Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:::::::] -- I consider reference to ''mad hatter'' to be of a mildly antisemitic nature, given the subject matter under discussion. But I am sure (or at least I would assume) that such anti-Jewish intent would be denied. ''Mad-as-a-hatter'' has historical applicability and use, and is certainly not always of an antisemitic nature. So there is ample room for deniability. The ''Bus -tards'' reference would appear to be an attempt to make fun of my name, ''Bus stop.'' I'm not really hung up on my name Bus stop, so I can dismiss people playing with it's spelling and linguistic construction. It is certainly in violation of ] and ]. Having said that, I think the important point is that it is indicative of the underlying problems concerning the misuse of ], which is, after all, what this whole problem is about. There is a lack of rationality in that discussion that is only confirmed in the above examples. ] 15:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::] -- I consider reference to ''mad hatter'' to be of a mildly antisemitic nature, given the subject matter under discussion. But I am sure (or at least I would assume) that such anti-Jewish intent would be denied. ''Mad-as-a-hatter'' has historical applicability and use, and is certainly not always of an antisemitic nature. So there is ample room for deniability. The ''Bus -tards'' reference would appear to be an attempt to make fun of my name, ''Bus stop.'' I'm not really hung up on my name Bus stop, so I can dismiss people playing with it's spelling and linguistic construction. It is certainly in violation of ] and ]. Having said that, I think the important point is that it is indicative of the underlying problems concerning the misuse of ], which is, after all, what this whole problem is about. There is a lack of rationality in that discussion that is only confirmed in the above examples. ] 15:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::::And now it inevitability starts -- the ]. I had a feeling this was going to come up eventually. Bus really has room to talk. He has been anything <b><i>but</b></i> civil. ] 13:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
'''Yes,''' ], '''the above is in reference to the following edits, on''' ]'s '''Talk page:'''
== ''Trying to reason wtih the mad-hatter'' ==
''Suggestion: Don't waste any more of your time knocking your head against the wall, the wall that is Bus Stop. Until he provides real documentation, we have no need of indulging him with our time, there is no use wasting any more of our energies trying to convince him why Wiki requires documentation. He is apparently on some sort of a religious kick, trying to defend what he believes to be his native religion at the expense of even logic itself. Logic demands documentation, not opinion. There's no point in trying to reason with the mad hatter, it will only make you mad.''
''By the way, thanks for letting me know about my excessive re-edits. I'm trying to work on that.''
-''] 13:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)''
'''and:'''
== ''For these trying times'' ==
''{{award2|Purple Star.png|thumb|topic=The Purple Star|text=This award is designed for those who have been injured or insulted by others for less than good reason. Given the amount of work you and another have both put into a certain page whose content is regularly being vilified by a certain "mad hatter", I believe this slight recognition has been more than earned by both of you. Keep up the good work, and don't let the "Bus"-tards get you down. ] 01:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)}}''
'''What is the issue that you take with my commentary in relation to the above two posts? I believe there may be more commentary of this sort, but I am not inclined to look for it.''' ] 14:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The ] is also a character in ] with zany attributes. I doubt that much research went into that comment and I'm sure its in reference to the character. You've made several indirect accusations of ] on the article's talk page also. All such accusations do in the end is make you look unprofessional. ] 18:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
:Mad Hatter also sounds like a reference to the Jewish propensity for head coverings on males. The ''yarmulke'' is the traditional male Jewish religious head covering. Hats are also used for this purpose. ] 19:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
::That's quite a stretch. Let's not misconstrue names and concepts which have a common definition. If this is what you took from John's statement, then I apologize on his behalf, but it seems fairly obvious that he's referring to the character from popular culture. --] 19:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
:::] -- It seems fairly obvious that it is antisemitic in nature. ] 01:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
::::Ironically, it would seem that your implication of racism on John Carter's part only serves to give some credence to his actual intention in using the term ''Mad Hatter''- that you are irrational and largely unfamiliar with reasonable thought and argument.
