Talk:List of converts to Judaism/Archive 1

Names Requiring Full Articles for Re-Inclusion in the Main Page
The following are the names that are still not sufficiently documented as a standalone article. Since my own effort is being delayed by the proof editing on my book, and will not likely resume until April, I am moving the names here. Diviama has expressed concern that each listed name requires a separate article before inclusion on the main page. I have expressed concern that removing the names entirely will hamper the effort to create those very articles. Moving them here keeps the names available for other editors (solving my concern) and does not leave them hanging with empty links on the main page (solving Diviama's concern).

I hope to resume my efforts in early to mid April, and other editors are welcome (and encouraged!) to help.Tim (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Please create articles for these persons if possible in accordance with Notability_(people).

Christian Proselyte Communities

 * Veracruz Jews

From Christianity

 * Mary Hart (1950 - ) American television personality, long-time host of the entertainment program Entertainment Tonight upon marrying Burt Sugarman
 * Baruch James (helped in translating part of the Talmud in English also in his youth he thought of someday becoming a minister)
 * Paula Winkler (Paula Buber), German writer (upon marrying Martin Buber)

Former Christian clergy and Christian theologians

 * Andrew/Andreas, the Archbishop of Bari, a city in Southern Italy, declared himself a Jew upon a journey to Constantinople in 1066 and subsequentally fled to Egypt.
 * Wecelin, a cleric who worked for Duke Conrad of Carinthia, accepted Judaism sometime about 1005. There is written evidence that Wecelin published a brief tract against Christianity. Wecelin, who may have fled to Egypt, is only one of many 11th century converts described in the Cairo Genizah.
 * Cornelio Da Montalcino, (a Franciscan friar who had embraced Judaism, and was burned alive on the Campo dei Fiori.)
 * Dionis (former priest)

1900's to present

 * JoAnn Fay, a nun converted to Judaism in 1980. (Orthodox Judaism)
 * John David Scalamonti (former Roman Catholic priest) converted in 1972  (Orthodox Judaism) Official book at Amazon.comOfficial book at Barnes and Noble
 * John Hove (former Lutheran pastor) converted to Judaism in 1988 (Orthodox Judaism)
 * Sheldon Christopher Smith former Pentacostal Pastor converted to Judaism in 1987

1990's to 2000's

 * Thomas Roper (ex-baptist minister) (Orthodox Judaism)
 * Gavriel Sanders former evengelical minister and missionary in Israel. Mark Sanders ultimately converted to (Orthodox Judaism).  He served on staff with Jews for Judaism before moving to the East Coast
 * Tonica Marlow former female evangelical minister and daughter of a Pentecostal preacher (Orthodox Judaism)Official book
 * Aharón Calderón (former monk of a Catholic monastery in South America) (Orthodox Judaism)
 * Armando Quiros former catholic priest (Orthodox Judaism) Official book
 * Julie Galambush former American Baptist Minister (Orthodox Judaism)
 * Michael Flanagan former Baptist minister, his mother-in-law, wife and their two adult sons, grandchildren, daughter-in-law also converted (Orthodox Judaism)
 * Ahuva Gray served as a Christian minister in the African American community both in Chicago and Los Angeles for fourteen years. She left that world in 1996 to fulfill her spiritual yearnings and become a Jew. (Orthodox Judaism) Official Website Official book
 * Nobutaka Hattori former Protestant Minister of Japan (Orthodox Judaism)
 * Carlos Samuel Salas, former Methodist minister (Orthodox Judaism)
 * Abraham Carmel (former Anglican and Roman Catholic priest) (Orthodox Judaism) Official book
 * Mariano Otero a former South Florida-based former Pentacostal minister is now a counter-missionary
 * Timothy Olivieri Former Catholic Deacon to Reform Judaism
 * Jack Saunders, a former minister
 * Carole Le Faivre-Rochester, a former Domican nun, she converted to Judaism in 1989

From Buddhism
Yitzhak Fanger (reverted to Judaism, was a former Buddhist Priest and Monk now a Haredi rabbi) (Orthodox Judaism)

I wouldn't define someone like this individual a "convert to Judaism". Reading his bio from the link provided, he is described as Israeli born and raised, from a Jewish family, albeit secular. He practiced Buddhism for many years (like many secular Jews from Israel and the Diaspora who are attracted to Eastern spirituality) served as a Buddhist priest and then returned to Judaism and became ultra-Orthodox. According to the standards of Judaism, as he was born Jewish he didn't have to "convert" back, he remained Jewish even when he practiced Buddhism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.246.169 (talk) 06:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

From Shintō

 * Setzuso Kotsuji (son of a prominent Shinto priest, descended from a long-line of well-known priests.) is a convert to Orthodox Judaism)

Converted or not?
Saul of Tarsus was not a convert to Judaism. He describes himself as 'a Hebrew of Hebrews, of the tribe of Benjamin' (Romans 11:1) (Phillippians 3:5). DJ Clayworth 19:25, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The article you link to refers to a statement by a scholar who believes he was indeed a convert to Judaism. If this belief is so marginal that practically no Biblical scholar takes it seriously, then it should be removed from that page as well. On the other hand, if it's regarded as a serious theory, then Paul should be reinserted into the list here. As the introductory text states, it's not just for confirmed converts, but those who are "believed to be" converts. Psychonaut 19:51, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * As far as I can determine this belief is pretty marginal, but not quite so out there that it is ridiculous. It's a theory held by a very small minority. Putting Paul back in this list would certainly give the wrong impression. I'm going to go and rework the Paul article a little. DJ Clayworth 15:05, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Descended from proselytes
According to Maimonides, Avtalyon, Meir & Shemaya were descended from proselytes (i.e. weren't converts themselves). Udzu 19:54, 8 June 2004 (UTC)

Consuelo Luz
Did Consuelo Luz really convert to Judaism, or has she just become more aware of her Jewish roots? Udzu 22:59, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jethro - a convert?
I find it curious that Jethro is listed as a convert. I have never heard that before. The book of Exodus identifies him as a "priest of Midian" - an identity he kept. He visited but did not join the Israelites on their flight from Egypt - after meeting Moses and worshipping with him, he went back to his own people. (See Exodus 18.27). Had he converted, I think he would have joined the Jewish people and stayed with them - after all, his own daughter had done so.

The fact that he acknowledged the God of Moses and worshiped him does not necessarily mean that he converted to Judaism. Judaism teaches that one may truly worship God without converting, and does not regard all worshippers and fellow-travellers as converts. In the book of Acts, Paul distinguished between "Jews" and "God-fearing Gentiles."

Jethro's worship of the same God as Moses is not really surprising, either, given that the Midianites, like the Jews, were descendants of Abraham (see Genesis 18). Only about 3 or 4 generations had passed since Abraham's time, so many of the basic beliefs that Abraham had would have been preserved intact. David Cannon 21:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you're right. Jethro is portrayed as a 'righteous gentile', not a convert. Juko 21:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * PS What about Abraham and Sarah? Not an ethnic conversion like Ruth ("thy people shall be my people"), but a conversion...

