw. Please see Threshold for conversion?  below. I think I agree with John Carter too.  -Scott P. 11:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Questionable use of the word "converts" for many East Asians, etc.
I commented above that the vast majority of "converts" to Christianity are either former Jews or former Muslims. If you include Hindus and pre-Christian pagans/polytheists, then you've clearly got a majority of people who can be correctly called converts.

Now, I'm not sure I'd actually advocate a change to this page, but I think I should at least point out a subtlety. Many East Asian Christians may not really be properly classed as "converts," even if they came to Christianity from another faith. Many East Asians have developed a sort of sythetic faith that doesn't see Christianity as exclusive to Buddhist, Confusian, Shinto, or Tao faith. Many of these faiths are classed by their followers as "not religions," or at least not theisms or creation mythologies. For this reason, if you add the percent of Japanese who call themselves Christians to the percent who call themselves Buddhist, and those who call themselves "Shinto or other," you'll wind up with a lot more than 100%. A Buddhist can become Christian without necessarily ceasing to be Buddhist. If you consider some of the more exotic "Christian" synthetic faiths, such as Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church, you'll see that there's a lot of ambiguity, and that people who embraced Christianity are not necessarily "converts" in the strictest sense. What should be done about this? Well, maybe just include a comment on this ambiguity within the relevant section(s). zadignose 13:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is clearly a point here. The only three options I can think of are (1) remove such names, (2) individually clarify them, and (3) perhaps specifically define any religion named as, where appropriate, it's "stand-alone" as opposed to "syncretic" version. I note the same argument could be made about an early convert to Islam or Christianity from Judaism, or Buddhism and Hinduism, for example, and several other places, as initially these faiths were often seen as being "sects" within the pre-existing religion. Given the three options above, I would personally favor (3) with perhaps a seaparate section specifically devoted to individuals who join a syncretic version of a given faith? John Carter 14:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it would be sufficient to explain that many of these East Asian 'religions' would more properly be termed 'philosophies' in modern usage. We should provide a disclaimer which clarifies that, as these Eastern philosophies are not religions, it should not necessarily be assumed that someone who has converted to Christianity has renounced their personal philosophies. Buddhism is not necessarily theistic, and therefore it can be practiced by both atheists and theists. I believe that conversion is an applicable term because those who are listed have either converted from atheistic Buddhist philosophy or general theistic Buddhist philosophy. Therefore, the atheist or vague theism has been abandoned in favor of the specifics of Christian monotheism. This is just my interpretation.--C.Logan 20:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously there are many differing definitions of the term "convert". In reading the Gospels, it becomes apparent that it was only after Jesus' crucifixion that the idea of conversion became fairly strictly defined. I think one of the earliest definitions might have been, "one who believes in the resurrection". Now, more recently, the statesman Gandhi believed in the resurrection, but considered himself a Hindu. Personally, I feel that one definition that we might be able to use here might be: "one who once professed, with apparent sincerity, that one was a Christian." This matter might best be left up to the individual in question, than up to us. There may be some here who might believe that an individual is incapable of professing their own faith, as certain cultural and ethnic considerations would somehow trump their personal right to determine for themselves what they do or don't believe. I say it is up to the individual, not some committee or some culture or some sort of a "tribal" thing. -Scott P. 11:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Gandhi example is relevant. Being a Christian for the purposes of this list should include identification with a mainstream church, not the belief in certain aspects of Christianity. The argument that syncretic religions in some way 'permit' one to believe certain aspects of Christianity is seductive until one realises that one is looking at it the wrong way: Christianity does not permit one to believe certain aspects of the syncretic philosophy. If you wish to remove Reunification Church people, go ahead. But most Koreans are Baptists, and I don't see that community being fuzzy about what they believe in the slightest. It doesnt matter what they convert from, it matters what they convert to. Hornplease 15:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The 'threshhold' for conversion?
What could we say is the "litmus test" for conversion to Christianity? I agree with John Carter that those who were 'forced' to convert, on pain of a well defined physical threat, in most cases should probably not be included here. But then after that it becomes a bit of a slippery slope in my humble opinion. Clearly, once the emperor Constantine first declared Christianity as the "state religion" many new "converts" arose. Suddenly being "Christian" became the key to upward social mobility. Now could it be said that any of these new converts might have been "forced"? (Either you convert, or you will not be promoted.) The same applies to Islam. There were those who converted at the point of a sword, then there were those who converted for financial or social gain. Then there were those in both religions who seemed sincere after their "forced" conversions. It begins to look like a very slippery slope indeed, does it not? I say, leave it at this: Leave off the list, those who were forced due to physical threat, and who never gave any evidence of any other basis for their conversion. Generally take everyone else at their word for it. If they said they were Christian, and they were not known to explicitly contradict themselves in this, then leave it at that. Otherwise, it seems to me that this could all get quite complicated. -Scott P. 11:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: I just realized that I was just rephrasing here what user patsw just said above (and maybe what John Carter also said.) -Scott P. 11:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Joel C. Rosenberg
Can someone provide a a published source confirming that Joel C. Rosenberg was once an observant Jew? If no such source can be produced, and if Rosenberg in fact never was an observant Jew, then he never practiced Judaism and therefore cannot accurately be described as a convert from Judaism to Christianity and so doesn't belong in this section. At most he might be considered an ethnic Jew who converted to Christianity, but not a convert from Judaism. Describing a non-observant Jew who becomes a Christian as a convert from Judaism to Christianity confuses Jewish ethnicity or "cultural Judaism" with Judaism practiced as a religion.

This is a problem that affects any non-observant Jew on the list, and may touch on the current controversy about Bob Dylan: unless an editor can adduce reliable sources that establish both that the person practiced Judaism as a religion prior to becoming a Christian, and that the person did indeed become a Christian, that person has no business being included in this section of the list.

In the specific case of Rosenberg, a passage I removed (for lack of a cited source) from the article Joel C. Rosenberg asserted that his mother was not Jewish. If that's the case -- and I have no idea whether it is or not -- then from a Halakhic perspective, he may never have been considered a Jew to begin with, and so certainly could not be considered a Jewish convert to Christianity, whatever sense of Jewish you may intend. --Rrburke(talk) 02:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's part of the problem with this list; for many (most?) of the people in the "From Judaism" list, you have no idea what religion they were practicing before they converted. For example, Tamsin Greig was included on this list, even though the article on her clearly states she was raised as an atheist. Kathie Lee Gifford was also included, even though her mother was not Jewish, and she went to church as a girl. I've removed both from the list, but I'm sure it's filled with lots more of this stuff. Jayjg (talk) 02:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, it seems that several of the editors who support Dylan's removal from the list entirely don't quite understand the separation between religious Judaism and cultural/ethnic Judaism, and argue for Dylan's Jewishness primarily (or so it seems) because he was 'born Jewish'.
 * Jayjg, I'm curious as to why you removed Tamsin entirely instead of simply moving her into the atheist category. I suppose I'll do that, now. --C.Logan 02:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize there was an atheist category. Jayjg (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Joel C. Rosenberg is certainly from an Orthodox Jewish heritage, but it seems his home life was mostly agnostic. Considering that several people have argued that Bob Dylan is to be considered a Jew (it seems they intend it in the religious sense) nowadays simply because of his birth into a Jewish background, it's debatable how people might feel about listing Joel as a ex-Jew or as an ex-Atheist. He seems to identify with his Jewish heritage strongly, and one source provided states that he is simply a convert to Christianity from Judaism. Interestingly, he himself claims that his family began to really practice Jewish traditions because of their conversion to Christianity, not in spite of it. Wherever he's placed, I suppose that this fact would be notable to include. The issue's a little complicated, and I'd rather not be the one who makes the decision on where to place this fellow. --C.Logan 03:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * None of the cited sources claim he ever practiced Judaism, so he simply cannot accurately be described as a convert to Christianity from Judaism. Indeed, the sources merely say that his grandparents were Orthodox Jews.  He describes a his father as a "lapsed" Jew; additionally, his mother is not Jewish, so while he's free to strongly identify with whatever identity he pleases, no published source claims he once practiced Judaism and then switched to Christianity, so the description is plainly inaccurate.  I tried to make this point at length above.  --Rrburke(talk) 05:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, yes, I've read that (notice that I was already involved in this discussion). That's why I placed this here. Like I've said, the issue is more complicated than that. Additionally, I'm curious as to why you didn't simply move him to the agnosticism section. --C.Logan 13:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue of whether he is a convert to Christianity from Judaism is not at all complicated, as he never practiced Judaism and so couldn't convert from it.


 * As for not moving him to the agnosticism section, none of the sources provided assert that he was once an agnostic. I rather doubt that an eight-year old boy -- he says that he thinks he was eight when he "accept[ed] Christ" -- could grasp the concept of agnosticism, would describe himself as an agnostic or, candidly, would be very likely to be able to spell the word.


 * Being "born into a largely agnostic home" does not mean someone has adopted the philosophical position of agnosticism, defined as the "belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist." No source provided establishes that the eight-year old Joel C. Rosenberg ever held this view.  "Agnosticism" is not a synonym for "having no particular views or beliefs about God."  It is a particular philosophical position no published source claims Joel C. Rosenberg ever held.


 * You'll no doubt recall that the result of the AfD debate was "KEEP but remove all uncited entries to living people per WP:BLP." This claim about Joel C. Rosenberg is not cited, and so he must be removed.  So must any other living person on the list where no positive assertion about their having held a philosophical or religious belief or creed they later abandoned is cited.  --Rrburke(talk) 15:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Which is more appropriate: to add a category "From no religion"; or to remove "or no religion" from the lead? — Demong talk 19:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I withdraw that question. A) I gather "or no religion" is in the lead to account for the (probable) argument that "atheism is not a religion", which I don't think anyone wants to get involved in; B) a decision made before the age of reason cannot be reasonably held to be a "conversion", and I think Mr. Rosenberg can effectively be considered "raised Christian" since his father converted (and took him to church etc) when he was a young boy. — Demong talk 19:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * While I would largely agree with you, I'm afraid the issue is a little more more complicated. For example, the Age of Reason is considered to be 7 or 8. How are we suppose to apply our judgment in determining Joel's mental understanding of his choice? The interview source given shows Joel stating that "I think I made an initial decision to accept Christ as my Savior when I was eight years old, but as I mentioned earlier, it wasn't really until I was 17 that I really wrestled it through and got serious about my faith."
 * I most certainly chose to become a vegetarian at the age of 7, a choice which lasted until about the age of 14. My parents did not force me into vegetarianism, and in fact, they were rather opposed to it (thinking I would become malnourished). I can most certainly testify that I knew what I was doing and why I was doing it. Joel should most likely be listed in the 'non-religious/undetermined former religion' category, which seems to be mysteriously absent (although I believe such people are currently listed in the Agnostic/Atheist section). The category should either be expanded, or a new one should be created altogether. While his household became a Christian one prior, Joel's own statements seem to present that he made a conscious decision to accept this belief (past the age of reason), and he later became more serious about his beliefs in his later teens. I'd rather stay generally neutral about this, but it seems that it was a decision of his own choosing.
 * His self-identification should also be noted, as it complicates things a bit. It seems that he sees himself as a Jew, i.e. he believes that his Judaism (or rather, the essence of his Jewish background) and his Christianity are wholly compatible and quite intentionally meant for each other. He himself claims that his family's belief in Judaism did not manifest itself until after they had all accepted Jesus as the Christ. In an interesting rarity (or perhaps not, but rare for one to read), it seems that he has become intensely Jewish primarily because of his belief in Jesus.--C.Logan 04:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * C.Logan, I think that argument would be too interpretative and uses Joel's own statements (which's a primary source) to try to interpret if he made a conversion. Per WP:RS and WP:NOR, I agree he should be left off the list until a verifiable secondary source can be found stating he converted.  Tendancer 05:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I think it bears reiteration (because I don't think the response addressed it) that Mr. Rosenberg was effectively raised Christian, regardless of how closely he embraced it during his youth or later. — Demong talk 05:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It seems that a religious change is definitely apparent, so I'll see if any sources can be found which offer a clearer picture of things.--C.Logan 06:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion debate
This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Docg 11:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't Dylan be removed from this list?
WP:BLP clearly states that we do not slander a person with untrue statements. Since Dylan is not a Christian, why is he listed on a list of converts to Christianity? Bus stop 12:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest that you not edit war on this page. If you have a bone to pick with the contents of this list, you would be best served by participating here: Requests_for_mediation. Your other options include an article RFC or Arbitration. Any of those options would provide you with a platform to make any points that you consider valid.JJay 12:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * JJay -- You will notice that Dylan is pictured on and mentioned on American Jews, yet the Wikipedia Christianity project persists in slandering him by placing him on a list of Christians. He is clearly not a Christian. Sources do not support that assertion. The sources from the period 1979/1980 do not support the labeling of him as a Christian, or a convert to Christianity, in the year 2007. Sources have areas of applicability and areas where they do not have applicability. Were this list being compiled in 1980 the citations provided would support the placing of Dylan on a list of converts to Christianity. But 27 years (1980 to 2007) of having nothing to do with Christianity, plus clear involvement in Judaism, in addition to the facts of his birth and upbringing as a Jew, show that placement on a list of converts to Christianity, makes a mockery of a most basic principle -- the neutrality principle Wikipedia is founded upon. Bus stop 16:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't see any reason whatsoever for your post above, or for most of your constant messages here regarding Bob Dylan. Please reread my post above regarding mediation and the other dispute resolution processes available to you. JJay 16:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the parameters of this list be more commonsensical?
Shouldn't the introductory paragraph of this list read: "The following is list of those notable Christians who have arrived at their Christian identity by means of conversion. Conversion can be from another religion or from no religion at all."? Bus stop 13:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That the definition of the list be changed is a legitimate challenge, but I think precedent and consensus are both against it. — Demong talk 18:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The longer introduction more accurately reflects the contents of the list. If anything the intro needs to be expanded, not gutted. PLease wait for consensus to be achieved before making changes of this type. JJay 13:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This has already been discussed on Talk pages: Bob Dylan and List of converts to Christianity. Already exists support for this change. Has virtue of being commonsensical, not illogical contrivance. Bus stop 14:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * True. However, there also already exists rather intense opposition to this change. Also, I note once again that the word "commensensical" as used above is not defined, and in this case could be taken as being a way to hide the idea of POV. The only real difference between the extant intro and the proposed intro is the fact that the one proposed above specifically includes only those called "Christians", which is at best poorly defined in the statement. It seems to be implying that only those who remained Christians would qualify on the list. I myself could definitely see separating out a list of people who have converted more than once in their lives entirely, and have said as much earlier, but that doesn't seem to be the essence of this proposal. This proposal apparently seeks to limit the criteria to include only those individuals who have not later also "converted" to something else. Until and unless there is a separate page for such multiple converts, however, I think that it makes sense to include all those who have converted, particularly, as in the case of Bob Dylan, there is I think no clear and explicit evidence that the subsequent "reversion" or return to Judaism has taken place. John Carter 14:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We don't don't contrive parameters in order to get the list we want. Parameters are naturally arising. On the one hand you have that class of Christians that were born Christian. On the other hand you have those Christians who converted to Christianity. One is the natural counterpart of the other. That set of parameters is naturally arising. That set of parameters is not a contrivance, simply designed to get Bob Dylan onto this list. Let us not pervert the naturally occurring meaning of the list in order to contrive the results that we would like to see. Bus stop 14:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I note once again that the words "contrivance" and "commonsensical" are used in a definitive sense, and that neither one is ever defined. Personally, the "commonsensical" answer would be to include all those parties who are converts to Christianity whose conversion is in and of itself notable who are not recorded elsewhere on another list. That seems to be to be the most "commonsensical" use of this list, and, surprise, that is the existing scope of this list. Again, I thank the party above for once again illustrating that his/her only real interest in this issue is the one party s/he has already indicated "obsesses" them, demonstrating I think that the above argument is clearly driven by their own point of view. John Carter 14:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I object to the change in definition of this list, which puts it at odds with every other list and cat on the subject. I don't see any consensus for the change, nor do I have the slightest clue what is meant by "naturally arising parameters". This is a list of notable conversions, not notable Christians. The focus is on the act of conversion. The change needs to be reverted until consensus on the intro is achieved. JJay 14:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