::::Could ''Mad Hatter'' be considered a personal attack? Sure; he's pretty much calling you 'an irrational nut'.
::::Could it be construed as a racial/ethnic/religious slur? No, it couldn't, save by an individual who is all too eager to feign victimization and play the 'race card'.
::::Am I accusing you of doing just that? No, but your eagerness to transform a relatively benign insult into a racial/religious slur makes your reasoning questionable. --] 02:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
== A Private Conversation? ==
== A Private Conversation? ==
Line 681:
Line 717:
==What's your problem?==
==What's your problem?==
Seriously. Why are you so possessed with keeping Bob Dylan's name off the list, even when a list of former converts was added later? It borders ], in my opinion. ] 13:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Seriously. Why are you so possessed with keeping Bob Dylan's name off the list, even when a list of former converts was added later? It borders ], in my opinion. ] 13:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
:] -- That is your characterization of me. That is not my characterization of myself. In point of fact, I oppose ''contradictions.'' In point of fact, I oppose ''contrivance.'' In point of fact, I oppose ''low standards.''
:In point of fact, I oppose the use of Misplaced Pages to promote religion in an article with the use of ''contradiction, contrivance,'' and ''low standards.'' Please feel free to discuss this on the article's (]) Talk page.
:And please stop ]. You have been doing far too much of that. Please try to use the Talk page of the article to articulate your point(s). ] 15:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
== ] ==
Given that many of your contributions deal with the subject above, I thought you might be interested in knowing that there is a group devoted to working on those articles. ] 22:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
==You may be able to help==
See ] and ]. ] 14:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
==]==
How come you didn't participate in the survey?--] 20:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi! Just want to let you know I'm not bothered by the sculpture/art thing. It happens. We'll end up with a stronger article(s) however it comes out. --sparkit23:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking it up right now in a book I have. A lot of interesting stuff. It's all surprisingly interrelated. Yes, Op art is said to simulate movement, or at least to create the illusion of movement. Interestingly, the term Op art was coined by a Kinetic artist, George Rickey! It is said that the first Kinetic sculpture was Marcel Duchamp's Bicycle Wheel of 1913. Anyway, Op art and Kinetic art (or sculpture) are separate things. I don't see any indication of any overlap. Bus stop23:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Neat! I'd read that about Bicycle but hadn't added to any of the articles. I, too, think of only the actual moving stuff as kinetic, but because op art is sometimes referred to as kinetic some mention is warranted, but like I said on the kinetic art talk page, dunno if a whole section is needed. --sparkit12:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I really want to see some of your art
Is this possible? You need to convince me you are actually a painter. You can just e-mail me some samples.AlainLa23:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Bus stop can answer as he wishes, but I've seen your comment on the AfD, and I want to point out categorically that there is no need for any editor to prove anything, other than their good conduct on wiki. He may or may not be a good or not good artist, but he is making proper judgements according to wikipedia policy as an editor. No harm in asking to see work, but if you get a polite refusal, then don't press any further please. Misplaced Pages also has a strict policy of preserving editor's anonymity if they wish it. New talk goes beneath old talk by the way, so I've moved your post. Tyrenius01:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Canvas Made with Rabbit Skin Glue & Oil-based Primer
Bus Stop
I will accept that you are a painter. Have you ever made a canvas using rabbit skin glue? The primer dries much more slowly than regular artist quality paint. I have made hundreds of canvases for myself and others and it takes weeks--every single time--to dry. The "rabbit skin glue" article is about just that, not about regular paint. Your desire to change this point does not seem to add any more value. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.110.196.19 (talk • contribs).