Hi, according to the commentary of Rashi based on other sources of Midrash (part of classical Judaism's Oral Law. Jethro was indeed a convert, as was his daughter Zipporah the wife of Moses. So yes, according to Jewish tradition, Jethro was a convert, even more reliably so than Sammy Davis and Elizabeth Taylor who would not recognized as such by Orthodox Judaism then or now. P.S. What's an "ethnic conversion"? There is NO such thing in Judaism! And yes, Abraham, Sarah, and Ruth are all real converts, by accepting the faith, or religion, in full of what we now know as Judaism. IZAK 09:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * If you don't know what I'm referring to by "ethnic conversion" then how do you know that there's NO such thing? :-) I was simply noting that from Ruth onwards, converting to Judaism has necessarily involved not just accepting the Jewish faith but also embracing and becoming part of the Jewish people ("thy people shall be my people"). Abraham and Sarah's conversion saw the creation of the covenant that proselytes seek to enter, and was uniquely personal. Ruth is held as the archetypal convert precisely because her conversion also encompassed the "ethnic" element. Juko 11:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Claire Danes
Does anyone know if she has converted to Judaism? She was going to convert to Judaism when she had a relationship with an actor called Ben Lee. But they have broken up and now she is dating Billy Crudup. So, I want to know if she ended up converting to Judaism or not, PMLF 03:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Abraham and Sarah
Abraham and Sarah, while leaving their pagan roots, did not convert to Judaism. They were only proto-jews. Judaism didn't exist until centuries afterwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.20.213 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Removals
I removed the former converts section per a request. I also removed Shyne for lack of sources. The source given was a deadlink. I've kept Marilyn Monroe and Jim Croce, for now, as their cases seem a bit debatable. It's unclear if they stayed in Judaism, but it's also unclear if they left.--T. Anthony 20:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I restored the former converts. "Per a request" is not a reason for removal that I understand, and those entries seem to fit well.  Mango juice talk 20:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Judaism proselytizes?
Judaism proselytizes? Endless sources say that Judaism doesn't proselytize. Yet one editor repeatedly inserts the opposite statement, based on one source that only refers to "welcoming" converts, and even at that, mostly the non-Jewish spouses in already existing marriages. This is at least an undue weight issue, if not a complete mischaracterization. Furthermore it is irrelevant to this article, which is a list of converts to Judaism. This article need not pass comment whatsoever on whether or not Judaism is a proselytizing religion. The mandate of this article is just to list converts to Judaism, nothing more. Everything else is speechification. Bus stop 15:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"Orthodox" Judaism
Is it really appropriate to make this distinction in the article? Such qualifiers can take us far afield, as in stating the specific Orthodox community that the convert joined, distinguishing between Reform and Reconstructionist, Conservative, etc. In my view, we should simply state they converted in this list, and then describe their conversion history - if it is known and sourced - in the biographical article. I somehow doubt that anyone would use Wikipedia as a source for determining what type of conversion we're talking about, so this distinction seems potentially divisive where it doesn't need to be. --Leifern (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia is used as a source for some of the strangest things.... Phil_burnstein (talk) 03:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Idumeans
Others dispute the account of the forced conversion of the Idumeans to Judaism, Strabo, a non-Jewish historian says the Idumeans circumcised themselves as a part of an alliance shared by the common custom of circumcision idumeans+bond+of+circumcision  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Java7837 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Then you can put that the reason for their conversion is disputed, but that's no reason to remove it since a considerable amount of sources also say that John Hyrcanus forced the conversion. Divamia (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Strabo, never mentions that Idumeans converted just that they were circumcised, all Roman scholars of the time, say the same thing, Josephus Flavius, is the only person that says the Idumeans were converted. --Java7837 (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The Jewish Encyclopedia is a highly reliable source. If you can get other secondary sources that dispute the account, then please provide them here. You also deleted the other account about Dhu Nawas sourced to William Muir. I don't think your argument in saying that the source is outdated is valid, since there are probably no new developments to this historical event. But if you insist, I've added another source anyway. Divamia (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * strabo+idumeans+judaism
 * Idumeans+Judaism
 * Even Encyclopedia Brittanica merely interprets the event to relate to circumcision. Also of note is that the Latin language does't have a word for conversion!--Java7837 (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you should add the sources to the footnote rather than remove the entire incident from the list. Divamia (talk) 01:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Why
why does this topic deserve a wiki page??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.251.214.120 (talk) 01:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Clergy
Not every element of an article needs to meet the requirements for a separate article. This is an article of converts to Judaism. Sammy Davis Jr. is notable because he is a singer. The fact that he converted is incidental. He warrants a separate article and a passing comment here. Gavriel Sanders and Asher Wade, on the other hand, may not merit separate articles. But as Christian clergy who converted to Judaism they certainly merit the notability standards for this particular article -- that is, it is NOTABLE when a member of the clergy converts to a different religion. I personally know several of the people you eliminated, and one of the people you did not. So far as notability is concerned, the two that you deleted are far more notable in Jewish circles than the one you did not. The one you left is a great guy. Don't get me wrong. I've spent a shabbat with him and think the world of him. But he is less notable in Jewish circles than two others you eliminated.Tim (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you point to a policy or guideline that supports your argument? I don't see any non-notable clergypersons (who do not have their own articles) in either the Christianity or Islam conversion lists. If you read the notability guidelines, you'll see that they state:
 * Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people ).
 * Your own experiences are anecdotal, and unless the people in this list merit their own article here, they don't merit inclusion in lists that they might be relevant to either. I did not delete entries based on whether or not I knew them to be notable, but rather my criterion was whether they had articles. Divamia (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So make articles for them, but do not delete people like Asher Wade and Gavriel Sanders -- who are very much in demand as speakers worldwide on this subject, and leave David Weiss who is not. David is a great guy, but he was born Jewish and spends his time writing movies (like Shrek 2).  Wade and Sanders are notable on this subject.  Weiss is not.  My experience isn't merely anecdotal.  Do some research on the speaking schedules of these people on the subject of conversion to Judaism and you see that your notability practices are completely reversed from reality.Tim (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't intend to take upon the duty of writing articles on these particular subjects, but if you want these people listed here, then I welcome you to do so. So far I have been able to back up my "notability practices" with guidelines and precedents at other similar articles. Besides, Wikipedia is not concerned with reality, it's concerned with verifiability. Divamia (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * We are required to not lie, also. The guidelines are not meant to warp reality the way you are doing.  David Weiss is NOT more notable as a clergy convert to Judaism than Asher Wade and Gavriel Sanders.  First, he isn't a gentile convert.  He was born Jewish and returned to the faith.  He is a Baal Teshuvah.  Second, he isn't clergy.  He was a lay minister, which is entirely different.  Finally, he isn't notable for this.  He is notable for his hollywood work.  The guidelines are meant to keep things real, and it is wrong to make them do the opposite.  Do I need to make an article on every single person?  That's absurd.  This article is enough.Tim (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not concerned with any single person, such as David Weiss, so I don't know why your arguments are centering around him. Neither am I warping reality. You will need to prove notability for people in this list, and you can do that by creating articles that are not likely to be deleted. Divamia (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * To require a full article for every ELEMENT in every article before that element can be included in any article would require Wikipedia to be empty until it was infinite. Your practice is entirely illogical.  And your lack of concern for reality violates the purpose of Wikipedia.  We cannot use the ruleset to create misdirection.  That's not what they were there for.Tim (talk) 11:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The conversion lists for Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sikhism all generally don't have anybody within the list unless they have their own article. Sorry, but this particular list isn't going to get any special treatment and there is no misdirection being created by omitting these non-notable people. Divamia (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You're not even following your own rules. GEZA VERMES????  You deleted Geza Vermes and left David Weiss?  The only answer is that you aren't familiar with the subject.  There's nothing wrong with unfamiliarity, but it's really poor form to woodenly apply some ruleset on a subject you aren't familiar with, without bothering to do a little research.  Look -- if you insist, we'll make articles on these people.  I personally think that's not necessary, but if you feel it is, fine -- do some research and help out.  While you do the research you'll understand how completely backwards the deletion of Geza Vermes is when you leave David Weiss in.  Heck -- you'll even laugh about it afterward.Tim (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Do both of us a favor and read the Geza Vermes article and the David Weiss article. Then, honestly answer the question of which is more notable on this subject.  Then, in light of your answer, answer a second question: if you were going to delete only one of them, which would you delete?  Take a breather for a moment and realize that your application of the ruleset you are quoting is not benefiting the article, but detracting from it.  There are better solutions than your initial one, and I'm willing to explore them with you.  But, for goodness sake, take a hard look at what you were doing, and catch up on the subject.Tim (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I only deleted those persons with an article by accident. The rest of those without an article have been deleted, and when you have created articles for them, by all means add them back. Divamia (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think you get it -- your methodology is wrong. Geza Vermes had no link.  Asher Wade had no article.  You didn't delete them by accident.  You deleted them by flawed methodology.  Wikipedia does not need us to write a book worth of articles before writing a single article.  That's flawed.Tim (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Flawed methodology? Maybe you'd like to explain why all the conversion lists use the same methodology, and why the notability guidelines state that notability does limit the content of lists of people. You have addressed neither of these arguments. Please stop adding these people until you can demonstrate their notability by creating articles for them, or escalate this to some sort of mediation. Divamia (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[reset]The notability is the fact that they are CLERGY who have converted to Judaism. A Rabbi who converts to Christianity is notable for that reason -- if for nothing else. That makes THIS the article that demonstrates the notability. Making more articles is a waste of Wikispace. The fact that you left David Weiss and deleted Geza Vermes demonstrates the flawed methodology.Tim (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Gaza Vermes is now still in the article, so what exactly are you talking about? A religious leader converting to another religion is certainly out of the norm, but it doesn't necessarily make them notable. If your arguments were valid, we would such a lot more of such people in other conversion-related lists. That simply isn't the case. I don't know why you edit as if this list deserves special treatment. Divamia (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You're operating on a false assumption. Professional clergy from Judaism have not converted to Christianity in anything like the proportions cited -- and sourced -- in this article.  Further, Geza Vermes demonstrates your flawed methodology.  Learn from it.Tim (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter. If other conversion lists were going on your criteria, they would have more clergy. I'm 100% sure of that. This is a list of notable converts, not notable conversions of people who themselves are not notable. Divamia (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * These people are notable BECAUSE they converted. Can you sit there with a straight face and tell me that Abraham the Monk is notable for anything other than conversion?  That's true for most on this section of the list.  It is a notable thing for professional clergy to convert to another religion.  I understand that you have an opinion that other lists would be longer if they included the same criteria.  Perhaps -- but not by much.  Conversion of Christian clergy to Judaism is a historic phenomenon unparalleled between any two other religions.  To this day I've only read one bio of a Rabbi who converted to Christianity.  They are very hard to find.  I'm sure there has to be more than one.  I'd like to know.  This is a notable thing.Tim (talk) 10:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, if you really feel that these people all need separate articles, by all means, I will help you for the sake of civility. But this edit warring needs to stop.  It's counter productive.  I don't know what your agenda is, but these people are not going away.  So -- if you have some profound need for expansion, we can work together.  But they aren't going to be swept under the rug.  I looked for YEARS for these very people, and couldn't find them until they appeared on Wikipedia.  This IS a notable phenomenon in both Christian and Jewish circles.  There's an old skit song in the Boy Scouts: can't go under it, can't go round it, gotta go through it.  Okay -- neither one of us is satisfied with our primary choices.  You want to erase the phenomenon and I want to save Wiki space (and both of our time).  Okay, so we won't get our first choice.  What's the second?  Expansion?  Can we at least discuss the merits of it first?  That is: discuss before destroy (that's the minimal requisite for good faith here).Tim (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So you admit yourself that, for many of these people, their conversion to another religion while being clergy of their former religion is the only exceptional thing about them. Discussing this with you seems fruitless at this point, because you seem to want to ignore any precedents set at other articles, as well as guidelines. I will be taking this issue to 3rd parties for their opinion. Divamia (talk) 11:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I admit that conversion of clergy to Judaism IS a notable thing. I also point out that you delete people like Geza Vermes and leave Abraham the Monk under a flawed methodology.  You can escalate the warfare if you like, or we can look for second options.  Ultimately these people will be here.  Whether they need to ALSO be in separate articles too is something I'm willing to discuss and work with.  But if that is the ultimate end you insist on, you are detracting from that ultimate end by your insistence on edit warring.  Please stop.  Practice good faith here.  Seriously -- please explain HOW Abraham the Monk (who you NEVER deleted) is in any way more notable than Geza Vermes who you deleted at least six times?Tim (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop using red herring arguments. The only reason I previously deleted Gaza Vermes previously was because there was no link to his article. When a link was established, I stopped deleting it. Quite simple really. Divamia (talk) 11:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You deleted him because you didn't think Geza Vermes was as notable as Abraham the Monk -- which SERIOUSLY calls into question why you are editing this page at all. I don't edit pages on subjects I don't know anything about, other than a grammatical or spelling correction that's an obvious typo.  And I CERTAINLY wouldn't dream of vandalizing them.  I've asked you to explain your thoughts, and you keep going back to robotic arguments like "he didn't have a link."  That would be fine if you were a robot, but you aren't.  You're a human being.  So, I ask -- what is your agenda?  I've offered compromises and you keep going back to edit warring.  Discuss, please.  Explain yourself.  If I understand what you want, and if it meets Wikipedia standards, I may be able to help you out.Tim (talk) 11:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * However robotic it may seem, that is the truth and you'll have to accept it. I only deleted the entry because I thought he didn't have an article. You'll notice that I have not deleted entries like Azizus, because I believe entries such as his are simply without an article due to the fact that Wikipedia is not complete. Clergy, on the other hand, are not people I believe are automatically qualified to be listed here. You insist that I keep on going back to edit warring. I will not edit the article again until we have third party opinions, but you also have to realize that it takes two to tango. Divamia (talk) 11:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Why in the world would Geza Vermes not have an article? That's an assumption someone would make only if he were completely unfamiliar with the subject.  And, if so, why are you editing on this subject?  Pick one you are familiar with.  But that's not the only problem: "Clergy" [who convert to Judaism], "on the other hand, are not people I believe are automatically qualified to be listed here" [on a list of clergy who convert to Judaism].  It seems that it is the SUBJECT that is the problem to you.  It is not notable to you that a member of the clergy would convert to Judaism.  Therefore, you are requiring someone to be notable for entirely different reasons and have their conversion only to be incidental.  This is not a list of "nobel winning clergy who convert to Judaism" but a list of "clergy who convert to Judaism."  That's the SUBJECT.  It's a very limited number.  It's like a list of civilians who have been in space.  It's a short list.  They don't have to be "left handed famous singer civilians who have been in space."Tim (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You keep on asking for my "agenda." My "agenda" is to bring this list up to par with other conversion-related lists. This is not a list of clergy who converted to Judaism, if you haven't noticed yet. It's a list of converts to Judaism. Divamia (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[reset]The subsection is a list of clergy who converted to Judaism. That is their notability. Period. The same would hold true for any such page.Tim (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Where do you find support for such a criterion in the notability guidelines? Please point it out. Divamia (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am creating a summary below for third parties. Please feel free to edit the summary of your argument. Divamia (talk) 11:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC
Argument 1 is that non-notable persons, including Christian clergy who have converted to Judaism, do not belong in this list. If their notability cannot be established with independent sources in their own respective articles (all disputed entries do not have their own articles), then they do not belong in lists of people even if they may be relevant to that particular list. Argument 2 is that clergy who have converted are exceptional in that regard, and should be listed here even if they themselves are not notable. Divamia (talk) 11:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm responding to the RfC. Seems to be a simple solution to this. If they are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, and it can be established by reliable sources that they are converts, they belong on the list. I would not list anyone else, clergy or non-clergy.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. Divamia (talk) 05:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to organize the perspectives.Tim (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Other articles mention clergy converting to faiths without having articles for each individual for example, Ra%C3%ABlism mentions three clerics who converted to Raelism--Java7837 (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That argument does not work. Read the notability guidelines:
 * Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people ).
 * Divamia (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a very limited group of people, and it is this very subject which is the basis for their notability. I've read the list of people guidelines, and they aren't geared for something in this specificity range. It is neither generic, nor so restrictive as to remove notability. Nevertheless -- we are faced with an impasse: these names are not going to go away, and you don't appear to be willing to help satisfy your own requirements. If you DO want to improve this article and you DO believe that your application of the ruleset is correct, then save us all time and energy by helping to create what you believe to be missing. We would have been nearly finished by now with cooperative effort. I'll suspend disbelief of good faith and assume it one last time: will you help with construction, or will you continue a waste of effort on all sides? Your call.Tim (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So far you haven't been able to support your argument with a single guideline or policy. These names will go away unless they satisfy the notability requirements, which can't be arbitrarily made up by a user such as yourself. And please don't ask users to practice good faith, if you yourself can't assume good faith of others. Divamia (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The assumption of good faith guidelines themselves suggest not to continue to assume good faith when someone proves otherwise. To say that a clergy conversion to another religion is not notable is something you have arbitrarily made up. What will happen is this -- in the end the names will be there, and the more you fight the more articles and the more documentation will be present, in spite of the time people will waste dealing with someone who has no intention of satisfying his own interpretation of the requirements. "Good faith" means coming to an article to improve it. I do not see this happening. However, you have certainly freed me up, here. I can go back to work on the article(s) without appealing to you for assistance, or trying to reason with you. The good faith assumption has been proven to be incorrect when directed your way. Good day to you. Now -- if I find you at any time exercising good faith I will give you more time. But for now, be so kind as to either help or get out of the way.Tim (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * With that sort of attitude you can rest assured I won't be getting "out of the way" anytime soon. Divamia (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