All you have to do is compare the two sets of parameters if you have any doubts which is more natural, logical, or commonsensical. I think you will see one is clearly a contrivance. This list stands in contrast to those Christians who are not converts to Christianity. There are, in actuality, only two means of arriving at Christianity: by birth, and by conversion. The natural parameters of this list are those parameters that distinguish those on this list from those who arrive at their Christian identity by means of being born Christians. It is an added criteria contrived by editors to define this list as including "all those notable people who have ever converted to Christianity." And that contrivance is quite simply to get superstar Dylan onto the list. Just a contrivance. Bus stop 15:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And I note once again that the above party is using words without defining them, thus allowing them to mean whatever he wants them to mean. And I once again note the explicit failure to either assume good faith on the behalf of the above editor in his also unsupported statement that the rational and commonsensical existing parameters of inclusion are there "simply to get superstar Dylan onto the list". I formally request the above party to cease these statements, which at least border on personal attacks, or, if s/he insists on continuing them, to provide clear evidence of same. John Carter 15:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * John Carter -- What word do you need a definition for? Does it not occur to you that you need to assume good faith too?  Bus stop 15:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Any rational discussion demands that both sides agree on the terms used. This is probably the single most basic point of Aristotlean logic. Until and unless such terms are defined and their meanings agreed upon, no reasonable discussion can take place. This has nothing to do with assuming good faith, it is more about demonstrating good sense. John Carter 15:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * John Carter -- If you have something to say, say it. Don't lecture me. You said that I failed to define terms. What term do you need a definition for? Bus stop 16:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As you seem to me incapable of reading any of the earlier comments, where I did indicate which terms are being used without definition, I guess as a result of your own demonstrable incapacity I have to say it again. As already indicated, "contrivance" and "commonsensical" are some words you use repeatedly, as I commented about shortly above. Also, "natural", "naturally arising", and other, dare I say(?) weasel words are ones you are demonstrably fond of using. If you wish to engage in reasonable discussion, it helps to once in a while demonstrate you are capable of it, doesn't it? That does include looking over previous comments, particularly when they are so recent and so directly relevant to the discussion. You actually do read what others write, don't you? :) John Carter 16:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

John Carter -- I made an effort to spell out my objections to the parameters that you are so fond of. Here goes, again: There exists only two possible routes to becoming a Christian. One of those routes is to be born as a Christian. The other of those two routes is by means of conversion. This list concerns the second of the two aforementioned routes. This list is therefore, those who have become Christian by way of conversion. This list is first and foremost a list of Christians who have become Christians by way of conversion. Any person on this list, therefore, should be a Christian. That is in accordance with the most basic distinction that this list is founded upon. This list is a list of those who arrived at Christianity by a means distinct from birth. Again: it is a list containing Christians. It does not contain Christians arriving at that identity by means of birth. On the contrary it is those Christians who arrive at Christianity by way of conversion. Any way you look at it, it is a list of Christians. Now, getting back to Bob Dylan. Is Bob Dylan a Christian? That is not a rhetorical question. You can feel free to answer it. Bob Dylan is not a Christian; Bob Dylan is a Jew. Therefore -- what is Bob Dylan doing on this list? Can you explain that to me? Bus stop 16:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "Is Bob Dylan a Christian?" is irrelevant because this is not a list of Christians. If it were relevant, you'd be asked to provide a reliable source, which you have not.  You have cited the American Jews article, but
 * Wikipedia does not qualify as a reliable source (no self-referencing)
 * That article refers to Dylan's ethnicity, not his religion (it may be helpful to read Who is a Jew?; the difference between ethnic and religious "Jewishness" is important to your argument); there is no evidence of Dylan's current religion, and I presume he is still a Christian. (religious Christian, ethnic Jew; or "Jewish Christian")
 * ...but his current religion is irrelevant. If he later verifiably converted to something else, feel free to note (and cite) it.
 * "What is Bob Dylan doing on this list?"
 * He is a notable person, and he converted to Christianity in the late 1970s.
 * This is a list of notable people who converted to Christianity.
 * Other, similar lists are defined in similar ways (e.g. "This is a list of notable people who have converted to Islam sometime during their lives.") Interestingly, his conversion is significant in his music career, giving more weight to his inclusion on the list than many others. — Demong talk 20:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't say I agree. This is a list of people who converted. What happened after their conversion is of secondary importance. Their later beliefs, religious practice, reconversion etc. can be noted, but none of that removes the historical reality and interest that is the motivation behind compiling this sort of list. JJay 17:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the last comment above. And, personally, I will decline to answer Bus stop's follow-up questions until after he himself actually directly responds to the point I made above, regarding definition of terms. I note once again he has apparently decided to obfuscate his own failure to respond to comments made directly, and instead change to some other statement. Beyond saying that his last statement above has yet to have any cited evidence to support it, or even be remotely clear as to the meaning given the word "Jew" in this case, given his own failure to demonstrate civility by directly responding to questions, I see no reason to directly respond to his comment, instead waiting for him to conduct himself in a reasonable and civil manner and actually respond to comments made directly to him himself. John Carter 17:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

JJay -- The primary criteria are a result of the primary distinction between those notable Christians that are not on the list and those notable Christians that are on the list. Those notable Christians that are not on the list are the born Christians. It follows that the primary criteria of this list are those notable Christians who converted to Christianity. Dylan is not a Christian so he does not meet the primary criteria for this list. I have heard your argument -- that this is a list of all those notable Christians who ever converted to Christianity. But that is just a contrivance. It is only by adding on that additional criterion that you arrive at a set of parameters that include Dylan. That is not one of the primary criteria.

Wikipedia should not be concocting weird lists to meet the special needs of Christians. There already exists a systemic bias on Wikipedia. See WP:BIAS. Most Wikipedians are from predominantly Christian countries. There is no cause to exacerbate this imbalance any further by contriving the criteria for lists.

Again: there are only two types of Christians -- the born Christians, and the converted Christians. Dylan is neither of those. Please stop contriving to arrive at criteria for the list that will get your favorite person on it. This is not what Wikipedia is about. We aim for neutrality, not promoting a particular point of view, for a special interest group, especially one that is already over-represented on Wikipedia. Bus stop 19:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No matter how many times you spin the same convoluted arguments, I am not going to agree. This list documents notable people ( i.e. those who qualify for inclusion at wikipedia) who at one point converted to Christianity. The raison d'etre of the list is the historical reality of the conversion process. The underlying scholarly interest is the question of who converts and why. What happens afterwards, and for that matter the motivations behind the conversion, do not obviate the historical reality of the conversion itself. Even a very public renouncement would not erase the previous documented reality of a conversion. That's the way history works and that's what this list documents in a schematic fashion and as a pointer for further research. Having said that, I have nothing against the extensive use of footnoting to address later changes in religious orientation, controversies, etc. List of atheists is a very good example of this. But the logical construct behind your argument regarding "primary criterias" or "contrivances" is fallacious. It results from your personal vision for a new direction for this list that has no support at this time. Let me conclude by once again warning you about the language you have brought to this debate, both here and elsewhere. Your statements implying this list is "concocted" to "meet the special needs of Christians", or that this list "exacerbates" a perceived Christian "imbalance" at wikipedia, are not acceptable (and these being, of course, some of your milder accusations). I consider those comments to be a form of religious bigotry that is not tolerable on talk pages at wikipedia. The same would be true, obviously, if you were spouting antisemitic nonsense on the List of converts to Judaism or elsewhere. You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to continually fill this and other pages with derogatory innuendo. If you persist with those sort of comments, I will start removing them as personal attacks. --JJay 20:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * JJay --Do you think removing my comments alters their validity? I don't think so. The List of converts to Christianity presently employs a set of criteria that are biased. If you need to remove that comment, go right ahead. Read my above comments in at least two postings for a more complete explanation of the bias I am referring to. Suppression of the truth never changes the facts of the truth. There happens to be an already acknowledged systemic bias on Wikipedia. The List of converts to Christianity does not need specially selected criteria in order to make that bias any worse than it already is. Bus stop 20:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: The validity (and in all honesty I can't see much of any) of your comments is not helped by your use of hateful innuendo and attacks against the Christian religion/Christian editors. Christians do not have "special needs" here, nor do Jews, Muslims or Hindus. Wikipedia is not a platform for those views- not for you and not for anyone else. --JJay 20:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The above response is both illogical and self-contradictory. It says that inclusion is based on conversion, and then goes on to say someone who has been documented to have converted is not a convert. This is rampant illogic. I also note once again that the above editor has flatly refused to demonstrate any civility by directly responding to a directly posed question, instead seeking to post an irrelevant comment below a specific request for his own demonstration of civility by directly responding to a question by posting this frankly irrelevant addition. To repeat, this is the specific request for civility I posted above:
 * I note once again he has apparently decided to obfuscate his own failure to respond to comments made directly, and instead change to some other statement. Beyond saying that his last statement above has yet to have any cited evidence to support it, or even be remotely clear as to the meaning given the word "Jew" in this case, given his own failure to demonstrate civility by directly responding to questions, I see no reason to directly respond to his comment, instead waiting for him to conduct himself in a reasonable and civil manner and actually respond to comments made directly to him himself.
 * Maybe, maybe, this time we'll get a real response. Any bets? ;) John Carter 19:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * John Carter -- Jump into the conversation any time you want to. I will be glad to respond to you "civilly." Don't make demands on me. Please don't require that I jump through any hoops for you. Just talk to me and I will be glad to talk to you. Bus stop 19:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Then respond to the questions above. And also note that no one is making demands on you. If anything, by repeatedly posting questions which have already been answered to just about everyone else's satisfaction, and repeatedly removing content from articles, it is you who are making demands, and basically irrelevant demands of repetition, on others. Please directly respond to the comments above, as per the rules of civility and rational discourse. I assume you can look up the page to see them? :) John Carter 19:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * John Carter -- I don't know what you're talking about. You are saying you have a question? Why not just ask your question? Bus stop 19:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please learn to read. I mentioned comments which were not in the form of questions. You know, in the message immediately above your irrelevant answer to JJay, seemingly posted there to avoid directly responding to them? At no point did I directly say I had made anything in the form of a question? Is this honest stupidity on your part, or is it that you are trying to avoid responding to comments you have no answer to? Please note, by the way, that those are direct questions, and they relate to the comments you have yet to respond to in your poorly (but perhaps intentionally misplaced?) response to JJay. John Carter 19:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