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 24 hours. Nishkid6417:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Nishkid64 -- You point out that I should "please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future." To which I would respond, "How much more of an effort to discuss my changes further in the future would you think would be advisable?" In point of fact I have discussed my editing extensively on the Bob Dylan article Talk page. Have you looked at the Bob Dylan article Talk page? Bus stop19:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Unblock
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
That was hours ago. The last of the four edits you refer to was 5 hours ago. I don't think I was reported for those edits. Those were in the lead paragraph. I think I was reported for correcting the unbalanced assertion (in the body of the article) that Bob Dylan had converted to Christianity. I think I was reported because I tried to add balance to the assertion that Dylan had become a "born again Christian." There has simply been no reliable source put forth for that. That has a place in the article, but undue weight should not be given to it. I think the reverts from more than 5 hours ago were just an excuse. Bus stop18:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The block was put in place more than five hours after the last of those reversions. Do we live in the Information age? How long does it take to act on such a violation? Bus stop19:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. I have only made revisions to the article.
This is ridiculous. I have only made revisions to the article. Apparently I have offended some people by pointing out that they were introducing untruth into the article on Bob Dylan. There is no source whatsoever that Bob Dylan actually converted to Christianity. They have found biographers who have referred to Dylan's "conversion" and so they think that gives them license to blithely refer to his conversion. Similarly, writers have referred to him as a "born again Christian," so they think that provides them with a source to refer to Dylan in the article by that terminology. I have no objection to these things being pointed out. But they have to be balanced out against factual definitions. Misplaced Pages has articles on Conversion to Christianity, and other relevant articles. I merely argued to introduce balance into the article, and endeavored to rewrite a couple of paragraphs a few times. That is not reversion. That is attempting to rewrite in order to have all views represented. They can feel free to use terminology and language that puts the assertions of some Dylan biographers into a well balanced context. But that is apparently what they do not wish me to do. Bus stop18:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
You weren't blocked for trying to introduce balance, you were blocked for 3RR violation. If you believe there's something to be contributed and others disagree, it should be worked out on the talk page. And herein lies the problem: everyone thinks they're bettering an article. But breaking 3RR is simply forbidden. Part Deux18:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Have you looked at the article's Talk page? I do believe by word count my contribution to the Talk page of the Bob Dylan article exceeds that of anyone else's. Unfortunately, I didn't say anything about trying to improve the article. You should try to pay attention to what is said by others, before trying to respond to them. Bus stop18:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
unblock|This is pathetic. The reason for the block is over five hours old. The reason for the block concerns edits to one word in the lead paragraph. That is a bogus reason for blocking my edits.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
This is pathetic. The reason for the block is over five hours old. The reason for the block concerns edits to one word in the lead paragraph. That is a bogus reason for blocking my edits. The real reason is because I have been, since the time of the last of the cited edits of five hours ago, been making edits in the body of the article. That is the only reason I've been reported. Those are legitimate edits and it is those edits that someone wishes to block.
Decline reason:
Your claim that if you get away with violating WP:3RR for five hours, nobody is entitled to block you is quite disturbing. — Yamla20:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Yamla -- Are you equally disturbed that unsourced information is being written about a living person (Bob Dylan)? Are you aware of the following: all content must be verifiable.Bus stop 22:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Bus stop19:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
(→Netscott) -- There has been no edit warring. I use the Talk page. There has been just as much reversion by others as there has been by myself. Right now you can see an editor asserting that a blog page indicates Dylan's conversion and "born again" status. (When I look at the blog, it's guess what -- written by a born again Christian.) No one is particularly interested in what does or does not constitute "conversion." No one is particularly interested in whether a source is valid or not. They leap to conclusions that Dylan's momentary persona is the equivalent of actual conversion to Christianity. There may be some continuity between these things, and there may be a place to point that out in the article, but it calls for nuanced wording. Blatant references to Dylan's "conversion," without any balancing wording is out of place, in my opinion. Bus stop21:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