By wikipedia standards, notability is determined by who has an article on wikipedia. If they have an article on wikipedia, and a source can be found that they converted to Judaism, they belong on the list. Otherwise, they should be removed. See List of converts to Islam for example.  Yahel  Guhan  06:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. Divamia (talk) 10:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Update
Divama has successfully convinced those of us who are actually improving the article that the people listed do merit their own articles. Several points, however.


 * 1) Notability is not determined by who has an article.  Getting an article is determined by notability.
 * 2) Several of us here are improving this article by researching these notable people to create or update their biographical information and articles.
 * 3) Anyone willing to improve the article can do so.
 * 4) Anyone not willing to improve the article is requested to allow the rest of us to do so.

Please understand that this will not give us much time to participate in debate, since this only helps the article when everyone engaged is filling in information.Tim (talk) 11:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So far it seems no progress has been made. I've deleted the entries, but you can re-add them as you create their respective articles. Divamia (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Diviama -- just to show your good will -- please tell us what you have done to create the articles. So far I've purchased 4 books and have been doing extensive research. As long as you are actively working to supply what you require, no one will be stepping on each other's toes.Tim (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Div, the names are reference points for those creating the articles. How would any goodwill participant KNOW which articles to work on without the references? A goodwill participant is someone researching to create these articles. Also, it may save some money and time if you tell us which articles you are currently working to create. Thanks.Tim (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The names are all available in the revision history, so that's not a particularly good argument. I do not intend to create any of these articles, but have attempted to find additional names to add to this list for people's articles that already exist. Fortunately, however, I have found that whenever I am about to add a name, it is already on this list. Divamia (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You do not intend to help create what you require. I was just checking to see if the goodwill thing had improved. As for revision history -- please tell me how many articles you routinely review two months back in revision history to see what has been deleted that you want to add documentation to in another article?

I suspect that here, too, the answer is ZERO. So, then, you are expecting -- and in fact demanding -- that everyone else on Wikipedia do things that you yourself refuse to do.Tim (talk) 11:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Also -- Div, if I determine that a bio cannot be created, I'll delete the entry myself. Give it a bit more time and everything will either be backed up by an article or deleted. I made that agreement and I'll stick with it. In the meantime, each entry is at least backed up by a reference. It's not a completely unsupported list of names. It's simply a matter of changing the support from external support (sufficient for any entry other than a name, apparently) to internal support (i.e. a separate article). You will get what you have demanded, but without your assistance it takes more time (and money, I might add -- I've already spent over a hundred dollars in research materials and there is more to spend on this subject). If you REALLY want what you are demanding faster, you can help. If you DON'T help, it just drags it out longer.Tim (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will wait then as it seems you are making some significant progress with your research. Divamia (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no requirement on Wikipedia that a person can be mentioned in an article only if he/she meets notability requirements to merit a separate article. That's a completely bogus criterion as can be proven in any number of articles.
 * Whether someone's conversion is notable enough to mention is a separate issue. My gut reaction is that there has to be an interesting story behind it, something to indicate why an audience should care that it happened, above and beyond the assumed novelty that even clergy can have a change of heart. My guess is that if their conversion is known from a reliable source, then it's probably notable. If it's from an original source, then it probably isn't.
 * My bias is to leave the names in pending a more constructive debate on this matter. --Leifern (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on your first point, it's clear you haven't actually read the notability guidelines:
 * "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people )."
 * Divamia (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not that straightforward. What the list guidelines say is that "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future)." First of all, it's a guideline not a policy, and its intention is plainly to prevent these lists from becoming indiscriminate collections of information. Second, "reasonable expectation of an article in the future" suspends a definitive determination of notability. We'd have to decide whether the conversion of clergy is such an unusual event that the event itself is notable, and that's not something we're done deciding.--Leifern (talk) 03:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I do agree with you when you say that if there is a reasonable expectation of an article in the future, the names should remain. That is why I have left the entry on Azizus, for example, in this list (because he is a king). However, it's not so clearcut with these people that are disputed. Do conversions of clergymen automatically make the people themselves notable? There is no support in the notability guidelines to say yes. Divamia (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether a member of the clergy becomes notable by converting. Maybe he/she does, maybe not. Or even if the person isn't notable, his/her decision is. I suppose it depends a bit on just how unusual such a conversion is. Clearly, if hundreds of, say, Baptist pastors converted every year, then it would not be notable. But if it's just a few, then it might be. If it's happened only twice in the history of humankind, then each one probably is notable. I'm not sure where to draw the line. --Leifern (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There are a number of factors involved:
 * If conversion of clergy between all religions were commonplace, it would not be so notable.
 * However, if conversion of clergy were imbalanced between religions -- that is, more so from one than another, then it would be notable.
 * Also, if (as you said) conversions of all clergy were rare, that again would be notable.
 * In my observation, the second and third cases are true. It is rare for clergy to convert to different religions.  However, of those conversions, there is an imbalance of Christianity toward Judaism.  I know a number of these individuals, and I am aware of the hurdles that are involved.  It is a notable phenomenon.
 * Also, I would like to add that it is extremely difficult to find these people listed in a single source. I spent over a decade looking in vain, until they appeared on Wikipedia.  It was a huge coup for Wikipedia to list them, and speaks volumes to the integrity of Wikipedia as a source.  Removing them diminishes Wikipedia, and in fact would be a misuse of the guidelines.  There are exceptions that prove the rule.  We are human editors -- not robots.  We should exercise our judgment to enhance not only the content of Wikipedia along repeatable guidelines... but we should also exercise judgment in working to enhance those very guidelines when an exception is found.  The general procedure is that these people should be notable.  The general understanding is that they are notable for reasons OTHER than the list.  In rare ocassions it is the subject of the list itself that is the basis for that notability.  For instance: a list of people involved in the plot to assassinate Lincoln are notable BECAUSE of the subject of the list.  Most of them have absolutely no notability outside of that fact.  Must we, then, have a separate article for each member of that plot before we are allowed to list them in an article together?  That, I believe, is not the intention of the Wikipedia guidelines.  If a single line on Wikipedia is more than a person deserves, how much less an entire article?  But some people only warrant a line, and not an entire article.  The guidelines themselves should be modified in this instance, because we have found a limitation to them that is consuming too many bytes of Wikispace, and too many hours of Wiki-editors' time.Tim (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Leifern, my instinct was against removing them. But I do not currently have the time to engage in an edit war over it. I fully plan to create an article for everyone who merits one. As for notability, some are notable because of the conversion itself -- that is, professional clergy who convert. It is a phenomenon unique in scope of Christian clergy toward Judaism, and merits a study in its own right. I certainly will not fight to keep the names off the main page, since I plan to document and return them there myself. I merely needed a reasonable solution to a protracted edit war that would only delay the documentation further.Tim (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