These are the diffs that matter
We see here[] that neutrality, verifiability, and truth are dispensable qualities as concerns this issue in this article. The above first edit tries to actually state that Bob Dylan left Christianity in 1982, and the second edit removes it. We know perfectly well that Bob Dylan left Christianity. Is there a reason why the second edit removes that? There was just a long AfD process, which only ended less than 24 hours ago, about precisely this. By the way, the first edit, which merely tried to inject a notion of truth, is an editor entirely unknown to me; I've never seen that editor before. While the second edit is only the edit of one editor, it's been allowed to stand, for several hours now. If I had the temerity to alter the wording next to Bob Dylan's name it would have been reverted in minutes. There is tacit approval of point of view pushing; that is what I derive from the above diffs. The edit summary for the second edit claims that the first edit "weakens the article." I wonder in just what way the first edit "weakens the article." Bus stop 07:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you've noticed, by my changes (which were similar in purpose, though admittedly less to your liking) were also removed by Demong. And I believe that Demong reasoning may be that he is going by what the sources at hand actually state. I can assume that he means it "weakens the article" because it makes unsupported claims. However, I'm not sure. --C.Logan 07:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. The sources don't say he abandoned anything.  Also: it's redundant to the lead; qualifications in a list create implications for others on the list, and should only be used in a real exception; in something as spare as a list, it doesn't take much to give something undue weight —  all that special attention to a 20th century celebrity is inappropriate; the list had several special apologies in the lead and in the entry just for Dylan when Bus stop nominated the article for deletion, and now they're the linchpin of the argument?  I don't mind leaving the article alone, though.  Good luck! — Demong talk 07:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your reasoning, and I thank you for many of your positive changes (or, if they may not be viewed as positive by everyone here, at least your intentions have been good). However, I feel that in the interest of conveying information in context, cases such as Duleep Singh and Dylan should have clarification. What need is there to specify their former religion, for example, if the lead already says "The following is a list of notable people who converted to Christianity from a different religion or no religion"? I don't believe that listing their former religion is that much less redundant than listing their later reversions/re-conversions. I do agree that good sources should be provided first, however, before any information is added. --C.Logan 12:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with noting later conversions in parentheses on a list of converts. They should be brief, and sourced if possible.  e.g. Bob Dylan - popular musician (converted to atheism in 1982) ; Duleep Singh - Maharajah of Punjab (converted back to Sikhism in 1886) ; etc.  I would not advise making weak "concessions" to an argument that won't be satisfied by anything less than removing an entry from the list, it's just shooting yourself in the foot. — Demong talk 18:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (note that atheism is almost certainly inaccurate; just illustrating brevity/uniformity... may not be possible, but we can try) — Demong talk 19:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Dylan shouldn't be on the list at all, because the list should have the obvious definition of, those notable Christians who have come to Christianity by way of conversion (as opposed to the only other way a Christian arrives at Christianity -- by birth). But since the editors here have adjusted that definition into the illogical, those notable people who have ever converted to Christianity, you have gotten your Bob Dylan onto your list. But that is just a contrivance. Dylan would not make it onto your list if you used a set of straightforward criteria for your list. Dylan, as you perfectly well know, has had nothing to do with Christianity for at least 2 decades. He need not make any formal statement. His lack of involvement in Christianity is statement enough. There certainly are no citations that any editor can present for referring to him as a convert to Christianity in the year 2007. The last such citation would date from about 1980 -- correct me if I am wrong about that. Furthermore there is evidence of Dylan's re-involvement in Jewish religious practices in the past two decades. What more does the Wikipedia Christianity project need to stop presenting Dylan as a Christian? He clearly does not fit that description. And in the above two consecutive edits we see a reference to just a shred of the reality that he is a Jew, being removed from the notations next to his name. What would be so terrible if some of this bias and point of view pushing were removed from this article? There already exists a pro Christian systemic bias on Wikipedia. I see the above efforts as only making that bias worse. Bus stop 12:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Once again, you sing the same old song. How many times will you provoke a response and then not consider it, content to continue thinking of things only in your own mindset? How many times will you speak with such certainty when none exists to support your statements?


 * You continue to misrepresent the points and arguments of others. How, again, can you accuse us of "getting our Bob Dylan onto our list" when he was on the list upon its creation, and his reversion to Judaism was noted even then?


 * I think you need to cease in accusing us of warping criterion to fit our needs. Dylan has always been on the list, and the basis for inclusion has a relevant purpose. This is not a List of Christians. It is a list of converts to Christianity.


 * Your continuing assumption that a person's return to their former faith somehow negates the fact and notability of their conversion to another faith (especially considering the widespread effect amongst Dylan's fan-base and the change in his musical style and intent) is disturbing.


 * Why not remove the Roman Republic from the List of republics because it was "just a flirtation with republic-hood, of no lasting significance"? Such a listing is not an endorsement for republics, and neither here is Dylan's (or any other person's) listing and endorsement of Christianity.


 * This list, and all other lists on Wikipedia, is in the business of presenting factual information. Now, as I've said above, I don't agree with the removal of notes pertaining to Dylan's religious affiliation. However, Demong has a valid reason for doing so, and you might want to take some notes from him on this issue: if you want something to be in an article, you should present sources which make the claim. If you continue to insist on making arguments a.)without assuming good faith on the part of other editor's changes and arguments, and b.) refusing to present sources to back up your claims, then I should suggest you take your opinions here. --C.Logan 14:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there any real point in responding to the comments of someone who makes it a point to not respond himself to questions posed by others? I note that the editor who started this section did so directly below a request from me to respond to questions and comments I made. If that editor will not respond directly to comments he is specifically requested to respond to, I can see no reason in maintaining any sort of discussion with him. John Carter 14:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

C.Logan -- I am fully aware of the contrived criteria for your list. You need not describe them to me again. My point is that they are contrived. If you look at the List of notable converts to Judaism article, you will see such wording as, "This page is a list of Jews." Clearly the Jewish counterpart of this list does not employ the contrived parameters that this list employs. Judaism, furthermore, does not proselytize. Therefore the Jewish counterpart of this list is not as likely to contain the abuse that this list contains. The Jewish counterpart doesn't rely on the contrived parameters that this list relies on to expand it's contents. On this list it would not be possible for you to put wording such as, "This page is a list of Christians," because it simply would not be true. It would not be true because your contrived parameters captures a much larger group than just Christians. It captures "all those notable people who have ever converted to Christianity." That is a contrivance. Bus stop 14:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And I notice the above user has seemingly once again tried to hide his own inability or unwillingness to respond to meaningful direct questions from me by erroneously placing a response to somebody else below my own comments, seemingly trying to indicate that his comments are in fact as response. This is frankly pathetic and an insult to the rest of us. John Carter 15:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's try this again...
We should work on getting acceptable wording for a parenthetical qualification on the Dylan entry. There are two sources that summarize Dylan's changes in religion fairly briefly and are impeccable as to both reliability and neutrality: the New York Times and Encyclopedia Britannica.

The Encyclopedia Britannica article cited after Dylan's entry reads as follows: "In a dramatic turnabout, he converted to Christianity in 1979 and for three years recorded and performed only religious material, preaching between songs at live shows. ... By 1982, when Dylan was inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame, his open zeal for Christianity was waning." A 1997 New York Times piece says, "He embraced born-again Christianity and then returned to Judaism. ... Dylan says he now subscribes to no organized religion."  Any suggestions? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 14:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope you don't mind if I just copy-paste this from your userpage. By the way, this isn't supposed to have a negative tone, so excuse it if it seems that way. Here goes:


 * You may want to re-assess the Encyclopedia Britannica article as a source for Dylan's return to Judaism. You seem to be inferring that a waning of "open zeal for Christianity" is an abandonment. Be aware that it's common for people to lose their zeal in any instance- however, just because a married couple is no longer as passionate as they were at their wedding, it does not mean that they have gotten divorced. Interestingly, from a quick search, it's apparent that the article does not even mention 'Judaism', 'Jewish', or even 'Jew' at all. And even assuming that a "waning of open zeal" was a sign of abandonment, what would cause you to assume that the article intends to mean "he returned to Judaism" rather than atheism or agnosticism? The article doesn't seem to make any claims to support his return to Jewish faith.
 * Additionally, the second article makes the claim that he returned to Judaism, but is unspecific about the date. It's apparent that you tried to put two and two together on this one, but this isn't necessarily correct. For all we know, he could have been an atheist for 4 years before become a believing Jew again. Therefore, we should simply find a source which lists a date to coincide with the occurrence before we make as specific a note as you have. Additionally, I'd find it utterly amusing if Bus stop quietly accepted these sources, considering that he protested their validity vehemently when we used them as sources for conversion, including one of my personal favorite quotes of his, "If Encyclopedia Britannica got it wrong so be it." Personally, I have no issue with the second source at all, and I feel it's relevant for the occurrence- but not the date. However, I'm not so sure about Demong's other reasons- the whole 'inflaming the debate' business. He could be right, as it seems to be all or nothing with those opposed to his inclusion- although I'm not certain what the harm is in fully explaining Dylan's situation. Thanks for your helpful edits, either way. --C.Logan 14:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well my edit never said he returned to Judaism, simply that he abandoned Christianity. You have a valid point that "waning zeal" =/= abandonment.  The New York Times piece suggests Christianity --> Judaism --> no organized religion.  I think it is important in the course of informing our readers to note that he is no longer Christian and I think the Times article clearly establishes that.  ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Copy-pasted from my talk page as well. Let's keep the discussion here for clarity, OK?  Plus, re-reading your comment, I'm confused as to why you think I'm relying on Britannica for his reconversion when (i) my edits did not mention any return to Judaism, and (ii) this is covered in the NYT piece anyway. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you; it should be noted. Unfortunately, doing so now and in the past hasn't helped the debate, but it does improve the article. Additionally, I apologize for the mix-up. I'd confounded your edit with others in my head. --C.Logan 15:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I would be satisfied with a "no longer a Christian" type disclaimer. I don't see a lot of real argument here, just going around in circles with one unproductive user arguing black is white. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Bob Dylan - popular musician (later followed no organized religion)
 * ...? — Demong talk 19:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That works for me. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing conversation

 * My suggestion is remove Dylan from the list. Contrived parameters make a mockery of intelligence and knowledge, which is what an encyclopedia is supposed to be about. If you don't have a Christian, you don't have someone that belongs on a list of converts to Christianity. We don't here at Wikipedia make up contrived lists that contain indiscriminate collections of information. There are only two ways of arriving at Christianity. One way is by way of birth. The other way is by means of conversion. Just as the Jewish counterpart (List of notable converts to Judaism), this should be a list of notable Christians who arrived at Christianity by way of conversion. The contrived parameters are in violation of WP:NOT. Bus stop 15:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, I have responded to your accusations about WP:NOT before. I will repeat: please be familiar with the policies you're accusing others of violating. It looks nice and impressive when people see you busting out the all-caps accusations, but once they read the policy itself and see that you're obviously unfamiliar with its instructions, it makes your claim look silly.
 * Secondly, remember Who is a Jew?. Additionally, please note that the list you mention boasts an impressively bulky disclaimer about the content. Does your hatred of disclaimers also extend to this example? Should conversions not done in accord with halakha be removed because there is a disclaimer to mention their presence? What about this: "This article endeavours to list some notable people who have converted, or are believed to have converted, to Judaism." At what point does this belief become a fact? Where is the cut-off point for inclusion, if belief of conversion, and not the factuality (which you consistently argued against in the case of Dylan) is the criterion for inclusion? Perhaps this should be clarified a bit. --C.Logan 15:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." (emphasis from policy) — Demong talk 19:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you're talking to me or to him. I know that, and have argued it repeatedly; the above is a response to his argument for the 'flakey' factuality of the incident- I am merely reminding him of an argument which he used several times against the sources presented for Dylan's conversion. In fact, he still continues to argue this (occasionally), in contrast to WP:V.(And before anyone attempts to bring this up, the sources are compliant with the slightly harder standards of WP:BLP.) --C.Logan 19:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

C.Logan -- Your criticisms of the Jewish lists of converts is not even in the same ball park as my criticism of the Christian list of converts. What you are referring to as a disclaimer on the Jewish list is more of a note that the list could be in error. It says "or are believed to have converted" simply as an admission to a lack of surety about this. That is not in the same ball park as the Christian list's insistence on including someone known not to be a Christian. I have no "hatred of disclaimers," as you put it. But a disclaimer is a poor substitute for correcting an underlying problem that can be corrected. A disclaimer also should not be used to cover up abuse. When the Jewish list says "or are believed to have converted," it is simply an alert to the reader that the compilers of this list are not sure. Is there anyone that you think is abusively put on the Jewish list that you think should not be there? Please speak up about that, if that is the case.

As far as WP:NOT is concerned, it is clearly applicable. Contrived parameters describe indiscriminate collections of information. We do not collect lists of all those who wore red hats in yellow taxicabs in 1961. That would be an indiscriminate collection of information. The reason it would be an indiscriminate collection of information is because the parameters are contrived. There can be no logic pointed to for the criteria employed. Your parameters are not as absurd as the ones I just stated, but they are outside the ordinary. And furthermore, your parameters are pernicious. The list of "all those who wore red hats in yellow taxicabs in 1961" might be more acceptable than the parameters in place now at the list of converts to Christianity. WP:BIO says that we do not slander living people. We do not slander anyone, but we take especial care concerning living people. Dylan has been participating in Jewish religious practices for the past two decades. Placement on this list is a direct contradiction of his demonstrated religious beliefs. That is pernicious. He is not a Christian and he should not be characterized as such.

The list of notable converts to Judaism does not make the absurd assertion that it is a list of "all those notable people who have ever converted to Judaism." The list of notable converts to Judaism does not attempt to contrive it's parameters to achieve any desired results. There is no agenda being pushed at the list of notable converts to Judaism. The list of notable converts to Judaism is not trying to push any point of view. It's only "agenda" is the compilation of information. Isn't that what an encyclopedia is supposed to be about? If you or anyone else feels there is an abusive purpose at work in the list of notable converts to Judaism, then by all means speak up about it. Bus stop 16:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe the comparison is entirely relevant. You continue to argue against the criterion which has been used since the beginning of this article. You yourself have said that "the very need for disclaimers is indication of the initial wrong." How could one not argue the same for the List of notable converts to Judaism article? Couldn't one argue that conversions not done in accordance with halakha should be removed from the list entirely? One could certainly make several points against the criterion used for inclusion in that article, and no view is any more 'natural' than the next. This doesn't make these arguments in the best interest of the article, and so is the case with your own argument for the criterion used.


 * Your insistence on what is 'natural' and what is 'contrived' is solely an expression of your POV. I'm afraid you need to understand the criterion and the purpose of the list to understand the point of it.


 * The list is not intended to list current Christians, but people who converted to Christianity at some point in their lives. The List of republics does not endeavor to list only current republics, or civilizations whose final form of government was a republic, but lists all instances of a republican form of government throughout history. The List of vegans also does not endeavor to list only current vegans, but anyone who has practiced veganism in their lifetime. List of people with breast implants does not endeavor to list only people who currently have implants, but those who have had them at one point in their lives as well. Do you honestly believe this scope of inclusion is 'contrived'? Do you not understand the informative value of such a listing? Do you not understand that the point of the list is not to promote Christianity, but to provide factual information? At what point are we being dishonest by including Dylan on the list? You believe that your way of seeing things is the only correct way of seeing things. Please abandon this notion, and begin to assume that good faith is behind the intentions and arguments of those opposed to you.


 * Additionally, in regard to the policy which is 'clearly applicable', please read the context and full instruction given in the policy:


 * 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:


 * Lists of Frequently Asked Questions. Wikipedia articles should not list FAQs. Instead, format the information provided as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s).
 * Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Such details are, however, very welcome at Wikitravel, but note that due to license incompatibility you cannot copy content wholesale unless you are the copyright holder.
 * Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered.
 * Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions, advice (legal, medical, or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Note that this does not apply to the Wikipedia: namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself are appropriate, such as How to draw a diagram with Dia. If you're interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at our sister project Wikibooks.
 * Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples.
 * Textbooks and annotated texts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles which read as textbooks, with leading questions and step-by-step problem solutions as examples. These belong on our sister projects Wikibooks and Wikisource
 * Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.
 * Lyrics databases. Most song lyrics are protected by copyright.  Exceptions include traditional songs whose lyrics are in the public domain. However, even in this case the article may not consist solely of the lyrics, but has to primarily contain information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, etc. Source text generally belongs on WikiSource.
 * Statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readibility and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. Articles which are primarily comprised of statistical data may be better suited for inclusion in Wikisource as freely available reference material for the construction of related encyclopedic articles on that topic. Infoboxes or tables should also be considered to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists.
 * Which of the above listings do you believe this article could be classified as violating?


 * In regard to your addition to the comment I've replied to, notice that "It's only 'agenda' is the compilation of information. Isn't that what an encyclopedia is supposed to be about?" is the same argument we make for this article. Why is this logic insufficient for you?


 * And once again, we are not slandering Bob Dylan. Please understand the criterion and do not misrepresent it any longer to make your argument seem more convincing. --C.Logan 16:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no discernible difference in the inclusion parameters between this list and the list of notable converts to Judaism. One key difference, though, is that many if not most of the converts at list of notable converts to Judaism are not recognized as Jews by large swathes of the Jewish community. By that I mean that their conversions are not considered valid. Few would qualify as notable solely for their Judaism, or their contribution to the Jewish religion. The list also includes entire groups that converted as a result of force, conquest or prosleytization. Some of these conversions are the subject of historical debate. At least one individual listed never existed according to historians. At least one was "excomunicated" by the Jewish community. Thought you would like to know. JJay 17:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * C.Logan -- You have to name someone who you feel should not be on the list of converts to Judaism. You have to make that argument. You have to make the argument that a specific person or some specific people should be removed from the list of converts to Judaism. In the absence of your specifically arguing that someone needs to be removed from that list, I don't see that you are making any point. Your suggestions that some names should not be on the list are vacant of meaning if you don't specify anyone. Go right ahead and argue for the removal of some name. As an editor of Wikipedia you would be perfectly justified in doing so. Bus stop 17:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The same reply to JJay. If you object to a name on the list of converts to Judaism, then you obviously have to speak up about that. I think a degree of specificity is in order. Bus stop 17:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you may be confused. This is List of notable converts to Christianty, not Judaism. The serious problems at list of converts to Judaism are not the purview of this talk page. I was merely trying to indicate that you should actually be familiar with the contents of articles, policies and guidelines before citing them here. JJay 17:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