reasons to [be] convert[ed] to Judaism
Perhaps some other intent can be described as a list of ways/used people are routed into Judaism or the 'Jewish religion', with reason to change dietary habits, as example. From such perspective, the congregation "will take" some specified individual who appears to lack conscience in eating habits (say, because thoughtlessly or blindly combining meat and milk in the same meal) and from the temple is further routed into various industries of community choice. Marcia L. Neil/beadtot  66.239.212.82 (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Jpgordon-
Undoing all my changes is quite a bold action on your part, especially since I explained most of them. Did you bother to check out any of these entries yourself? Very few of my changes were cited and those that were cite The Jewish Encyclopedia from 1901! Has wikipedia become the new Jewish encyclopedia? You even reinstated repeats in your haste to be heard.Karlsruhe (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This page is a joke
Abraham the Monk?! Give me a break! Jews converting to Judaism!? The head of a church dedicated to the Virgin Mary was Jewish! Shouldn't there be some kind of disclaimer stating the refusal of Israel to recognize the proselyte communities? This article reeks of a desperation to hide Jewish racism. When one reads further into the supposed Jewish converts and how they are treated by "real" jews, the impression that Jews are racist rears it's ugly head. How many "real" Jews making aliyah have to live in illegal settlements bombarded by missles everyday. Contrast the devoted Jews of India with the treatment a self-proclaimed agnostic Albert Einstein received from Israel(he was asked to be their leader)and one cannot help but see how truly racist Jews are.Karlsruhe (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That will be quite enough of that. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as one of those proselytes -- your comments are inaccurate. Even so, they are misplaced here (since Wikipedia is indeed not supposed to be a soapbox). However, the honesty about your opinion is helpful to the rest of us, to know where you are coming from and why you are making these changes.

I'm currently in a bit of hiatus and will return after researching and documenting what is available regarding clergy converts. In the meantime, try to replace or improve rather than simply delete. If you think the page is a joke, then I would encourage you to work on pages that are more worthwhile.Tim (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

All Jokes Aside
There are proper and improper ways to edit a page. Here are a few suggestions:


 * 1) Don't require something that you are unwilling to help provide.  We ran into a problem a few weeks ago with an editor who was demanding that we create full page articles on individuals before giving them a single line... and this same editor continually refused to help create said articles.  The end result is that I've spent well over a hundred dollars on only part of the required material just to retain information that I never put in to begin with.  The task of maintenance required by constructive editors is ten times that of destructive ones.  Only create work that you are willing to play a part in contributing.
 * 2) Don't edit pages that you have no stake in.  If you think there are problems with a page, work to construct solutions.  If you are not interested in the subject or do not value it, move to a page you do value.  Not every notable page is notable to every editor.  There are tons of pages on Wikipedia I have no interest in, but I would never dream of trashing the work created by those who DO value the subject.  And if you don't value it, how can you be competent to edit?
 * 3) If there is something missing, provide it.  Don't go around chopping off information because it's incomplete.  You create edit wars and waste everyone's time. 95% of the time, supplementation is called for.  Only 5% of the problems should be eliminated.  And that's fair since it takes ten times the effort to supplement than to destroy.
 * 4) If something is miscategorized, move it instead of deleting it.  Folks -- there's a category for nearly everything.
 * 5) If you are looking at an exception to a Wiki-rule, justify it and work to update the rule.  We aren't robots.  We build the rules too.
 * 6) Don't hesitate to undo destructive editing, but at the same time try to find a compromise if there is any merit at all (but only if there is merit).  I got pidgeon holed by a promise to temporarily move real information onto the talk page.  I'll not make that mistake again, because the problem was an abuse of a Wiki-rule and did not have true merit.Tim (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"Kabbalah" & actual Kabbalah
I very strongly feel the need to point out that the philosophy/regimen/what-have-you that Madonna, Ashton Kuchner & whoever else in Hollywood are following is NOT Kabbalah by any standards other than their own - i,.e., it's like the "Jews for Jesus" insisting that they are Jews & their religion is Judaism: people who know better say "no." I can prove this by pointing out that Kabbalah has only ever been taught by rabbis to rabbis - each with a minimum age of 40 years and a lifetime devoted to Torah study. This precludes everyone in "The Kabbalah Center" (most notably Madonna). I am writing this paragraph so as to explain why I made the edit, rather than have people be horrified at what I've done, demand an explanation, etc. FlaviaR (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Clergy list revisited
I just looked at this for the first time. The list of otherwise unnotable clergy converts really needs to go. Most of these people will never have articles about them; we learn nothing about anything by including their names in the list. "Someone named John Doe who was a priest converted to Judaism. Nothing else about him is encyclopedic." --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll be removing the redlinks from the clergy list soon if nobody has a reason to keep them. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I note your phrase, "nothing else about him is encyclopedic." Imagine a list of people who broke the existing world record in marathon running, but had nothing else about them that was encyclopedic.  One does not need to warrant an entire article before warranting a mention in this.  Such a requirement would necessitate a nearly infinite length for Wikipedia before it would have any articles at all.  You have the cart before the horse. I suggest removing the red links, but not the names, as long as they are cited and referenced. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you've broken a world record in marathon running, you've done something quite remarkable and unusual; you've managed to run faster and longer than anyone else in the world; your name will be in the record books; and many people will be trying to beat what you personally have achieved, and eventually someone will eclipse your achievement. Hard to compare this to a random clergy member who has chosen a different faith, as huge as that will have been for that clergy member. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact is that we are noting clergy who have converted to Judaism. THAT is the encyclopedic content.  Another example would be noting parts of a flower -- you don't leave out parts until they all have their own article, because each of those parts would have different cells, each needing their own article, and each cell would have different chemical structures, which would each need a different article, each having different atoms, needing their own article, each needing subatomic particles, each needing their own article -- thousands of articles... before you can list ONE.  Again, you have the cart before the horse.  What is encyclopedic is that clergy have converted.  Nothing else is necessary here.  For individuals with no notable attribute at all, I would agree with you -- but in this case there is a notable attribute, supporting the subject of the subheading: clergy who have converted. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * By the same logic, we need a list of clergy who have left their faiths, a list of clergy who have changed from one sect to another, a list of clergy who have edited Wikipedia...In what way is it encyclopedic that a random clergy person has had a change of faith? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If a Wikipedia article had such a list, then populate it. If not, then don't.  And if the list itself isn't notable, kill the list.  If it is not notable for Christian clergy to convert to Judaism, kill the list.  If it is, populate it.  If the list is unmanageble because it's COMMON for clergy to convert, then the commonality removes the notability.  But don't have a list and not populate it unless each member has their own article.  Either the subject in this case is notable, or it is not.  As I mentioned, simply a list of PEOPLE who have converted would require some other kind of notability because thousands have done so... it's too vague without external notability.  But a limited list on a notable subject is different, and this is such a list. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've got a better. RFC time. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

RFC about the clergy list
I think the question is better framed -- "is it notable for clergy to convert to another religion?" In the framing of your RFC "whose sole notability" you grant that this is notable. Well, then populate it. If it becomes an unweildy list, then it's too common an occurrence to itself be notable and would require the pruning effect of external notability. For instance, a list of six-headed chickens would be a short list and the individual chickens would not require a secondary notability. But a list of chickens who cross the road is probably too common, and would require an external notability. I really don't care either way. To me, it's notable and a limited list, and the arguments and RFC are too much overhead for a limited list that's already populated and cited. Just remove the double brackets for the ones not having secondary notability. I know for a fact that there is another clergy member of significant notability who isn't listed here and does not have another article -- but he likes it that way. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * From RfC: For clergy to convert is not sufficiently notable.  There has to be something beyond that, either that they were already notable, or the conversion generated sufficient press/controversy as to be notable.  It's not that unusual for clergy to convert from their current religion. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 23:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If it were not unusual for clergy to convert, I would agree with you. However, your premise is flawed.  It's quite unusual for Christian clergy to convert to Judaism.  I would be very interested in exactly how common you think this is, and how you came to that idea. Thanks. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with SkyWriter a clergy member converting to a different faith is extremely rare, such things are notable in themselves considering their rarity, I wrote an article for Ahuva Gray. --Java7837 (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I wrote another article for Asher Wade. Granted, this is slow, but it's a process.  We need to remember that in the initial skirmish on this Geza Vermes was deleted!!!  There's another clergy-convert not listed here who has managed to stay under the radar as a convert.  Interestingly, he's more externally notable than many of the ones listed here, but doesn't fall into the verifiability range because of his own temperament and reticence to be a "poster boy" for conversion.


 * The Wikipedia values are notability and verifiability. But we also need to remember RELEVANCE.  If we were to make a list of "pole vaulters in the 1928 Olympic try-outs" we'd list them all, regardless of whether they actually made it to the Olympics or whether they were later elected President of the United States decades later.  This is a SPECIFIC list for a very limited group.  The notability is the group itself, rather than the individuals.  Those who are verifiable are to be included, not because they are notable for other things, but because THIS thing is a notable subject.  To leave them out would be to discount the subject, not the individuals -- in which case the entire list itself is suspect. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 04:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly, you asked one question, then answered based on something different. The question was, "is it sufficiently notable that clergy converted from one religion to another?"  You then answered as if the question were specifically about Christian clergy converting to Judaism.


 * Secondly, your argument above isn't logical. I could create any number of lists that would then be populated with non-notables.  It just would mean it's a bad list topic, and does not support your argument that we must populate lists with non-notable persons.  You have not established what you mean by relevance.  Relevance is not in question here.  Anyone who's converted from another religion to Judaism is relevant.  The question is what the baseline for inclusions should be.  Ahuva Gray has at least published a book, even though her notability is a bit borderline, but Asher Wade does not make your case, as notability is not established, and (more importantly) there are no reliable sources establishing verifiability.