JJay, C.Logan, -- It's a waste of time talking to you. If you are not speaking about specifics, then you are engaging in what is known as obfuscation. If you are referencing people who should not be on the list of notable converts to Judaism, then name them. Or please stop wasting time. If you have no constructive input, don't play games, don't pretend to be conversing. I am not interested in obfuscation. Dylan is a Jew practicing the Jewish religion. There is not a reason in the world that special parameters need to be meted out to the Wikipedia Christianity project. The list of converts to Judaism abides by certain very obvious parameters. It says clearly, in no uncertain terms, at the top of the list of converts to Judaism, that this is a list of Jews who have arrived at their Jewish identity by way of conversion. Just because Christianity happens to be a religion with a strong focus on proselytization, is no reason for the Wikipedia Christianity project to be granted flabby parameters which are enunciated as including, "all those notable people who have ever converted to Christianity." That is just a bogus set of parameters designed to catch a greater number of names. And the biggest catch, probably the main reason for the contrived parameters, is the capture of Bob Dylan onto the list. Dylan happens to be a Jew practicing Judaism. The list of converts to Christianity could not possibly post the counterpart of the notice that the list of converts to Judaism posts at the top of their article. The list of converts to Christianity is not even comprised of Christians! The editors at the Wikipedia Christianity project are not to be granted special status as regards the criteria of what names are to be included on the list of converts to Christianity. The list of converts to Christianity has to abide by the normal and obvious criteria for such a list. It probably never even occurred to the editors of the list of converts to Judaism to contrive parameters like those the Wikipedia Christianity project claims for itself. That is because Judaism does not seek converts. Judaism does not proselytize. The Jewish list isn't interested in artificially inflating the contents of itself. Bob Dylan is a practicing Jew. Judaism denies the Messiah-ship of Jesus Christ. Please stop slandering Bob Dylan. Remove him from a list that is only a list of Christians. Bus stop 04:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Bus stop, if you aren't going to listen, then don't bother responding. Please don't set up a straw men to try to direct the argument in your favor. On specific statements made above:
 * It's a waste of time talking to you.
 * The feeling is somewhat reciprocal.
 * If you have no constructive input, don't play games, don't pretend to be conversing.
 * The best advice comes from within, Bus stop.
 * That is just a bogus set of parameters designed to catch a greater number of names.
 * Just when the claims couldn't get any better...
 * And the biggest catch, probably the main reason for the contrived parameters, is the capture of Bob Dylan onto the list.
 * I almost want to print this one out and frame it. Every time I imagine you picturing us sitting around a dimly-lit table, wringing our hands while scheming over how we might "capture" more people into the list, I laugh a little bit. It's humorously prejudicial.
 * The list of converts to Christianity is not even comprised of Christians!
 * Um, it's comprised of Christians and non-Christians. It is not a list of Christians. It is a list of people who converted to Christianity.
 * Please stop slandering Bob Dylan.
 * Reporting a fact is slander? Placing a man who converted to Christianity on a list of people who converted to Christianity is slander? I suppose your steady stream of accusations and assumptions about the editors who keep track of this article isn't slanderous at all. It's not like we mind being consistently defamed by being portrayed as deceptive, cheap trick proselytizers. Please continue to accuse of us such things.
 * Remove him from a list that is only a list of Christians.
 * Discontinue dictating what the article "is" and "isn't". Discontinue misrepresenting the purpose of the list. Then, remove yourself from a discussion in which you obviously are not willing to read what anyone else is saying to you.
 * Kudos to you, Bus stop, for being so persistent in turning the issue at hand into a personal and religiously-fueled one. How sad it is that one of your main argument points is based on the simple facts that we are Christians, and therefore we'll do anything we can to "boost the size of the list" and "make Christianity look better".You continue to act out the motions of a discussion, but you seem content to post your own views and disregard the views of others. You assume that the existence of this article is underlined by a clear agenda. I believe you said it best: "It's only 'agenda' is the compilation of information. Isn't that what an encyclopedia is supposed to be about?"
 * Well said! --C.Logan 07:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, Bus stop. I think you may have missed the point. My point is that one could argue that the inclusion of conversions which are not in accordance with halakha would irk many Jews who believe that such individuals are not 'true Jews', and that inclusion on the list could be seen as an 'endorsement' of a specific viewpoint (namely, the validity of conversions not in accordance to halakha). My point is that one could argue for such a removal, as you argue for Dylan's removal. This doesn't mean that I would, and I actually wouldn't, because I feel that such a thing would compromise the usefulness of the article. Personally, I think that everyone who is currently included should be included. I believe that, after all, the statement "It's only 'agenda' is the compilation of information. Isn't that what an encyclopedia is supposed to be about?" applies to both List of notable converts to Judaism and List of notable converts to Christianity.
 * Additionally, I enjoy the manner in which you continually ignore nearly every point made by John Carter, JJay, and myself. I can assume from experience your next response will merely be a repeat of the above with the usual Bus-stopian logic applied. --C.Logan 17:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't want to get involved in this debate myself. Although there are a lot of Jewish editors active on wikipedia, this issue (not in accordance with halakha) has never been a point of debate on the list of Jewish converts page. Indeed, it often seems to me that Orthodox Jews are quite proud of and quite happy with those persons who have converted by some other movement's procedures. They direct their criticism at the rabbis who perform the conversions, not the converts themselves. They regard those converts as Jews, but not Orthodox Jews. And they see non-Orthodox converts in a very positive light as persons who have voluntarily associated with Jews and keep some mitzvot that they don't really have to keep. (By comparison, those who are born Jews, they see as persons who don't keep Jewish Law but are obligated to.) Of course, when tallying support for Jewish causes in Congress, they are happy to include everybody. Several of the Jewish members of Congress are converts, and you never here anybody mention that. In Orthodoxy, the prohibition against Lashon Hara is interpreted in such a way that it is actually forbidden to mention that somebody is a convert. I think the focus should be on whether a short-term conversion belongs on this page, not on what the definition of a convert is. --Metzenberg 03:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Possibility of referring this discussion to WP:ArbCom?
By my understanding, the request for mediation indicated at the top of this page will become nullified if the one party who has so far refused to sign on to such mediation, User:Bus stop, does not do so by the end of the 11th. Do the rest of you think that, should that continue, any further attempts at arbitration should be attempted? By my understanding, the next place to appeal would be WP:ArbCom. Is this correct? If it is not, can any of you tell me what the next step would be? Also, if it is correct, what do the rest of you think of the idea of referring this discussion to that body? John Carter 15:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I note that the request for mediation has been rejected on the basis of the above named user not accepting mediation. Would the rest of you agree that, under the circumstances, some sort of outside input is going to be required in this instance? Also, as I understand it, ArbCom is possibly the only remaining outlet for resolution of this dispute. Do any of you believe otherwise? If yes, what other steps are open? And, if ArbCom is the only remaining option, would the rest of you agree that it is reasonable to seek a final decision on this matter, even if that is the only remaining alternative? John Carter 15:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This could go on forever. Bus stop's habit of ignoring opposing points and simply rephrasing his argument is essentially a well which can't run dry. I don't feel the need to go into much detail here. He's made it clear that he is not willing to compromise or mediate in any way. No changes have improved the situation, and have actually inflamed it. I can't say for sure what the next step should be, but this discussion must be halted. It's become a parody; a circus of accusation and unsourced statements. It's impossible to make progress when the opposing editors feel it a necessity to accuse us of violating policies and guidelines which are irrelevant and taken out of context. There is no real point in continuing this discussion. --C.Logan 16:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm a little curious as to why peoiple feel the need to keep responding to his posts. This isn't an Oxonian debating society where a point stands if not responded to.  Bus stop has had his say; the other editors on the page haven't been convinced by his arguments, so that seems the end of it.  Consensus does not mean unanimity.  ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * User:ObiterDicta - Point taken. It seems that I've become used to the misrepresentation, and therefore I prefer not to leave statements and accusations unanswered, lest an observer (unaware of the points throughout the discussion) does indeed think that a point stands if not responded to, and finds merit in the argument because of this fact. At this point, I can copy and paste clips of previous comments made by myself, John Carter, Scott Perry, Demong, JJay and yourself in response. That's how stagnant this discussion has become. --C.Logan 17:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a point to the question above. Personally, from my perspective, I think Bus stop might decide to once again revert the text without consultation, as s/he has already repeatedly done. Bus stop has already demonstrated a willingness to act without consensus in these matters, and at least one response seems to be required to prevent that user possibly using some sort of spurious argument. I agree that consensus has seemed to have been established. Unfortunately, I don't know if it would be recognized as such, were the text reverted once again. I am myself comparatively new to this process, so I welcome any outside input. Is the apparent consensus which has already been apparently reached possibly sufficient grounds to indicate that consensus has been reached? Or perhaps should we make a formal request for opinion on a specific question? Like I said, I'm new and would welcome any input which might clearly and at least temporarily clearly lead to a resolution of this matter. John Carter 17:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus. Cleo123 03:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no real mechanism for a "formal opinion" on this. The Arbcom does not rule on content disputes.  Edit-warring against consensus is a blockable offense and Bus stop could be blocked if he disrupts the article. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You might be interested in reading WP:DE, if you are unfamiliar with it. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link to the info. Bus stop already was blocked twice before his most recent removal of the Dylan content. Evidently, s/he isn't very quick on the uptake here. However, if I understand what you're saying, we could just basically end the conversation and restore the content should it be altered/removed again, perhaps calling some admin's attention to it, and basically not have to pay attention to these repetitious statements of his? I have to admit I do like the sound of that. John Carter 17:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the basic idea, yes. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Notable Converts?
Can someone please explain and define, what makes an individual a "notable convert"? It strikes me that this is merely a list of notable "people" who at one time or another are alleged to have converted to Christianity. Let's get some clarity as to what is the "definition" of a "notable convert" in relation to this article. Cleo123 00:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is extensively discussed above, but from the intro: The following is a list of notable people who converted to Christianity from a different religion or no religion. What exactly is your question? --JJay 01:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I also don't understand what you are implying with the word "merely" in your comment above. --JJay 01:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying this is writing for me. The title of this list is "Notable converts" - what has evolved here is a list of "Notable People" - not a list of notable converts. The original encyclopedic intention of this article would appear to have been bastardized to broaden its scope. I contend that in order to be included on this list one must be a "notable convert" and the parameters for notability as a convert must be clearly defined. As I see it, in its current state, this is a list of trivia, which is frowned upon by Wikipedia. See WP:TRIVIA. Cleo123 02:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * According to the list guideline, "The contents of a list should be obvious. If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so." As pointed out below by John Carter, precedent (in both similar and dissimilar lists) supports this definition, and other definitions are likely to be ambiguous or otherwise untenable.  We have clear criteria for what constitutes a notable person (they have a WP article) and for what constitutes conversion to Christianity (see lead and wikilinks therein).  On the other hand, what does notable Christian mean?  How about meaningful?  Do you have an alternate suggestion for a lead? — Demong talk 04:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't clarify anything in writing for you. I quoted the intro of the article, which you had apparently not read. The rest of your assertions are entirely erroneous. The list's approach has never wavered. It has always been a list of notable people who converted to Christianity, just like all the other lists of this type. Its "intention" has not been "bastardized", nor has its "scope" been "broadened". You are of course free to "contend" anything you want regarding the potential future direction of this list, but I would point out that no matter how you define "notable convert", Bob Dylan (since I can only assume this is the sole reason for your message) would qualify, owing in part to the intense media attention given to his conversion. Finally, I suggest you read WP:TRIVIA, which is a guideline regarding trivia sections in articles. This list does not have a trivia section. For an example of an article that does have a trivia section that might be profitably removed per WP:TRIVIA, see Michael Richards. --JJay 03:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Based upon the increasingly hostile and inappropriate tone of your commentary in this and other Bob Dylan related discussions, I would suggest you consider taking a break from editing articles related to Bob Dylan. I had read the introduction previously, as I'm sure you are well aware. Although Bob Dylan is an interesting example of the problems inherent with this list, he is not my primary focus. I am concerned with the article as a whole. As for your remark concerning WP:TRIVIA, I would suggest that YOU read it as it also discusses trivia articles and lists. If nothing else the misleading title of this article should be changed. Cleo123 03:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion is noted. It is hardly applicable, though, since I have only very rarely edited "articles related to Bob Dylan". Regarding WP:TRIVIA, I think you are on exceedingly thin ground arguing that this list comprises a "trivia section" in the context of the style guide, which furthermore specifically makes no judgment of whether "trivia belongs on wikipedia". As for the title, perhaps you prefer the previous title List of converts to Christianity. --JJay 04:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The 'notable people' terminology merely conveys that the list is a compilation of only those people who meet the notability standards of Wikipedia (i.e. they warrant an article). The list obviously does not make any attempt to list all converts to Christianity ever (although I'd be interested to see who would be willing to do research if such a scenario ever came to pass), and thus there is no reasoning behind adding people who are not really notable except to the person who has added them (for instance, on the Islam converts page, you'll occasionally find a random college professor of no significance or an obscure listing for an internet personality, and so on). As I see it, however, the title is a bit redundant, but I'm unsure if the redundancy is an issue.
 * I'd be intrigued to know how you feel this list is at odds with WP:TRIVIA. I don't really see how it applies. --C.Logan 02:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Handling Trivia" states : "Trivia is broadly defined as information that is not important. However, since Wikipedia consists of articles, we can be more specific -- trivia is information that is not important to the subject it is being presented in relation to." How, pray tell, are the private religious affiliations of celebrities important to the subject of Christianity as a whole? Cleo123 03:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The subject of this article is not Christianity. I think we can assume (and in some cases demonstrate) that religious conversion is important to the person who converted. — Demong talk 04:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Cleo- Remember to take things in context. Please note the situation that is described in this guideline bears no similarity to this article's 'situation'- unless you remove the context. The guideline is speaking of examples such as trivia sections in movie or bio articles, and how to deal with them. --C.Logan 04:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but "Handling Trivia" specifically discusses trivia articles and lists as well. The only thing tying all these indivduals together on a list is Christianity - that is the subject matter. Again, I ask someone to please demonstrate how these individuals' conversions are important to the subject matter of Christianity. If there is no import then it is trivia. Cleo123 04:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you... read WP:HTRIV? Because you continue to allude to it, but you don't seem to realize what 'removing context' means. Please note the examples given in the same section you are apparently referring to. This is a reference list, not a trivia list. Do you understand the text? I don't mean the last statement to be rude, but I'm really asking. --C.Logan 06:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you do not mean to be rude, then I would suggest you stop making rude remarks. Cleo123 07:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologize. I simply consider it a waste of time when the other editors and I are accused of violating policies and guidelines that we aren't actually violating. --C.Logan 07:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My personal definition of "notable convert" is someone who is notable and whose conversion is at least in some degree of notable aspect of their lives. I too can, and do, argue that this list as it is currently constructed, and all such similar lists, could stand some improvement. For instance, I would find it more useful if it were organized by time rather than by original religion. I say that because we all know that all religions change over time, so in my eyes it makes more sense and would be more useful to not make the primary organizational structure one which by definition is itself at least somewhat fluid over time, but rather by time as the primary organizational structure, so that it can be made a bit clearer in the text what the status of all involved beliefs is at that time (if merited). It would also help to point out at least some of the info on the status of interreligious relations at the time, something wikipedia is sorely lacking right now. Regarding whether this list qualifies as WP:TRIVIA, I note that it is not a policy, but rather a style guideline, and thus not binding in any event. Having said that, I would only note that all these lists of converts have what I consider to be a serious obstacle to organization. Specifically, how do we define each religion for the terms of this article. Constantine, based on the data I know about him, can be clearly counted as being what we would today call a Roman Catholic, considering he in effect joined the Church of Rome. Having said that, his specific personal religious beliefs seem to have been what could more accurately be described today as Nestorianism, which has little if anything to do with Roman Catholicism. I would personally prefer having content like this broken down into more meaningful terms (conversion to Lutheranism, Hasidism, Shi'a, what have you), but we have similar problems doing that. If, for instance, Constantine's own beliefs were clearly let's say what we would today call Lutheran, could we group him in "converts to Lutheranism"? The answer is of course no, because Lutheranism as a specific entity didn't exist yet. And these discussions about which "label" to put on any of these converts, both regarding their "before" and "after" faiths, can be had on virtually any subject in any of the lists. Having said that, I personally think that at least some of these, including the likes of Constantine, Augustine of Hippo, and Benjamin Disraeli, even without the other names included, would merit having a separate article. I suppose it could be argued that we could try to find some more specific terms for inclusion in the article. However, there are clearly problems with that, as at least some people who are notable and noted for their conversions would be ruled out under any more strict criteria, with different significant parties being dropped for every different variation of original criteria. Again, the other articles of this type have the same problems. In short, if you want to argue that the article is not as useful or as informative as it could be, I would answer a resounding "yes". Unfortunately, I also think doing anything to "improve" it by adding more qualifiers would give it a more biased view and ultimately make it less effective and less useful in the long run. So, while far from perfect, it is probably as good as it can be under the circumstances and dealing with the subject with which it deals, given the possible improvement I have suggested above. And, given the dearth of material available on wikipedia on interreligious relations, I think that that subject is clearly important enough to have content relevant to it included in wikipedia. So, until and unless that content on interreligious relations is significantly improved, these flawed articles are the best that we have on an important, but undercovered, subject. If any of you would honestly be interested in trying to improve such coverage, I note that there is the proposal on WikiProject Council/Proposals which would specifically deal with articles relating to the lives of religious figures. Were that group to "take off" and have enough members of various faiths involved in it, and maybe alter its scope a little, then I think content like this would be significantly improved. Anyway, those are my opinions. Shutting up now. John Carter 13:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

John Carter -- It doesn't matter that Christianity has proselytization as a basic building block of it's composition. That is not a valid reason for contrived parameters for the list of converts to Christianity. That constitutes advertising. That should have no place on Wikipedia. Bring the parameters of the list of converts to Christianity into line with those of the list of converts to Judaism. No special dispensations should be granted to the Wikipedia Christianity project in this regard. In point of fact there already exists a systemic bias on wikipedia favoring a Christian perspective, and the Wikipedia Christianity project should be granted no special permissions to make that bias any worse. Bus stop 14:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Bus stop - Just out of curiousity, is it even remotely possible for you to produce any evidence to support your accusations? I note that you have completely failed to do so yet again. I personally am finding your continuing failure to abide by the minimum standards of civility truly offensive. If you honestly wish to resolve this matter, instead of simply continuing to repeat your unsubstantiated allegations, then I honestly urge you to sign on to the mediation that has been offered. If not, I think that there is a very good reason to believe that the rest of us may seek to find some other form of resolution, as your repeated innuendo, unsubstantiated allegations, and I think personal attacks are clearly opposed to, if not in fact direct violations of, the standards of conduct and discussion required of editors. I may be wrong, of course, but I personally am more than willing to run the risk of finding out as much. John Carter 14:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * John Carter -- Dylan shouldn't be in the article (list of converts to Christianity) for the simple reason that he is not a Christian. The list of converts to Judaism says clearly and explicitly and simply, "This page is a list of Jews." Were the Wikipedia Christianity project's list of converts to Christianity using the same parameters, Dylan would not be on the list. That would be for the simple reason that he is not a Christian. Such contrivances as are employed by the Christian counterpart to the Jewish list should be frowned upon, because it represents advertising. That is totally out of place on Wikipedia. Bus stop 14:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for proving the answer to my question about being your willingness to directly respond to any comments made to you above is clearly "no". And I would only point out to you that your repeated unsubstantiated allegations, at least bordering on personal attacks, and your repeated impugning of the good faith of anyone who disagrees with you is the thing that is most clearly out of place in wikipedia. For what it's worth, if you do not take the offer of mediation, after your lack of response above, I personally will seek out some sort of final, objective solution to this matter in accord with wikipedia policy, wherever and however it is to be arrived at. However, I can honestly see no reason to continue a conversation with someone who so clearly and explicitly cares to do nothing but indulge in the seemingly endless repetition of unsubstantiated allegations, use words which have no clear definition (like "contrivance"), and at least to my eyes seem to act in such a way as to actively prevent reasonable discussion, not further the progress of it. John Carter 15:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

John Carter -- My allegations are not unsubstantiated. The parameters employed by the Wikipedia Christianity project's list of converts to Christianity are as follows: "all those notable people who have ever converted to Christianity." That word "ever" is a contrivance inserted into what would be the normal parameters: "all those notable Christians who have arrived at Christianity by way of conversion." That is the form that the list of converts to Judaism employs. It employs that simple set of parameters because they are obvious. That are not a contrivance. And, if it is not out of place for me to point this out here, Judaism by and large, does not seek converts. Christianity, on the other hand, has a clear interest in gathering converts to it's religion. This is not conjecture on my part. And there is nothing whatsoever offensive about my saying that. I have to say that in order to say that contrived parameters constitute advertising, in this case. Dylan is a powerful reference in that advertising endeavor. I can assume all the good faith possible, but a contrived parameter combined with a presence of a Jew named Bob Dylan on the list, constitutes improper use of Wikipedia. Furthermore it is complete slander. Jews do not accept the Messiah-ship of Jesus Christ. This is not a minor issue. Jews, historically, have been willing to give their lives rather than accept Jesus Christ as their "savior." Here you are, at Wikipedia, blithely listing Dylan as a Christian. He briefly experimented with Christianity twenty seven years ago. He has been practicing the religion of Judaism since then. Don't you find it a little out of place to ignore reality to this degree? Don't you find the subterfuge of using contrived parameters a little unseemly? Bus stop 15:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Definition of a notable convert to Christianity, what about Larry Flynt?
I don't even know where to get a word in edgewise in the debate going on above. Apparently, whether or not Bob Dylan belongs in this category hinges upon the definition of this list, to include notable persons who have ever converted to Christianity. I have to agree that such a list, designed to include Bob Dylan, is really a contrivance. Let's look at somebody else who would also belong on the list: Larry Flynt.


 * He had a one-year flirtation with evangelical Christianity, converted by evangelist Ruth Carter Stapleton (sister of President Jimmy Carter) in 1977. He continued to publish his magazine, vowing to "hustle for God," became "born again" and claims he had a vision from God while flying his jet.

My own opinion is one of doubt that Larry Flynt's conversion was sincere. The context was, this happened at a time when Flynt's Hustler Magazine was pushing the envelope of explicitness. Hustler was created as kind of a low-brow alternative to Playboy and Penthouse that showed more flesh. I think he did it to sell more magazines. Remember the "Lillian Carter Shows Pink" controversy? (The magazine contained a centerfold of Lillian Carter, Jimmy Carter's mom, wearing a pink Sunday dress.)

I'm not arguing for the inclusion of Larry Flynt here. Indeed, I have no idea what he converted from and what he reverted to afterwards. Unlike Dylan, who seems to have had a sincere Christian spiritual practice for several years, Flynt looks to me like a phony. But who am I to say? At the time, his conversion was widely reported in the news media. I don't pay much attention to Flynt, and it is clear that he is no longer a Christian. If we define Bob Dylan as a notable convert to Christianity, then how can we not say that Larry Flynt is one too? Larry Flynt's conversion was quite noteworthy, and was portrayed in a 1996 film, directed by Milos Forman, The People vs. Larry Flynt.

So, my answer is that the definition should really only include persons who remained Christian for the rest of their lives. --Metzenberg 02:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm unsure what the expected outcome of the above Flynt argument was, but if sources are available, then he should be added into the article. Additionally, and I know you've been a very reasonable participant in this whole thing, but I must insist that this list is not "designed to include Bob Dylan". The list is not intended to list current Christians, but people who converted to Christianity at some point in their lives. The List of republics does not endeavor to list only current republics, or civilizations whose final form of government was a republic, but lists all instances of a republican form of government throughout history. The List of vegans also does not endeavor to list only current vegans, but anyone who has practiced veganism in their lifetime. List of people with breast implants does not endeavor to list only people who currently have implants, but those who have had them at one point in their lives as well. I don't believe that such scope of inclusion is 'contrived'. Surely, you can understand the informative value of such a listing. To echo Bus stop, "Its only 'agenda' is the compilation of information. Isn't that what an encyclopedia is supposed to be about?" --C.Logan 02:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Who decides whether the list applies to people who have had a lasting conversion or people who have converted "at some point in thier lives"? Don't Wikipedians decide that? It seems that there is no consensus for the parameters of this list. Cleo123 04:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I can understand the objection to including those who were only temporarily Christian. However, I think that if one gives the matter some thought that is more or less the definition we have to use. Were we to rule out people who had been at one time Chritians, then we would have to change the list on a regular basis, whenever a person converted. Also, unfortunately, at some point someone might like getting the publicity, and convert between, for instance, Judaism and various Christian sects on a regular basis, just to keep getting media attention. Clearly, if we were to follow the model "remainder of life", or, more accurately, "currently (X) and/or (X) through their deaths," we would have to keep up on such "public" conversions whenever this party decides to get his name in the news again. Lastly, of course, there is the argument about whether that person "really" converted, or stayed converted, or not. Maybe, something like in the case of Richard Francis Burton, a relative might say that the subject converted back to whatever on his deathbed, but there isn't a sane person on the planet who believes the story. Would the person then have to be excluded or not? I think you can see that using the "remainder of their lives" criteria would clearly, sooner or later, result in having to make "judgement calls", which is something I think we all want to avoid. This way, we can avoid all those additional endless debates. I can see adding qualifiers in cases when the conversion didn't "take" or may have been subsequently changed, but I really think adding the temporal qualifier would make all of these lists ultimatley regular targets for endless, and often unresolvable, discussions. Regarding Flynt, I think that inclusion on the list is called for under the circumstances, but that there is definitely a qualifer to be added after that name. John Carter 03:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll leave it up to you folks to decide whether Larry Flynt belongs. Not interested. I'm sorry if I was seeming to say the list is contrived. What I meant was, a more useful list is one that really seeks out the long-term and meaningful conversions, the ones that last for a lifetime. I'd be more interested in seeing such a list. I'm also bothered by the list being a kind of list of conversions as publicity stunts. It seems there are a lot of these "well publicized" conversions that are questionable. Today the Son of Sam was in the news again (David Berkowitz). He wants out of prison because he says he is born again. If people convert and convert back, Wikipedia has proven to be good at keeping such information up to date. --Metzenberg 03:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The list includes both people who lived their conversion throughout their lives, and those who later left the religion for another. It's up to you to decide which information you want to read about. You're not being forced to plod through a stack of bios- you're skimming a list. Additionally, "questionable" is a fine and fair opinion to have about such conversions, but we can't apply such judgment to Wikipedia. --C.Logan 03:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A List of Sincere Converts to Christianity, or List of Sincere converts to Judaism would be inherently POV. Wikipedia editors are supremely ill-equipped to make those kind of judgments. As are most biographers. When I look at the List of notable converts to Judaism, I wonder to what extent Tom Arnold or Marilyn Monroe or May Britt practice(d) Judaism. Did they make long-term meaningful commitments? What was the influence of their spouses? At Marilyn Monroe's funeral, a Lutheran Minister presided. There were readings from the Book of John and the Lord's Prayer was recited. Does that annul the reality of her conversion? All we can do is verify the conversion. We can not judge the meaning. A man's conscience is between him and god.--JJay 03:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly! Religious affiliation is a private matter which does not belong in an encyclopedia article such as this unless the individual's conversion is notable to the subject of Christianity as a whole. Cleo123 04:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As I suspect you'd think to cite WP:BLP in support of your statement above, let me just point this out:
 * "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."
 * Additionally, "notable to the subject of Christianity as a whole"? Who determines such things? It seems as if this method would lead to POV judgments on who qualifies for the above statement. --C.Logan 06:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Speculation as to my thought process is inappropriate. This is not about Bob Dylan. It is about the nonencyclopedic and flawed parameters that have been placed on this article, which I remind you is titled "Notable converts..." BTW, this article pertains to Christianity. For your argument to hold any water, you need to demonstrate not that individuals are notable "people" - but that their conversions are notable to the article's subject matter - Christianity. Cleo123 07:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Pardon my assumptions, but I figure I'd save you the trouble. How exactly would you say the article is 'nonencyclopedic'? How are the parameters flawed? What argument are you referring to?
 * I'm unsure what your last suggestion intends to express. I suppose that you may be intentionally misreading the article's title. No matter- that's why there's an introductory paragraph which defines the list. See, that's the primary point of an 'introduction' to a list- to clarify what the title can't for the sake of brevity. --C.Logan 07:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a list, not really an article with a "subject" unless that subject is the list members themselves. The title "Notable converts" literally means that the individual convert is notable, not that they were important to Christianity. (Notability is not importance.) It could be argued that the conversion of a person would itself have to be notable for the person to be a valid list member, but both Dylan's and Flynt's conversions pass that test with flying colors. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

C.Logan -- The parameters are contrived. For a look at the obvious parameters look at the list of converts to Judaism. It is capable of saying "This page is a list of Jews." The list of converts to Christianity is incapable of making a corresponding statement applying to Christians. It's contrived parameters prevent that. Advertising is not allowed on Wikipedia. Bus stop 13:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Getting down to tacks of the brass variety
There should be no special dispensations meted out to the Wikipedia Christianity project. All one need do is look at the list of converts to Judaism to see what normal parameters for such a list are. The list of converts to Judaism says in no uncertain terms, "This page is a list of Jews." It does not take on the contrivance that the Wikipedia Christianity project's list of converts to Christianity takes on in stating it's parameters as, "all those who have ever converted to Christianity." The fact that Christianity is, by definition, actively involved in seeking out converts to Christianity, is no reason that it should be granted the special dispensation of expanded parameters for it's list. The editors of the list of converts to Judaism couldn't care less about attracting converts to Judaism. That is why the list of converts to Judaism used the basic and simple and obvious definition for it's list, and the editors of the Wikipedia Christianity project should be using the same basic and obvious parameters. Contrivances are antithetical to the constructing of an encyclopedia. Furthermore, point of view pushing has no place on Wikipedia. By definition the religion of Judaism does not seek out converts. But by definition the religion of Christianity has as an important building block the spreading of the "Good News," the Messiah-ship of Jesus Christ. But Wikipedia is not the place to do that. That, in it's simplest understanding, is advertising. No one is served well by the contrived definition that the Wikipedia Christianity project applies to it's list of converts to Christianity. That contrivance serves the end of advertising. It also results in the placement of Jews on a list that should be first and foremost a list of Christians. The list of converts to Judaism places no Christians on it's list. As it's statement, at the top of that list, clearly and emphatically explains: This page is a list of Jews. The Wikipedia Christianity project needs to fall in line with basic and obvious practice. No special accommodations should be allowed. Bus stop 12:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * List of notable converts to Judaism actually states the following: This article endeavours to list some notable people who have converted, or are believed to have converted, to Judaism... Also, some of these conversions (apart from the Biblical ones) are not recognized by the Orthodox Jewish division because the converted did not convert under Orthodox auspices, or by Orthodox and Conservative authorities because the conversions were not done in accord with halakha. Given that the conversions are not recognized by important contingents of the Jewish community, it is entirely debateable whether that list is actually a "list of Jews" as you assert. In point of fact, some Jews would very much view that list as a list of Christians. This has been a longstanding political issue in Israel and a point of contention and controversy between the various Jewish denominations. Furthermore, your assertion that "By definition the religion of Judaism does not seek out converts" is also disproved, both historically and by more recent initiatives emanating from Reform Judaism. JJay 13:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, JJay, Judaism has no point to push. Were the list of converts to Christianity to adopt such obvious parameters (as apply to the list of converts to Judaism) it could be challenged for not living up to those parameters, much as you are now doing in relation to the list of converts to Judaism. But once again you are failing to employ the specificity that would give your argument traction: If there is a name you feel should not be on the list of converts to Judaism then specify it. Please don't obfuscate. Bus stop 13:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your fine-tuned ability to ignore entirely any response to your proclamations of opinion merits admiration and applause. All religions have a point to push and Judaism is no exception. Far be it from me to challenge the largest American Jewish denomination's emphasis on "the grandeur of Judaism" as part of their "concerted efforts to encourage non-Jews to convert to Judaism". I am also entirely pleased with the extremely broad inclusion criteria pursued by the editors of List of notable converts to Judaism. It makes little difference to me that many of the conversions listed there are not considered valid by important Jewish denominations. Clearly Israel's Chief Rabbis (both present and former) were joking in 2005 when they stated that: Any such conversion, under its various names such as `Reform' or `Conservative,' has no validity, and anyone who undergoes such conversion is still a gentile in every respect. The controversies in Israel, which at various times would not have recognized many of the notable converts on the list as being Jewish - thereby denying them the Right of return - nor the ongoing legislative challenges to their status, are certainly not important . As you have so rightly pointed out, the question is moot because a standard template at the top of that lists states: "This is a list of Jews". Out of courtesy, though, someone should inform the conservative and orthodox camps as well as Israel's Chief Rabbis that the matter has been settled, and that those they have slandered with the word gentile, those they have "blithely" and "perniciously" cast back into the Christian wilderness, are actually Jews (I know this because the template says so). As you yourself have pointed out (I cite this without any intent of bombastic hyperbole): This is not a minor issue. Jews, historically, have been willing to give their lives rather than accept Jesus Christ as their "savior. Nevertheless, I'll overlook the Rabbis' outrageous slander, and put my faith in the wikipedia template's righteous declaration. I'll admit that I was at first confused by the list's contrived disclaimer (some of these conversions...are not recognized by the Orthodox Jewish division because the converted did not convert under Orthodox auspices, or by Orthodox and Conservative authorities because the conversions were not done in accord with halakha) - I mean this is a list of Jews, so how can other Jews refuse to accept Jews as Jews? - but I have now come to the firm belief that it is merely intended to fill up space before getting down to the more serious business of point of view pushing, spreading the good news , advertising providing an itemized trivia section listing of notable converts who contributed to Judaism "notable people who have converted, or are believed to have converted, to Judaism". Were List of converts to Christianity to adopt that phrasing and approach, the list would be identical. Finally, given your mastery of the art of obfuscation, I can only assume that your use of the term in my regard is meant as a compliment. --JJay 17:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * JJay -- For approximately the third time you are saying that certain names on the list of converts to Judaism should not rightfully be on that list. Each prior time I said to you, please tell me which names you feel should not be on the list. And for the third time you are spinning tall tales without giving any specifics. As I've told you before -- that is obfuscation. That is giving the illusion of saying something. Without specifics no one has the foggiest idea what you are talking about. Those who feel you are defending their "cause" will not question your lack of specificity. But I have to tell you that in my opinion you are obfuscating. Obfuscating, by the way, is giving the appearance of saying something. But since specifics are left out, nothing can be challenged, not on the grounds of factuality, and not even on theoretical grounds. Bus stop 21:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please Bus stop, I entreat you, don't put words in my mouth. I actually wrote: I am also entirely pleased with the extremely broad inclusion criteria pursued by the editors of List of notable converts to Judaism. What could be more specific than that? Plus unlike some participants in this discussion, I provided a whole series of links to elucidate my cogitations. On a side note, I'd like to make a formal proposal that all opinions on this talk page be supported with links and diffs from this point forward. I'm sure you will agree that this could only serve our communal struggle against the dark forces of obfuscation and contrivance. I would argue that those recalcitrants who fail to sustain their punditry with wikilinks are engaged in advertising and that is antithetical to the constructing of a rational discussion. To rephrase, even though active talk page denizens may appear to be saying something, they may actually be saying nothing. No special accommodations or dispensations should be allowed. But I digress. Returning to the heart of the discussion, god forbid that names be removed from List of notable converts to Judaism. It's a list of converts to Judaism and they are all converts and notable to boot. I have to assume that most if not all of those notable converts devoted at least a few minutes to earnest discussion with a Rabbi prior to their conversions. However, perhaps that list's most informative template should, on the grounds of factuality, be changed to: This is a list of Jews and many Gentiles according to the Chief Rabbi of Israel. --JJay 22:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * JJay -- Yes, you do digress. Fact is, broader criteria for list of converts to Christianity constitutes advertising. Try to address that problem. Bus stop 22:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the precision of your well-reasoned response to my recent missive. I've long admired your penchant for brevity and abhorence of straw men. To address your advertising problem, permit me to suggest that you raise the issue at WP:Advertising. --JJay 23:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

What with the revert war over the talk page heading, I'm desperately tempted to change it to "Grasping at straws" — Demong talk 23:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. --JJay 23:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I am not at all surprised by JJay's lack of civility here. His disruptive behavior has steadily escalated in this matter. I am a little taken a back that Demong, who would appear to be new to this conversation, would jump on the bandwagon and engage in editorial behavior that can only be categorized as downright juvenile and overt harassment. Demong, I would strongly suggest that you take the time to read all of the talk page discussions related to this topic before reaching any conclusions. I see where certain editors have communicated patently false information to you, which is apparently unduly influencing your opinion. There is no consensus here.