 * Your claim regarding lists does not make sense, nor does it fit the accepted style guidelines regarding the purpose of lists or notability. "To leave them out would discount the subject"?  That makes no sense.  1977 is a notable topic for a list, but it is not diminished because my own birth is not listed that year.  I'm RELEVANT, and fit with in the SPECIFIC topic, but do not pass notability standards.  Your claim that one event makes these people notable is not in keeping with any guideline or policy I've seen. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 21:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If you believe what you say, delete the entire list. If it is not notable for Christian clergy to convert to Judaism, then the list itself is not notable, regardless of other notability an individual would have -- that is, Ahuva Gray by your estimate would be notable as a "book writer who converted to Judaism" and not as a "clergy member who converted."  If that's the case, eliminate this entire list and replace it with "book writers who converted to Judaism."  But I doubt you will do so, because THAT list would NOT be notable (i.e. it's way too common an occurrence).  The more common something is, the less notable.  The less common, the more notable -- unless it becomes truly fringe.  But I want to point out something else: we're wasting way too much space arguing over whether to save a few lines of space.  There's no compelling reason to eliminate the entire list because the subject is notable.  As such, verifiable members of such a specifically limited group are allowable.  Your example of being born in 1977 is NOT notable because too many people were born in that year.  If there were a plague and only a handful of people survived to term in that year, the names could be notable on that basis.  Just leave the list.  It's not worth the overhead endlessly fighting over this subject.  I searched for six YEARS for this information and couldn't find a comprehensive list anywhere until I found it on Wikipedia here.  I was overjoyed.  I know a good number of people who have been trying to find a single source, and this list was a coup for Wikipedia, and a testament to its integrity.  If you want to diminish its credibility as a resource, by all means, kill the list.  But I'd suggest to leave it alone.  If we delete it, it will come back, to endless arguing in the future because people WANT this information. There are better things for us to do with our time. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Basically, all that you just posted indicates that you do not understand the concept of notability, nor that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  Your "it's interesting" argument is also generally rejected as invalid.  Just because you spent a lot of time gathering the information doesn't mean it belongs here.  In fact, if it's that obscure, it's an indication that it may not.


 * Notability (people) specifically states that lists are not meant to be exhaustive, and that notability guidelines used for articles apply. The basic criteria for notability is: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."  You have provided sources that do not satisfy any of those requirements.


 * If you want to convince me that they should be included, you need to go to policy and guidelines, and make an argument from those. Give me a reason (any reason, at this point) why these people should be considered notable.  Your bizarre straw man arguments about narrowing the focus of the list are completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 23:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason is that they are clergy who converted to Judaism -- hence the list. Don't think the subject is notable? DELETE THE LIST. It's that simple. But you are making it complex by contradicting yourself. You don't think the subject is notable and yet you want to cherry pick the list. If the subject isn't notable, delete the entire list. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, you're making a straw man argument, indicating you do not understand policies and guidelines regarding notability, or lists, it seems. The title of the list is List of converts to Judaism, not List of clergy converts to Judaism.  From List, note that the lead can be used to explain the scope of a list, i.e "This article endeavours to list some notable people who have converted, or are believed to have converted, to Judaism."  You have attempted to claim that the conversion of clergy makes them notable, but you have not made arguments for this based in policy or guidelines.  I understand that you're personally invested in seeing the list stay as-is, but Wikipedia may not be the appropriate place for it. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 00:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * And again, you fail to address the subject of the disagreement. We agree that lists should be of notable people.  We do not agree that conversion of a Christian minister to Judaism is a notable event.  If it is notable, then they should be listed because they pass notability standards on that basis.  If it is not notable, the entire sub list is non notable and should be deleted.  But with a list limited to a couple of dozen people in history, cherry picking through them is ridiculous.  Have the list, or don't have the list.  Make up your mind and be at peace with it. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Presenting me with fallacious Straw man and False dilemma arguments doesn't make your case. There are more than two options here, despite what you would claim.


 * You're claiming that the question is whether or not conversion is a notable event for a person. That is not the dispute, and is why your argument is a straw man fallacy.  The question is whether the clergy who convert are sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, based solely on that conversion.  I have used guidelines and policies to argue that they are not.  You have yet to make a coherent argument, much less make your case based on any policies or guidelines.  Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 17:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The policies and guidelines do not dictate whether or not it is notable for a Christian minister to convert to Judaism. That's what we are discussing.  Or rather, that is what you are refusing to discuss.  You are taking the assumption that it is not, and asking "what ELSE are they notable for?"  It's like saying, "so the guy's the President of the United States, but he didn't do anything ELSE!"  Most Presidents didn't do anything else notable, but they would be included in a list of Presidents.  The question for a LIMITED list is "is the list itself notable in the context given?"  If yes, include it.  It not, don't.  For an UNLIMITED list of "list of citzens of the United States" we would have to find some OTHER kind of notability.  How about a list of mayors of Wassilla AK?  As with Presidents, it's a limited list of people, most of which were not notable for anything else.  But is the list ITSELF notable?  Again, for a limited list, if the list itself is notable in the context, include it.  If not, don't.  This is a limited list.  There is no danger of it expanding endlessly because it's a rare event.  Being rare is one of the prerequisites for notability.  Not all rare events are notable, but all notable events are rare.  It is rare for Christian clergy to convert to Judaism -- REALLY rare, and so rare that there is no need to place any other limits on the list as long as the list itself is notable.


 * The only question between us is "is it notable for Christian clergy to convert to Judaism?" You started off saying it wasn't even rare.  But of course it's rare.  And so therefore we are left with -- is it notable?  If it is notable, then the members of the list are notable for that reason.  Same as the issue of mayors for Wasilla AK and Presidents of the United States.  The members do not need OTHER notability if the GROUP itself is notable.


 * This isn't a straw man argument or a negation of Wikipedia notability standards. No one would argue that Harrison shouldn't be included in a list of Presidents just because no one can remember anything else he did.  He is notable BECAUSE he qualified for the list, not in spite of it.


 * So, is this list notable? You say no and I say yes.  I would appreciate some other people taking a stab at this because you and I aren't going to convince each other. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Read the notability guidelines regarding people. You have not demonstrated that you have yet.  Presidents are notable because they are the subject of coverage by multiple verifiable, independent sources.  Harrison would be on a list of presidents both because he is relevant (he is a president) and he is notable (he passes notability standards on Wikipedia).  He would not be on the list if he failed either of those qualifications.


 * Again you fall into straw man arguments by claiming the list is the issue. Individuals' inclusion on the list is.  You must establish both relevance and notability for each individual on the list.  Relevance is given, but you continually fail to make an argument for notability. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 18:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Again you ignore the question. My answer is that they are notable because they are clergy who converted to Judaism, just as Harrison is notable because he is a President -- and that's all that's needed, as long as being a President is notable or being a pastor who converted to Judaism is notable.  If it is not notable, then that's different.  But you've not given reasons why such a rare occurrence isn't notable.  You haven't even tried.  I have read the guidelines and suggest you do the same.  Harrison did not have to do anything ELSE than the ONE notable thing of being a President to qualify for being on a list of Presidents, as long as the subject of the list itself is a notable event.  My understanding is that being a President is a notable event, and that being a pastor who converts to Judaism is a notable event.  You do not.  THAT is the crux of the disagreement between us.  We've made our views clear.  It's time for other people to give their understanding of whether or not this is notable. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Name a President notable for only one thing. Every one of them was covered in multiple independent sources for a number of significant actions, making them notable by the Wikipedia definition.  Their presidencies make them relevant to the list of presidents, but their notability goes beyond that. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 00:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you're conflating notability with verifiability.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 01:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's because notability on Wikipedia is tied directly to verifiability. Read the guidelines.  There's no objective standard for notability, but we can determine if enough sources are available to back things up (even if we don't have access to those sources). Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 16:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair warning -- the perpetual "read the guidelines" is unnecessary (and by this point, insulting). I've read the guidelines.  You've read the guidlines.  We disagree about the application of the guidelines in this matter.  Although notability and verifiability generally go together, there are no precise guidelines regarding the explicit number of sources involved, and in fact for single events even a valid newspaper article may suffice.  The question is, again, is this event notable?  If THIS event is notable, then the participants in the event are notable because of the nature of the event itself -- that is, an individual decision of a pastor to convert to Judaism. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability Standards for a Single Event
This is from the notability guidelines: "When a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election, consideration needs to be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted."

The issue in question is whether THIS event warrants notice. That's all. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Now you're getting to the actual issue. However, the key here is "reliable sources".  Do you have any reliable sources for these persons you want to keep in the list? Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 00:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't put any of these people on the list, nor did I have these sources -- which was why I was so grateful to the integrity of Wikipedia as a portal of sources. If you want to buy some of these books and check them out, I'll buy some others.  But there's no reason to assume that the editor who found them was making them up whole cloth. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 01:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What books? Asher Wade, for example, has no books.  The article and list are sourced from websites not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia, and a google search turns up no signs of anything but more of the same. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 16:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Although you and I disagree on notability, we may reach some consensus on verifiability. Published books or newspaper or magazine articles would be helpful.  Just a website is problematic.  In general, self published books are excluded, but an autobiographical account should be acceptable unless the author is making outlandish claims.  However, "I had this job and made this life decision", though notable, are not outlandish.  I think that if we can agree in principle that the names do not necessarily each need a separate article, and that if we can agree that they need improvement on their citations, then we can use one tenth of the energy and time we are now and work together to improve the citations.  I can't do much more today because of Shabbat approaching, but if you're game I'd be delighted to work together to improve the citations. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Notability of individual clergy should be discussed with respect to the individual articles at AfD. I cannot imagine that conversion to Judaism would not be a relevant characteristic for a clergyman, whether or not the principal reason for notability, and if an article on that person is justified, the person should be on this list.DGG (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Conversion to Judaism by a clergyman would be notable because many of them have spoke on this issue, and many have written books on it--Alpha166 (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

As for reliable sources for Asher Wade, http://ohr.edu/tapes/speaker.php?id=79 (university) http://www.gazette.net/gazette_archive/2003/200345/frederickcty/county/186594-1.html (newspaper) http://www.atljewishtimes.com/archives/2001/042701cs.htm (newspaper) https://www.jewishpress.com/content.cfm?contentid=32973&sContentid=1 (from Largest published independent weekly) http://www.torah.org/learning/dvartorah/5759/vayigash.html (well-known and reliable Jewish website, says concerning, Asher Wade,"Dr. Wade's extensive Holocaust studies have made him a key lecturer at Yad V'shem, the Holocaust museum in Jerusalem." this alone makes him notable)

He's given lectures at Yeshiva University

I can give you several other reliable sources for Asher Wade.

--Alpha166 (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"Consensus" Version
Java and Skywriter, where exactly is the consensus that you two are mentioning? The senior editors on this page, at least those part of the Wikipedia staff, agree that these lists are not intended to be an indiscriminate collection of information. Divamia (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: I moved this section to be before the references section which apparently serves the entire talk page. Jo7hs2 (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We have discussed this on a number of occasions, and this is not an indiscriminate collection of information. In fact, "Christian clergy who have converted to Judaism" is excruciatingly specific -- as "discriminate" as can be.  Wikipedia guidelines allow for the mention of a person in an article which contains his only notability, without requiring a separate article for such a person (I have cited this to you already).


 * That's only rational; else Wikipedia would require an entire article for each specific person before they can be mentioned in any other article -- a requirement that would be impossible to fulfill, since you cannot mention an individual with no context to any other individuals on the planet. Such a guideline would have prevented any article of any kind to have been written before every article of every kind had already been written -- logically and logistically impossible, since we do not live backwards in time. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your rationale is flawed. This isn't an article. It's a list, a list of (notable) people, not incidents. Take an article on a person for instance. Of course, I would not expect all the other individuals in this person's article to be notable, but it may be necessary to mention them to adequately explain the events in that person's life. That logic doesn't work with a list. Divamia (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Div -- I would suggest that you work with the other editors here instead of against them. Most of those I see editing here regard conversion of professional Christian clergy to Judaism to be a notable event, and therefore a qualification for inclusion. This is the case for any condition that is itself notable. A list of people with two heads would not require those people to be notable for other things in addition to having two heads. The same would be true for a list of people who have travelled to the moon. They may have done nothing else in their life requiring a separate article, as long as the item in the subject at hand is itself notable. Most folks editing here seem to regard professional Christian clergy converting to Judaism to be a notable event. I am one of them. If you require something in addition to this, you are welcome to add it. But routinely wiping out the work of several editors because of a particular reasoning that isn't required under the provision I listed -- is not helpful to Wikipedia. Please spend your time here constructively, instead of engaging in a slow edit war. Thanks.

Again, you are most welcome to ADD whatever information or articles you imagine are required. We do not believe them to be required, but I don't think we'll follow you around and wipe out such articles if you add them. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think you really understand. This isn't a list of events. It's a list of people. If this were a list of notable conversions to Judaism, you could arguably make the case to include all clergy. Instead, this is a list of converts, not conversions, to Judaism. You say most people regard all clergy conversions to be notable. Really? Name those editors. There are two or three, including yourself. Pretty much all the outside editors who have looked at this issue disagree with you. Divamia (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Diviama -- please work with the other editors here. If there is some added information that you need in other articles, then please proceed and ask for help. But please stop deleting the work of other editors. If you think that clergy who convert to Judaism are not notable, that is your privilege. Others here do regard them as notable BECAUSE they are professional Christian clergy who have converted to Judaism. I'm not sure what your purpose here could be. I've noted the Wikipedia guideline that I was following and gave my reason for differing from your position. If this is a problem subject for you, then perhaps you could work in other articles for a while and then come back when you have something to add -- rather than simply delete. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you propose that there is no useful work in deleting unwarranted content in an encyclopedia? There are no other conversion lists that follow this precedent, so I'm not sure why you are being so stubborn. Divamia (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't beg the question -- your question is predicated on the idea that this is unwarranted content, when in fact my position (and that of the other editors you are deleting) is that this is warranted content, and that your deletions are unwarranted. I could just as easily ask you "Do you propose that there is no useful work in restoring unwarranted deletions from an encyclopedia?" Please. Let's work constructively, and if you cannot do so on this article, there are plenty more. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not begging the question at all. You said "stop deleting the work of other editors" without any qualifications. Often that's necessary. I am working constructively. Divamia (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

We'll have to disagree to that -- and that's okay. It's okay to have different opinions. The problem comes when one editor decides to habitually delete the work of others, rather than simply balancing it. Working constructively means working with other editors, rather than against them. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

List RFC
Should clergy-people who may be otherwise non-notable and do not have Wikipedia articles be placed on this list regardless? Divamia (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You've worded the RfC incorrectly. It should instead be "Should notable conversions be included in a list of conversions?" In other words, the conversion itself is notable in this case. If it is as non-notable as you claim to believe, then why all the effort? The very intensity of your efforts against it betray the fact that this is in fact notable to you for some reason. What is that reason? SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty lame response. All you have going for you is your insistence that clergy members converting to Judaism are per se notable. The fact that many of us strongly disagree hardly increases the notability of these otherwise barely interesting people. The reason many of us have given up on this argument is that it's like talking to a brick wall; You Are Right and anyone else simply doesn't get it. Tedious. Bye. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not that I'm right and you're wrong -- but that a consensus of information has room for erring on the side of information when there is a disagreement. Believe me, there are tons of articles and entire categories on Wikipedia that I find less than "barely interesting"... and in fact find them not interesting at all; not even interesting enough to fight over their inclusion in this encyclopedia.  The fact that they aren't interesting or notable to me doesn't mean that they are not interesting or notable to others.  And here's the rub: they were at least interesting enough for both sides to fight over, weren't they?  And in fact these people are intensely interesting and notable to some of us here.  If they aren't interesting to you, then there are other more interesting subjects for you to add to, rather than take away from others here.  I appreciate that you have recognized this and decided to move on to other subjects you are more keen about.  For my part, I'd like to be able to move on as well.  There are other subjects grabbing my interest and note at present, that I would also rather contribute to.  Can we close this debate and all move on, as you have done?  I'd very much like to follow your lead.  What about everyone else?  Are we ready to all find articles other than this one that we want to ADD to?  Jpgordon has set a fantastic example for BOTH SIDES to follow.  Thanks. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Hopefully, once you have departed and ceased asserting ownership of this article, the garbage will be removed by someone else. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Me, ownership? That's cute.  Most of the information wasn't added by me and most of the efforts to retain it weren't by me either.  Supporting other people's work isn't "ownership" but rather "collaboration."  Regardless, you've attacked.  I've parried.  I'll not attack back.  Let's shake hands and go to other corners.  Fair? SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Jpgordon, I find it interesting you honestly think that clergy converting to a completely different religion is not notable just think about it for a second --Java7837 (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's notable to that person and a few people around him, certainly. If a person, say, commits suicide, it's likewise notable to that person and a few people around him; we don't, however, have articles on people simply because they committed suicide -- we expect some other degree of notability. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm... equating a Christian Pastor converting to Judaism with suicide; now we at least know why you were opposing this so strongly. JP, Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral source of information.  I understand now why you feel so strongly about the subject, but we do need to remain neutral.  Java, we at least know what prompted this: damnation of people's immortal souls and all that.  Let's not try to persuade each other on notability, since that's obviously not the issue or the motivator here.  Let's just agree to disagree and try to respect the fact that people have different religious interests.  Jews are normally really interested in this.  I can see how Christians would not want to find this notable... or admit that it even happens. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, actually, you clearly don't know at all why I'm opposing this. And hardly "so strongly"; I've not made a single edit to the article itself. The comparison was just a random one, really -- pick whatever singular life-changing event someone might experience that's huge to them but not really very important to anyone else outside their small circle. Notability is the only argument I'm making, and the only argument anyone has made here against including the otherwise non-notable converts. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 01:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * JP, Judaism is a small circle, admittedly. We have articles on Wikipedia concerning subjects that barely any non-Jew has ever heard of -- let alone found an interest in.  If this isn't notable to you, I'll grant that (though I'm still puzzled at how it's notable enough for you to keep discussing if it isn't so notable).  Please understand that this is very notable to Jews... that "small circle" you mentioned.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand you are asserting that. I continue to disagree with your assertion, though if you provide some verifiable reliable sources establishing that individuals within the general class of Christian clergy converting to Judaism are "very notable" to Jews, I might be persuaded otherwise. It should be easy to find such sources, given how notable and important Christian clergy conversions to Judaism are (according to you.) Right now, there just seems to be your opinion, as it appears to be your opinion that "Jews are normally really interested in this". --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice try -- how about some reliable and verifiable sources saying otherwise? Or can we simply agree to disagree?  Wikipedia tends to err on the side of information when editors disagree, as long as the information is sourced.  We won't convince you, and you won't convince us -- but neither side HAS to do so.  Please, find a subject you DO find notable and ADD sourced information to it instead of deleting other people's work.  Thanks. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 03:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (a) I haven't deleted anyone's work; I'm discussing what is appropriate content for an article. (b) "We"? "Us"? More like "you". I find the subject in general notable, which is why I've not nominated the article for deletion. (c) If you're not willing to back up assertions such as "Jews are normally really interested in this", please omit them from your arguments. Me, I think that's a pile of crap; none of the Jews I know have ever expressed even minor interest in Christian clergy converting to Judaism. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to initial question: (should any clergy person..converting..etc). Absolutely not! Levalley (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)--LeValley
 * I've gone ahead and cleaned up the list. The way Wikipedia decides if someone is notable is if they have a Wikipedia article about them; the AfD process sorts these things out. If you want to add people to this list, create a Wikipedia article about them, and if that article survives AfD, then it will be easy to add them here - I assure you no-one will object on the grounds of notability. By the way, nndb is not a reliable source, and should not be used in Wikipedia articles. For example, it claimed that Sartre was a convert to Judaism - a fairly unlikely claim, perhaps based on his interviews with Benny Levy a month before he died, in which Sartre expressed interest in Judaism. However, I have seen no indication that he actually converted to Judaism. Jayjg (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've restored the article. Saying that someone can't BE in an article unless they have an entire article on them already is writing Wikipedia backwards.  We've discussed this repeatedly -- a person can be mentioned in context to their only aspect of notability without requiring a separate article.  This has been done here.  I did not create this information.  I'm not the only one restoring it either.  As for needing a source to say that people find something notable -- find me such a source for 99% of the articles on Wikipedia.  Sources don't SAY such a thing because it's blather.  Asking for it sounds sharp until someone actually thinks about it.  Now, can we please get to ADDING sourced information to articles and subjects we are interested in, instead of playing games?  Thanks.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So far I see very little support for your position, and considerable opposition - from Divamia, jpgordon, Levalley, and now me. This is 2009, not 2002 when Wikipedia was just getting started. Frankly, most notable people already have Wikipedia biographies, and if the individuals you wish to add truly are notable, I'm sure it won't be any difficulty for you to write a few stubs that will easily pass AfD. Indeed, instead of "playing games", that would be a good way to proceed. Also, take a look at List of converts to Islam and List of people who converted to Christianity. Each of them has one red-linked entry, not dozens.Jayjg (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've given the Wikipedia principle involved and cited it. There's nothing more to add.  Wikipedia principles clearly state that you do not need a separate article when mentioning somone's sole notability in context, as is done here. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 23:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See also List of converts to Hinduism and List of converts to Buddhism. No red-links. I'm taking out the red-links again; one or two or even three might not be bad, but dozens won't fly. Jayjg (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I just checked. You didn't remove the red links -- but the INFORMATION instead!  Please restore the information, without the red links -- or I will. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The "INFORMATION" was citing names of individuals that were either red-linked Wikipedia articles, or articles that didn't exist on Wikipedia. Use the "INFORMATION" to create articles on the people in question. The way we'll know if the individuals are noteworthy is if their Wikipedia articles withstand AfD, not some arbitrary decision by two editors that any Christian cleric who converts to Judaism is ipso facto notable. These articles aren't pissing contests, to see who can amass the longest list of converts from another faith. Follow the leads of List of converts to Islam, List of people who converted to Christianity, List of converts to Hinduism and List of converts to Buddhism. Include names of people who have articles; that way, if people really care, they can even click on the links, and find out more about the people who converted; under what circumstances, etc. It might even make the list, you know, somewhat useful, in a dull sort of way. Jayjg (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The red links were a stupid idea from someone who thought Wikipedia needed to be written backwards (apparently like you do). The list will be here or elsewhere.  People who have other unusual things about them other than this may be included for another article, but that's as far as Wikipedia principle goes.  You do NOT need a separate article for a person before you can add him in the only article he belongs in -- which is either this one or one like it.  Now, go find something CONSTRUCTIVE to do, and let the real editors work. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Tim, actually, I do a lot of constructive stuff on Wikipedia, not the least of which is writing articles. I daresay my track record as a "real editor" is better than, for example yours - your only edits for the past 2 1/2 months have consisted of reverting two articles, this one, and Rapture. Now, you've heard 4 editors say that this approach to the article neither helpful nor consistent with Wikipedia's standards. As a "real editor", why don't you actually write an article on one of these "notable" converts to Judaism. Any one will do. Jayjg (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually -- I'm not a "real editor" on this page any more than you are. I didn't add the information and you didn't either.  Someone who IS a real editor did so, and I merely popped in to support whoever it was.  You, on the other hand, keep crying about the need for articles that you refuse to write because you know that the "issue" you are raising is a ruse.  IF you actually believed what you are saying, you would have added an article.  But you didn't even try, because you know that's not the reason you are doing this.  As for the reverts -- I'm not into game playing.  I'll check in later and see if another responsible editor comes in to remove your vandalism.  I assume it will happen soon.  Not everyone can live online. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break
I was asked to look at this discussion. I believe the problem is one of definition, namely what does "notable" mean. On wikipedia, it has a very special significance, over and above the classic denotation of the word. While I agree that the conversion of a member of one religion's clergy to another is less common, and therefore more noteworthy, than that of the conversion of a lay member, the fact that the convert was a clergy member does not ipso facto make the convert notable in the wikipedia sense of the word. If the convert proceeds to become an author or a lecturer, such as Asher Wade, then he or she becomes notable in their own right, and should also be added to the list. People who may be notable in their own right should, in my opinion, have articles on them created first and then added to this list. Non-notable people, or groups, do not belong here. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 02:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Asher Wade's only claim to fame IS his conversion -- that's what he lectures about! Besides, most of the people just deleted also lecture.  I only added Asher Wade's article to Wikipedia because I was a tad slow realizing that the requirement was counter productive.  In any case, your point would inherently mean that conversion of clergy to Judaism is not in itself a notable event.  As such -- why even have the list?  Right now you're basically saying: "a clergy convert isn't notable unless he brags about it."  Well, that's not helpful.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 10:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Since the event of a clergy member to Judaism is not "ipso facto" a notable event, I have removed the category. I may create another article, however, challenging the idea that this is not notable -- because I believe it in fact is.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 10:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, I'd like to point out that even those with articles only have articles because they converted. They aren't "notable" for anything else.  The only exception is Geza Vermes, who started this whole mess when someone deleted him because he wasn't notable!  I corrected the Geza Vermes problem, started with Asher Wade, and realized that his only notability was the fact that he converted.  He hasn't done anything else.  As for giving private tours of Yad Vashem -- that's not notable either.  So, why does he have an article?  Well, ipso facto because he converted.  But this leaves the problem of the list itself; if conversion is enough for Asher Wade to have an entire article, how much more rather to have a single line?  And we aren't arguing about a great number of people here either.  We are fighting over half of a short list.  The argumentation itself is far more Wikispace than the people themselves.