 * There is no question that User:Bus stop has not always done the best job expressing his argument. That's not to say, however, that he does not have a valid argument which, to some extent, has been supported by a number of other editors on the Bob Dylan article and the recent AFD debate on this article. I suggest you read them. Unfortunately, User:Bus stop has chosen to focus too much of his argument on Bob Dylan and speculation as to the motives of others. His argument would be better served if he focused on the more general issue of the contrived and inappropriate editorial parameters that have been foisted onto this article by a group that appear to be unreasonably pushing a point of view. There is no question that there are "issues" related to Dylan's inclusion on this list. However, I think it is more important that the overall criteria for inclusion be addressed before more celebrities are affected. There is no question, in my mind, that the editorial abuse will not end with Dylan. There is a gang mentality on this page that blatantly ignores all dissenting opinion, contrary to Wikipedia policy. The only "consensus" is their own, and the rest of the community can be damned. Read the discussions, then ask yourself - are these editors acting in good faith when they tell me there is a consensus? Or are they simply trying to quash differing opinions?


 * People should not be too quick to misjudge User:Bus stop in this matter. The fact that he's had a "gang" of editors blatantly conspiring to label him a disruptive editor and get him blocked has, perhaps, made him a bit too emotional in his arguments.  Prior to his involvement with this article, he had a clean record and was well thought of by many seasoned editors. There is another editor, involved with this dispute that has much more clearly displayed the qualities of an "edit warrior". It is also very disturbing to see that editors appear to be attempting to portray User:Bus stop's failure to respond to requests for mediation in a negative light. They neglect to mention that their failed attempts to obtain a community sanction against Bus stop, which preceeded any "good faith" requests for mediation. Moreover, they blantantly attempted to "stack the deck" against Bus stop in any mediation by failing to include editors who opposed their point of view. Cleo123 07:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "...engage in editorial behavior that can only be categorized as downright juvenile and overt harassment" Woah, what? — Demong talk 08:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Obviously, User:Bus stop intended for his remarks to be taken seriously. Replacing his section header with titles such as : "Tall Tales" and "Grasping at Straws" is not only uncivil; it's vandalism. I don't think it's appropriate to encourage and contribute to negative behavior of this sort. Cleo123 02:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't. — Demong talk 03:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems as if "grasping at straws" was your suggestion :
 * "What with the revert war over the talk page heading, I'm desperately tempted to change it to "Grasping at straws" — Demong talk 23:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. --JJay 23:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)"
 * How would you feel if someone made similar changes to a section heading that you posted? Cleo123 03:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure if you've noticed, but this thread is not about Bob Dylan or User:Bus stop. It would seem that User:Bus stop has done a good job of getting himself blocked without anyone's "help". . I'll note in passing that anyone, including yourself, could have participated in the proposed mediation that Bus Stop chose to ignore. That would have been a good forum to raise the accusations you are making now such as the "gang mentality", or the "gang of editors blatantly conspiring to label him". Since you seem to feel that User:Bus Stop is a victim of abuse, I would suggest you make your case at WP:AN. --JJay 08:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * On the contrary. User:Bus stop did have some help "getting himself blocked". You did report him, afterall. I note that you, too, have had no trouble getting yourself blocked for 3RR. Cleo123 05:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I also would have no objections to seeing one of the editors who so frequently raises the accusations against others actually show some willingness to do something other than raise accusations. You could have requested inclusion in the mediation, and I don't think anyone would have opposed it. Also, if you honestly believe your accusations have any merit, then there are appropriate places to raise them. Continuing to vilify people who disagree with you, without taking any true serious action to address the problem, is I think at least evidence that the accusations may be known to be of less than exceptional merit, and, if that is the case, I think should be stopped. If you honestly believe that these accusations have merit, I suggest you do something to prove your belief and seek to sanction those parties who you believe have misbehaved. However, I really don't think that unsubstantiated, accusations at least bordering on personal attacks of the kind above have any place anywhere in wikipedia. John Carter 15:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I am doing something. I am creating a written record for an administrator to review, lest the other side of this story be somehow lost in the translation. User:Warlordjohncarter, you have stated that you are new to Wikipedia - yet you appear to have taken on the mantle of leadership in this dispute. It seems to me that you do not fully understand the spirit of Wikipedia's policies. User:Bus stop is an established editor, who prior to this had a spotless record. Very shortly after he voiced an opposing editorial point of view, you unsuccessfully requested a Community Sanction against him, as if he were a vandal! That is very extreme. Yes, he broke 3RR, but it would appear that he did so unintentionally. He explained his actions on his talk page saying that he was removing libel in accordance with WP:BLP. I am not saying that he was right to break 3 RR, but his statements seem to indicate that it was a mistake made in good faith. He is not edit warring on the article, but trying to reason with yourself and others on the talk page. Yet, you do not seem to want to let this go. Several editors have supported Bus stop's views on the Bob Dylan article, yet he was the only one listed on your request for mediation. Your request involved article content, yet many of your talk page postings continue to betray an agenda aimed at having User:Bus stop blocked or punished in some manner. Punished for what? Disagreeing with you? You've now attempted to rally other editors to bump it up yet another notch to Arbcom! If you do that, you and everyone else involved with this dispute had best be prepared for their own actions to be placed under a magnifying glass. Don't be surprised if you do not get the result you expect.
 * I have not made any personal attacks against you or anyone else. I have pointed out inappropriate editorial conduct. The contribution histories of the editors involved in the User:Bus stop dispute substantiate my statements, which I stand behind. Frankly, I think a number of editors have behaved very badly in this matter. Rather than charging off to file complaints and get people blocked or banned, you should have engaged in an open minded editorial debate with User:Bus stop. Wikipedia is open to all, even those whose view points you may not like. Cleo123 03:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Cleo, please note the tone of your post is in direct violation of WP:NPA as it addresses not the content but specifically the individual(s). It also attempts to goad the opposing side into responding, which's classified as a serious form of WP:CIVIL violation (i.e. taunt: "to goad (a person) into responding, often in an aggressive manner."), and that's ignoring the WP:CIV#ICA (ill-considered accusations) violations aspect of your edits.  The claim "User:Bus Stop has a spotless record" is also interesting let's just say.
 * For other editors, if you haven't seen seen the WP:DE link buried somehwere above due to it getting drowned out by all the verbiage: A disruptive editor is described as:


 * Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
 * Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.
 * Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators.


 * Clearly we are dealing with one (who fits all criteria to a tee), maybe two disruptive editors. It's best to not respond to their edits, revert their edits to article page when against consensus (note consensus is not unanimity), and alert http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct and escalate to arbcom as necessary upon further rules violations.  It's time to put a stop to this endless circle.  Tendancer 05:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, my post does not address the "individuals" - it addresses their editorial contributions. As for "taunting", that adjective may well be applied to the post I was responding to. Please, note that I did provide citations from reliable sources for many of User:Bus stop's assertations on the AFD discussion page. User:Bus stop does not appear to be editing the article, only discussing possible changes on the article's discussion page. It is not an "endless loop" as Bus stop continues to present new policy driven arguments for his view. In light of your prior history of editorial disagreements with User:Bus stop and myself, the nuetrality of your remarks might easily be called into question. I am familiar with WP:DE and I believe that several editors may fit the bill in this dispute. There is no concensus, as several editors have expressed some level of support for User:Bus stop's views. Cleo123 06:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would very much welcome knowing which specific individual you so clearly indicated was acting inappropriately above. Also, as you seem to indicate that you want a written record of the dispute, as per the above, I personally have no objections myself to having that record reviewed. Actually, I intend to do so almost immediately after completing this message. John Carter 13:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Cleo -- There is nothing "emotional" at all about what I'm saying. Contrived parameters of an article constitute advertising. WP:ADVERT describes 3 types of "wikispam." This article contains clear notes of the first type that they cite. That type is, an "advertisement masquerading as an article." This particular article is certainly not, in it's entirety, an "advertisement masquerading as an article." But we have to not overlook Christianity's penchant for proselytization. Proselytization and advertising certainly are similar. They both have a "product to sell." The reason why this article is advertising is because it has contrived to use parameters that don't naturally apply. The parameters that the editors have chosen for this list are illogical, but they are the parameters chosen because those parameters help to "sell" the "product." One need only look at the parameters found at the "sister" article, list of converts to Judaism, to see perfectly normal and simple parameters. Of course, Judaism doesn't have a product to sell. Judaism, by and large, doesn't proselytize. So Judaism has no need to concoct weird parameters. The list of converts to Judaism is not trying to inflate it's contents. The list of converts to Judaism is not trying to get "superstars" onto it's list. The parameters chosen by the list of converts to Judaism simply reflect the dispassionate aim of assembling that collection of Jews who became Jews by means of conversion. Contrast that with the parameters that the editors have chosen for the list of converts to Christianity. The editors of the "Christian" list have decided upon parameters that will include an incalculably larger number of people. And getting to the real point, their contrived parameters will get the aim of their contrived parameters onto their list, one gentleman named Bob Dylan. The parameters chosen for the list of converts to Christianity are: "all those who have ever converted to Christianity. By ever, the editors want us to accept that Bob Dylan belongs on a list of converts to Christianity. Is this not advertising? Get a superstar to endorse your product? Set up weird situations where a viewer of the advertisement will view your product in a positive light? It is not the purpose of an encyclopedia to push a point of view. Contriving the parameters of a list to get your desired results, in this case anyway, represents a corruption of what is ostensibly an encyclopedia -- an objective collection of information, with no particular spin put on the information contained therein.

A list of converts (to any religion) should be a list of those people who have arrived at that religion by way of conversion. The only other way of arriving at Christian identity is by way of being born a Christian. The same applies to Judaism. There are only two ways of becoming a Jew. A person can either be born a Jew, or convert to Judaism. Let's not complicate things. Editors in this argument have been throwing all kinds of irrelevancies around in an attempt to obfuscate this issue. These lists are at bottom lists of people who have arrived at their religious identity by way of conversion. They are not lists of those people who have ever flirted with the identity of that religion. That is a contrivance to get Bob Dylan onto the list of converts to Christianity. That constitutes point of view pushing. Those contrived parameters are in violation of WP:ADVERT. Those contrived parameters also violate WP:NOT. We are not to create collections of indiscriminate pieces of information. The information that the contrived parameters would collect would indeed be indiscriminate. And of course, no editor is looking for anyone else who has ever converted to Christianity. Bob Dylan is enough. Getting Bob Dylan onto the list is the reason for the contrivance in the first place. It should be noted that Bob Dylan was on this list at it's inception, in January of 2006. But at that time the contrived parameters had not yet been articulated. It is only in response to numerous challenges to the illogic of placing a Jew on a list of Christians that the editors of this article have had to claim that, no, it is not the obvious list that the reader would expect it to be.

The passionate need for proselytization is as likely explained by emotionalism as my insistence on clear and logical parameters for articles. It is on principle that I oppose the thwarting of Wikipedia's natural purpose. That is not what is meant by "emotions." Subterfuge should never be employed for advertising purposes on Wikipedia articles. That is acceptable outside of the context of an encyclopedia. When someone encounters an advertisement, they do not assume objectivity. We know that in an advertisement every reasonable contrivance has been employed to make that product acceptable to us. To do the same thing on Wikipedia represents a subversion of Wikipedia's principles. The discrepancy between the parameters of the list of converts to Judaism and the list of converts to Christianity is only explainable by the religions' differing approaches to proselytization. That is not a good reason to undermine an encyclopedia's objectivity. It is an unseemly thing to do.

Thanks for your defense of my position in relation to this article, Cleo. I just wanted to clarify that I am really not emotional about this. It is reasoning that leads me to the conclusions I reach. I think the sound principles behind my arguments are something that any objective reader will see if they give any attention to this matter.