 * Please tell me who on the list, other than Geza Vermes, is notable for any other reason than that they converted. And please do a bit better than "well, they bragged about their conversion" -- that's circular.  SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I just did a check through the ones you were trying to retain on the list on the grounds that they had articles. Of the ones with articles, only two had any kind of event related to them (other than their conversion) that could conceivably even be mentioned in an article, let alone justifying an article in and of themselves.  Of those two, only one would have received footnote mention from me (other than the conversion).  In other words -- there's not a single linked individual who was a gentile Pastor converting to Judaism that I would have a separate article for... including Asher Wade (yes, mea culpa for restoring that article before realizing the inanity of it).  In my opinion, the inclusion if ANY requires the inclusion of all.  If you disagree, please state what I'm missing in those other articles!  I'm serious.  I'd really like to know. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How do you know these people are "notable" for anything at all? Jayjg (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Analogous Situations
1. Consider a Mexican citizen who comes to the U.S.and tries to become an American citizen. If, as part of the process, the person renounces their Mexican citizenship, can we consider this act to be notable? No, because the act of renounciation of citizenship is too commonplace, to banal, to be considered notable. 2. The case of a member of the U.S. government who renounces their citizenship to become a Mexican citizen is notable. It is neigher commonplace or banal. Their inherent betrayal of their oath of office and their abjuration of the benefits of being not only an U.S. citizen, but also a member of the U.S. government will inherently bring with it publicity and notoriety. 3. IMO, the case of the priest, who is an official of his religion, who violates his oaths, denies the truth of his religion, and accepts upon himself eternal damnation if he is wrong, exactly fits the second case above. Phil_burnstein (talk) 11:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks -- that is very well put. (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Then you should have no trouble creating articles on these people, and having them survive AfD. This issue has been going on for over a year, judging from this Talk: page, and in that time perhaps 3 articles have been created. Rather than filling articles with red-links, fill red-links with articles. Jayjg (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please stop vandalizing the page, Jay. There is no need for separate articles, as per Wikipedia standards that I have quoted SEVERAL times. Enough.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:VANDAL, which does not describe my edits, then review WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, which does cover your comments. Now, to which "Wikipedia standards" are you referring? Jayjg (talk) 03:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Tim, you have reverted again, with another inaccurate and uncivil edit-summary. Please note below that the RFC consensus is not to include this material. Jayjg (talk) 03:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Vandalism is the most civil term for what you are doing. If you believe there should be ADDITIONAL articles, then create them.  If not -- then stop demanding others do it.  It's unnecessary.  I've quoted the principle to you several times.  We've discussed this for months.  Either create the articles or stop the vandalism.  I don't care which. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Which "principle" have you "quoted" to me "several times"? Please be explicit. Jayjg (talk) 03:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I might add that vandalism is a very uncivil thing to do. Please refrain from this uncivil behavior.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not vandalism, and if you don't stop being uncivil, and stop edit-warring against consensus, then I'm going to have to start focusing much more seriously on your actions and comments. Jayjg (talk) 03:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Tim, accusing someone of vandalism is fighting words on Wikipedia, and I strongly suggest you back down. WP:VANDAL carefully defines what the Wikipedia community considers vandalism and what is not considered such. Falsely accusing someone is of vandalism is a personal attack, and against our community policy; if you continue, you'll find yourself unwelcome on Wikipedia in a hurry. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly how is the act of vandalism civil and defense against it not? And how is defense against vandalism a personal attack and your threat to make me unwelcome in a hurry not? Please, kill the Wikilawyering. But don't kill the sourced material. We have explained the Wikipedia principle at work here, and deletion of sourced material that is defended on Wikipedia principle by several editors is by no means what I would call anything other than the term I have previously used. If you don't like it, then don't practice it.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 10:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not WP:VANDALISM, and since you're persisting, the next step is to ask for an uninvolved admin to block you for disruption. Is that want you want? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll call it whatever you like. What DO you call persistent repeated long term deletion of sourced content that is allowed by Wikipedia guidelines and seen to be notable by a number of responsible editors -- under the guise of a "requirement" that does not apply, and which the [fill in the blank with whatever term you like] refuses to himself follow (i.e. he refuses to create articles that he is insisting must exist).  Give me a term, and then you can still contribute to this other person's edit war by administrative threats and other forms of escalation.  Use me as a punching bag all you like -- but stop [whatever you want to call it]-izing.  I'm not important, and in fact I'm expendable.  But responsible editing and sourced content is NOT expendable.  The integrity of Wikipedia depends on the stability of sourced content and the allowance of its own guidelines (which I have cited several times).  Attack me.  But don't attack sourced content.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The mere fact that a piece of information is sourced does not by itself mandate that that piece of information belongs in an article. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort; the shapes and content of articles is decided by consensus, not by formula. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Then stop following a formula and start building a consensus. There are two sides here: 1) those who want to BUILD consensus and 2) those who don't.  I would be willing to HELP create the unnecessary articles with yourself and the other [fill in the blank with the term you still haven't given me to use].  My attitude is one of consensus.  However, the other [fill in the blank] refuses to help create such articles, demonstrating that his motivation isn't to collaborate, but rather to [fill in the blank].  If you want to follow some formula, keep doing so.  If you want to personally attack me as someone who calls people names (though you still haven't given me an acceptable term to use instead of the only one I know to be accurate), keep doing so.  If you want to edit war, keep doing so.