By the way, I don't believe any editor here has offered any explanation as to why the list of converts to Christianity needs the expanded parameters that it has. It's parameters go beyond the obvious. It's parameters go beyond the parameters chosen by the list of converts to Judaism. Altering criteria in a list of parameters to capture a wider field of people who fit those criteria seems manipulative and seems like a contrivance to me, and I do not believe any editor has offered any explanation for the particular parameters chosen for this article at present. The fact that no editor has tried to explain or defend what I am referring to as contrived parameters is all the more indication to me that they are just that -- contrived parameters. Bus stop 06:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The big item of contrast with this article is that the list of converts to Judaism doesn't have to make the assertion that "this is an article containing all those notable Christians who ever converted to Christianity." The list of converts to Judaism does not compile "anyone who ever converted to Judaism." That is a clear distinction between the two lists. The "Jewish" list can clearly make the following statement at the top of that list:


 * Jew list


 * The above is what at present actually sits at the top of the Jewish list. An entry on this list can therefore be challenged on the grounds of not being a Jew. Concerning living people, this is important. This is a list. It is not an article written in prose such as the Bob Dylan article. A person is either on such a list or off such a list. An article such as the Bob Dylan article can go into descriptions that adequately couch the meaning of the events of Dylan's Christian phase in language that doesn't misconstrue it's import. The list can't possibly do that. The list of converts to Christianity uses parameters that make it much more difficult to challenge the placement of a person, especially a living person, on that list. A person's placement on the list of converts to Christianity can't even be challenged on the grounds that they are not indeed a Christian, but in fact are a Jew. I find this a facile avoidance of the obvious meanings of these lists. And since the list of converts to Christianity is a part of the Wikipedia Christianity project, which editors do you think hold sway over what goes on this list and what does not go on this list? At least in the case of the list of converts to Judaism the possibility of such abuse is ruled out, by the clear declarative statement at the top of the article stating in part, '"This page is a list of Jews."


 * Also involved in all of this is transgression of WP:NOT. I can try to assume good faith, but I can not overlook the contrivances employed here. To my way of thinking, the contrived parameters, at odds with the parameters employed by the list of converts to Judaism, constitute "propaganda," and "advocacy," specifically ruled out by WP:NOT. This is the wording that Wikipedia policy uses:


 * Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.


 * "Neutral point of view" is being ignored when you blithely reconfigure parameters to get your desired results. I can try to assume good faith but a simple comparison between the parameters of the list of converts to Christianity and the list of converts to Judaism indicates that there is a contrivance going on here, and that is something I have every right to raise as an issue and complain about. Bus stop 15:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The statement above to the effect that "no one has bothered to explain the parameters" is either a flat misstatement or an indication that the above user has not read any of the comments directed toward him. I also note that the List of Jews to which he refers itself goes to some effort to indicate who specifically qualifies for inclusion as Jews and why, so saying that it is clear and unambiguous, when it goes to some effort to explain itself, is interesting. If it were clear and unambiguous, why would any explanation be necessary? In fact, the page Who is a Jew? which is used to define who qualifies as a Jew, is itself flagged as at least possibly violating NPOV and being unsourced. I know that I did try to define them. The parameters are simply that all notable conversions which are themselves notable (defined by being noted in the media and other generally reliable sources) qualify for inclusion have been spelled out before. Again, there has been significant verbiage used to try to explain to him that it is impossible to know when and if a person "reconverts" to Judaism, as is his essentail argument, and it would require a definite statement of a specific POV to reject the inclusion of any person who has not clearly and explicitly further converted to some other faith system. Such a POV statement is itself a clear and explicit violation of wikipedia guidelines, particularly as, in this case, the subsequent statements made by the party himself are at best ambiguous. Again, for all the verbiage wasted by the above user in specifically trying to avoid answering direct points raised by others regarding his own conclusions, I find it extremely amusing to note that seemingly it may be because he himself never actually reads (or at least notes) any of the arguments raised against him. And I note that his very actions qualify his own activity to date as disruptive editing, as per the guidelines above. John Carter 21:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * John Carter -- Is there any reason the list of converts to Christianity does not employ the same criteria that the list of converts to Judaism employs? Are the criteria employed by the list of converts to Judaism just too simple and straightforward? The list of converts to Judaism simply distinguishes between those who have arrived at Judaism by way of conversion, and those who have arrived by way of being born Jewish. The list of converts to Judaism does not try to tackle the issue of a transitory phase that is no longer applicable to a living person. Why does the list of converts to Christianity try to tackle such an ambitious project as assembling a list of all those notable people who have ever converted to Christianity? That set of parameters were only articulated after Dylan's presence on the list was challenged by those who rightly pointed out that there exists evidence for Dylan's recent involvement in Orthodox Jewish religious practices, such as the observance of the Jewish Sabbath, and participation in Jewish religious holidays as found on the Jewish calendar. There is even a popularly displayed picture of Dylan wearing "phylacteries" and the traditional Jewish "skullcap." Phylacteries, for those who don't know, are a totally arcane Jewish ritualistic adornment worn on the head and the arm. I'm sure you or other editors will respond that the phylacteries are not necessarily Jewish in orientation. Aren't you and other editors "biting off more than you can chew" in trying to compile a list using the parameters that I claim are contrived parameters? Why isn't it the simple and straightforward aim of the list of converts to Christianity to compile a list of those who arrived at Christian identity by way of conversion? That is a simple aim for a list. That is the problem that the "Jewish" list chose for itself. In fact, those were the parameters that the list of converts to Christianity had for their parameters before Dylan's presence on the list was challenged. Then it's editors claimed that, oh no, it is the list of those who have ever converted to Christianity. I find that a contrivance. I find that in basic violation of Wikipedia's most basic neutality policy. If the list presently had Dylan on it as a practicing Christian I would have no problem with it. The fact of the matter is that is anything but the case. Yet there are editors here insisting that someone who is clearly Jewish belongs on a list of Christians. They feel that they can accomplish that by articulating criteria that includes a transitory phase in a person's life. I don't accept that because it is a contrivance. It is a contrivance because it is not simple and straightforward. Even if there is wording explaining the technical reason for inclusion, which you formerly referred to as your "disclaimer," the impression that one gets is that Dylan is a convert to Christianity. I am not emotional. But I am not unaware of the history of relations between Jews and Christians. Jews have been forced to convert to Christianity. Basic tenets of the two religions conflict. Christianity places emphasis, on the Messiah-ship of Jesus Christ. The Jews, on the other hand, do not accept that Jesus Christ was the Messiah. These are not negligible differences. One does not run roughshod over such differences, not in an encyclopedia anyway. Bus stop 22:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that the template of who qualifies as Christian, similar to that used of the Jew list, has now been added to the article. Please also note that according to the terms of use on the page used to define Christian, that at least one acceptable use, that used in the Muslim world, identifies anyone in the Western countries as being "Christian". I also note that these terms are no more or less "contrived" (that is, artificially created), at least in my eyes, as those on the page Who Is a Jew?. Personally, I cannot see how one can reasonably challenge one such definition without, in accord with POV, challenging them all. And, should any one be challenged, in the interests of fairness, I at least will challenge them all. John Carter 14:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

John Carter -- You have added the following template:

Christian list

Dylan is not a Christian, therefore it is time to remove Dylan from the list, correct? Or are you going to argue that Dylan is a Christian? Bus stop 15:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You can read, can't you? As I indicated in my above post, Dylan clearly does qualify as Christian by the parameters of discussion. Please refrain from attempting to rephrase everyone else's statements to apparently support your own contention, and actually respond to comments made by others. Or is it the case that you actually don't read what anyone else writes? I try not to use hard words, if that's the problem. ;) 16:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * John Carter -- Dylan not only doesn't "qualify as Christian," he is not a Christian. His brief sojourn with Christianity most definitely does not make him a Christian. That stage in his life has passed. How do you figure he would be a Christian today? He was born a Jew. He has been practicing the Jewish religion since his long ago and brief sojourn with the Christian religion. By what reasoning do you consider him a Christian? By the way, yes, I can read. Please try to tell me -- by what stretch of the imagination do you see Dylan as a Christian today? Bus stop 17:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Show me where on the page referenced in the list template it makes any specific reference to any individual's current status. You are once again trying to get an answer to a question which you have specifically rephrased for your own benefit which is, ultimately, irrelevant to the content of the article. I have no more obligation to directly answer your question than you have had in answering anyone else's direct questions. So, I hope you can see I am using your own lack of response here as my guideline for conduct in answering your questions. If you want a direct answer to your question, please start directly responding to the questions and comments others have made above. :) John Carter 17:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

John Carter -- You added the template at the top of the article list of converts to Christianity which reads, This page is a list of Christians. Since Dylan is not a Christian then he obviously should be removed. Or, are you going to argue that Dylan is a Christian? Otherwise the name should not be on the list of converts to Christianity. I will be removing it within a reasonable period of time if there is no explanation for this apparent contradiction. Please do not resort to the sort of ganging up that you and several other editors have resorted to in the past. There is no justification for such a blatant contradiction. It is you who added the tag stating that only Christians are on this list. I was arguing that Dylan should not be on the list because you (and/or other editors) have contrived the parameters in order to include "all those notable people who ever converted to Christianity. But now you have apparently removed that contrivance. Now your list simply reads, This page is a list of Christians. You have completely changed the argument. The argument is no longer about contrived parameters. The argument is now about contradiction. The contradiction is that since Dylan is a Jew he can not possibly qualify for a page that is a list of Christians.

Are you hoping to get me blocked according to the three revert rule? Is that your plan? Are we going to see a rerun of the ganging up mentality in the face of a blatant contradiction that I am trying to correct? If Dylan is not a Christian then he has no place on this list. Bus stop 19:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The template indicates what the definition of Christian is. IF you read it, you'd notice that. Again, I asked you to show me where the linked-to article specifically mentions current status. Again, you have failed to respond to a direct request. At this point, I think it is a reasonable question to wonder whether you factually are capable of doing so. However, as stated before, I will respond to your direct request when you show the same civility in responding directly to the comments and questions you have so far avoided answering. :) John Carter 19:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

John Carter -- Why don't you just say what is on your mind? Do you know how to present your opinion in a straightforward manner? Why are you challenging me to figure out what you are trying to say? If you think you have a point to make, why don't you just articulate your point of view? If you have an argument that you think is valid, why don't you just articulate it? I am looking at the superficial meaning of the wording of the template. Are you saying there is some deeper meaning? Are you saying it links to something that modifies it's superficial meaning? If that is what you think, then say so. I am judging this on basic superficial meanings, and I have no idea what secondary meanings you may have in mind. I am not enthusiastic about wading through obfuscation. Just say what is on your mind. Please stop playing coy games and present your argument, if any argument exists. As it stands what I see is a blatant contradiction that needs to be addressed. I have to assume you would be more than thrilled to have me remove Bob Dylan from the list so that you and the very small but very tight clique of editors hailing from the Wikipedia Christianity project can revert me and then report me for a technical infraction. It is obvious that a small, dedicated clique can exercise control over this article (list of converts to Christianity) even in the face of blatant contradiction, not to mention point of view pushing. The Bob Dylan inclusion is in violation of several Wikipedia policies, not to mention the basic human prohibition against pointless contradiction.

Today you added the template stating that only Christians are on the list. That template's statement is presently in contradiction with Dylan's presence on the list. Bus stop 20:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I was not challenging you to try to figure out what I was saying. I was providing a direct link to the article Christian which spells out the meaning of the word, and, by extension, who it does and does not apply to. Also, the new template was created to as it were respond to your contention above that the article did not "spell out" its parameters and scope, like the Jew list does. Please note that, with the addition of the template, it now does. I have asked you twice already to specifically indicate to me exactly where you believe that you are justified in your statement that Dylan does not "qualify" for inclusion. To date, you have failed to do so. Instead, you make such non-responsive and somewhat difficult to understand statements as the one above. I ask once again for you to specifically tell me exactly why you believe that a person who has according to reliable sources been baptized into Christianity does not qualify as a Christian. Please respond directly to this point. John Carter 00:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * John Carter -- Does your coquettish ruse serve any editorial purpose, or do you just have no respect for Wikipedia, or encyclopedias in general? I believe I've responded to any questions you might have asked me. If there really was a question you asked me that I didn't address, how come you haven't asked it again? I notice in the several posts above that you are complaining about my failure to answer some question or questions that you asked, and yet I don't see you posing those questions again. That to me indicates you are not quite editorially on the level. I have to say that I think you ought to be ashamed of yourself for insisting that a Jewish person be included on a list of Christians. And it is you, today, who added the tag to the article which states that, "This page is a list of Christians." Is it that you don't care if an encyclopedia contains a contradiction? The only other possibility I can think of is that you think Dylan is a Christian. If that is what you think, why don't you just say that, so that the conversation can move on from there? Bus stop 01:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of template from article page
As per the discussion here, I have removed the template Christianity from this article page. John Carter 17:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed project to deal with inter-religious issues
There are a number of articles which seem to deal with issues which cannot be competently handled by editors who, however well meaning, may not have the knowledge required to be able to address all the issues involved. Unfortunately, all the WikiProjects which deal with religious subjects deal primarily with a single faith tradition, and will as a result have comparatively few people competent to address matters regarding other faiths. This is clearly a contentious and difficult matter, but it seems to me personally to be one that is likely to be faced possibly more frequently than any of us would necessarily like. I have thus proposed that there be a specific WikiProject or subproject to deal with articles with content of this type. Any parties who would be interested in working on such content will find the proposal at WikiProject Council/Proposals. I understand that many of you would find me less than qualified to join such a group, but I would be more than willing to remove my name from the list were such requested by the majority of other editors who respond on that page. Thank you for your attention. John Carter 19:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)