 * Or, if instead you want to collaborate, then pretend that you actually believe in your supposed requirement of the additional articles by actually helping to create those articles. I'll do the same.  I've offered to do it in the past.  The other [person] refuses, betraying the fact that he doesn't seek consensus and doesn't even believe in his own requirement.


 * Your choice -- responsible collaboration will get you all the help with all the additional articles you demand.


 * Or -- you can simply agree that the Wikipedia principle I have quoted several times now applies and we can keep one article instead of thirty.


 * I'll give you the choice -- but I only argue that any choice must be a constructive one, and not simple deletion. Simple deletion IS vandalism [and you are welcome to edit that word out with the term I've asked you to supply that destribes habitual destruction of sourced material].  Since I've requested you give me a term, and invited you to fill in the blank with it, the retention of the word "vandalism" in this paragraph will be on your dime, and any action you demand against it's use should equally apply to the actions it is describing.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

A More Than Generous Offer
Okay, let's forget terms -- if there isn't a civil term to describe the action, then so be it.

If you want collaboration, you can have it right now. I do not believe the other articles are required by Wikipedia guidelines and have quoted those guidelines several times, both here and elsewhere. However, the other party demands those articles exist.

Fine, if you want those articles I'll collaboratively work with you to create those articles. I'll even split the books for research with you so you don't have to purchase all of them all by yourself.

If you really want those articles to exist, I'll collaborate with you against my better judgment and Wikipedia's own guidelines. I can't be any more generous than that.

If you merely like deleting things and don't care to collaborate and don't want to accept my generous offer -- then be clear about it. And if you really don't want what you are demanding, then be clear about it. As for terms to describe the habitual deletions and past refusal of collaboration, I've asked for a substitute term, and I'm still waiting. That, also, is more than generous.

But we can end this right now. You can apologize for the actions, and I'll apologize for describing those actions. We can bury the hatchet, work together, and I'll praise you to the moon for your honesty and consistency.

Whatever you want.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, actually, you simply need to apologize for the absurd accusations of anti-semitism and the untrue accusations of vandalism. Another policy you're not following is WP:AGF; what you're up against is a garden variety content dispute, not Jew-hating, vandals, or anything of the sort. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've offered to meet you halfway and to collaborate on the unnecessary articles you are demanding. If you are interested in collaboration and actually DO want the articles you are demanding, THEN my description of your activity would be "collaborative editing."  I can be polite, but I refuse to be insincere.  It's time for you to demonstrate civility and collaborative editing for all of us here and show my concerns to be unfounded and, as you say, absurd.  I'll be VERY happy to be proven wrong.  Believe me.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope. You've made gross allegations and are continuing to stand by them. Your desires and opinions don't deserve any further consideration. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, Jpgordon has a very good point. His interests seem to be to ensure that this article meets content requirements. He doesn't have to agree to develop other articles. He's an admin, and I know that we tend to have enough to do without taking on additional responsibilities to create articles desired by others. He is in no way required to create articles that someone else wants. As always, the burden of proof lies on those who wish to add the content to any article, including this one. Right now, he has seen that the content, as added, does not measure up to wikipedia's notability standards. He is not obliged to do anything else. If some other party wanted to create the articles, that is their desire and their responsibility to act on it. No one can say that "You have to do what I want" to any other editor here, admin or otherwise. John Carter (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the one demanding those other articles. I believe they are unnecessary as per the Wikipedia guidelines I've cited both here and on your talk page. I've merely offered to help. He wanted another term as well, and I offered to use whatever term he wants. In both cases I've offered to help him have whatever he wants. His response was to say that my desires don't deserve consideration. The problem is that it was HIS desires I offered to consider. His rejection of consideration of HIS OWN desires is precisely the issue. I can't help him get something de demands if he rejects his own demands.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not demanding those other articles either; that's someone else's argument. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not demanding those other articles either. I don't think anyone aside from Skywriter is demanding those articles. Jayjg (talk) 05:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Both he and I, and in fact several of the other people who have expressed opinions against their inclusion, are administrators here. That means, among other things, that we have had to familiarize ourselves with the policies and guidelines and how they are applied. Your opinion, until and unless you can get a clear consensus of others to agree with it, remains just that, your opinion. It seems to me that at this point your only recourse to get those names included is by producing articles to support their inclusion, as many or most of the people who are required to be well informed on the issues of what is and is not deserving of inclusion by policy and guidelines say, at this point, without those articles, those names have not been proven notable enough for inclusion. I regret to say that continuing this discussion seems to me fruitless. Should you attempt to add content again, without having met the criteria of notability and verifiability that those others who are independent of this topic have indicated apply, you may very well find yourself in an awkward situation, and I think we all would prefer to avoid that. So, at this point, trying to create separate articles on those parties seems the only way to ensure that they get included, and stay included, in this list. John Carter (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have cited Wikipedia guidelines to you -- and your response is "I'm an administrator and I'll do something awkward to you if you follow the guidelines you've cited". How about demonstrate superior understanding by actually addressing the guidelines I've quoted to you? Without addressing such guidelines, deletion of sourced material in comformity with those guidelines is an awkward situation. You have the might -- but that is not what Wikipedia is about. If you have superior understanding, demonstrate it. I've been more than fair with you, and astonishingtly patient. It's your turn to return the favor.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

While we're at it, I'll repeat the guideline that you feel warrants threatening me with an awkward situation. This is from the notability guidelines: "When a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election, consideration needs to be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted." You have not answered this. You've merely said, "I'm an admin." Friend, admins are the MOST bound by Wikipedia guidelines, not the LEAST. One can expect us peons to need some help or guidance, but ignoring a guideline on the grounds of position is not exactly what I think you want everyone on Wikipedia to do. Answer the guideline, please.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Which guideline are you quoting, and why do you think it is relevant here? Jayjg (talk) 05:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay -- I'll give you another chance. I apologize for thinking that you were deliberately obfuscating the notability guidelines for some hidden reason. I'll take you at your word here that you were simply not familiar with this guideline. I'm quoting the Wikipedia notability guidelines. The relevance has to do with individuals connected with one notable event or characteristic, and only one: "When a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election, consideration needs to be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted." I think this is relevant because conversion of clergy into another religion is a limited group, but a notable event -- at least to those groups. This is on the same page as the guideline that you are trying to follow -- that of lists including only individuals who are notable for something other than the list. A typical convert to Judaism, for example, would fall under your own section of the notability guidelines. A waitress or a doctor who converts to Judaism may not have anything else about them that is notable, and their conversion itself may not be of a notable nature (i.e. if the waitress were the Pope's mother, perhaps). If they don't, then don't list them. You and I are in agreement with that, because you and I are both familiar with that guideline, and as responsible editors we try to follow all the Wikipedia guidelines we know of. This is an exception to that guideline, listed with that guideline, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you just missed it. A cleric who converts to another religion is not simply a name on some limitless list. The event itself is notable -- for some more than others (i.e. for Jews or clergy more than for yourself). We are both trying to follow the Wikipedia notability guidelines -- the same page and only a few sentences apart. I assumed you were familiar with those guidelines and this led me to be concerned that you had some motivation to deliberately ignore those guidelines. If I was mistaken, I apologize. If you really are interested in considering Wikipedia guidelines, I'll go to any page you like and publicly retract any fear I've had concerning your motivations, here or elsewhere.

In addition I'd suggest that you and I both reread those notability guidelines so that there is no question in anyone's mind about the competence of either of us to contribute constructively to Wikipedia as a resource of notable information.

Again, this is your call. I've offered one thing after another and had them slammed in my face. I've gone from assuming good faith to now PREsuming good faith. I'm presuming that this was a simple matter of your not being sufficiently familiar with the guideline I quoted, and did not recognize it as such when I quoted it these five times. Also, I'll grant that it was simple ignorance on the part of the person who deleted this guideline from the section below. Ignorance is easily corrected. We are all ignorant of most things in the universe -- or even the Wikiverse for that matter. No one can know everything; not even admins.

Please restore the deleted guideline to the section below and meet me halfway.

Or, continue as you are. You do have might on your side, after all. If you continue as you are, I'll simply go elsewhere to articles in which collaborative editing does occur, and edit wars are not sponsored by admins. Good Passover to you, or Good Easter.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

On an aside, it could be that, just as you missed the Wikipedia guideline I was citing, I may have missed some effort on your part to collaborate or create rapproachment toward me -- that is, some attempt to meet me halfway. If I have missed an attempt on your part to work with me, please point that out so that I can apolgize for missing it. As an admin I must presume that you would have done so, and I must have missed it in the heat of edit warring.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * BIO1E is not relevant here; see Malik's explanation below as to why. Jayjg (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Support inclusion of any cleric who has converted to Judaism

 * 1) SkyWriter (Tim) I'm willing to be corrected, but would appreciate SOMEONE at least addressing the guideline.  I'll be offline for a few days for the holiday.  Take your time.  I'll be back Sunday.
 * 2) Phil_burnstein

Support inclusion only of individuals/groups that have a separate Wikipedia article

 * 1) Divamia
 * 2) jpgordon
 * 3) Jayjg
 * 4) Levalley
 * 5) Avi
 * 6) John Carter (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC) - Having been drawn to this dicussion by the comments added on the talk page of WikiProject Judaism, I have to agree that this is the standard which applies to inclusion in all the other lists of notables as well, and can't see why it should be different for Judaism. Of course, that doesn't rule out the possibility of creating articles for people who don't yet have articles, provided they meet WP:NOTABILITY criteria.
 * 7) — Malik Shabazz  I recommend reading WP:WTAF (an essay, not a policy or guideline). If the person's conversion is so notable, writing an article about her or him—even a stub—shouldn't be difficult. FWIW, on most of the lists on my watchlist, redlinks are deleted as inherently non-notable.