You were blocked for clearly violating 3RR. The diffs above are just some of your reverts during this period. That constitutes edit warring on your part. No other editor violated 3RR or they would have been blocked as well. Use of the talk page does not justify your behavior in any way. It does not excuse or provide a free pass for edit warring by you. However, an examination of the Dylan talk page does show that your views have been opposed by multiple editors. --JJay21:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
JJay -- It doesn't matter if other editors disagree with me. There is a rule as follows: unsourced information in biographies of living people can be removed immediately. Bus stop21:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
It's good that you brought up rules. You should review WP:3RR. The four diffs above show that you were not removing unsourced information. You were adding a statement concerning religion to the Bob Dylan article lead. Four editors objected to that, yet you persisted in your stubborn edit warring. That is why you are blocked. --JJay21:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
JJay -- You are correct about that. In that instance others were removing well sourced information. Thank you for pointing that out. Thank you for coming here to visit me on my Talk page. It is always a pleasure. (A pleistocene type of pleasure.) Bus stop21:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I've looked at the article and I understand the valid point you are making. You need to calm dowm a little bit about it. I think (→Netscott) has given you some great advice here. I'm coming to the conclusion, that I may have misjudged him - because it would certainly appear that despite all "our" differences, he's really trying to help you here. You can be as right as rain - but if you break the rules you diminish your position. I'm sure you didn't necessarily mean to break 3 RR, but that is what you did. Don't miss the forest for the trees. You can still argue your points on the page, while abiding by Misplaced Pages's rules. I think that you should appologize for inadvertantly breaking 3 RR and move on from here. You and I have seen far too many Wiki rules which are not enforced. It hurts when legitimate editors, like yourself, are blocked on a trivial first offense. That hurts. It's very obvious that you were engaging in legitimate talk page discussions on the matter. Unfortunately, an administrator has chosen to take a hard line approach on this matter - failing to recognize you for the good faith editor we all know you to be. Although JJay's manner and approach can be somewhat abrasive, I have little doubt that he is also trying to help you - in his own way. This, too, shall pass...Peace! Cleo12306:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
As of five minutes ago, on the Bob Dylan Talk page, we have an editor asserting that I am acting "hypocritically." This is the second time he has made that assertion. Of course, I can't respond, at this time. But throughout our interactions I can say I have been acting civilly. I have not made any personal attacks, as he or she is doing now. Bus stop19:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, busstop, I'm not trying to be uncivil when I mentioned you are asking us to provide sources (which we have, many time) while you provide no sources. My source was not "some blogger" but an article on the official bob dylan website. In any case, though, Mick Gold found a much better source, and posted it as a citation within the actual article - he also mentioned several others on the talk page. I'm sorry if you felt I was attacking you when I called you hypocritical, I didn't mean it in a hostile way. However, I was feeling pressured by your rocksolid perspective which was not supported by any external source, and to date, still isn't. all the best, SECProto23:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
As I said, Mick Gold found a different, much better source. And as I said, Countless sources state his becoming a born again catholic. I have never seen any source state something to the contrary - except you. You need to cough up a source. SECProto03:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
The Bob Dylan article is a biography of a living person. Guidelines say remove unsourced material in such cases. That is simple. There is no source saying that Bob Dylan actually converted to Christianity. The references that were in the article to his "conversion" are not supported by sources. I was perfectly understanding of a balanced approach -- indicating that some felt that there was a de facto conversion. (Not that I agree with this.) But you can see right now that on the Talk page the same assertion is being made that some blogger's reference to Dylan's conversion is a valid source for that claim. I do not believe the block against me is for the reason stated. The block against me is more likely because I was altering the article to remove unbalanced references to Dylan as a "born again Christian" and such. I do not like such point of view pushing, and no administrator at Misplaced Pages should countenance it either.
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
"Religious conversion" is a meaningless term in the hands of proselytizers pushing their point of view.
"Religious conversion" is a meaningless term in the hands of proselytizers pushing their point of view. Bus stop13:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
What are you saying? I can't even understand what you are trying to say.
Jimmy Wales has said:"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity:
''"Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia."
The Dylan "conversion" paragraph that all the fuss is over seems quite solid as of your (bus stop) last edit, except for the statement "No actual conversion process took place", which needs to be removed. --Knulclunk14:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Knulclunk -- There is zero source that any actual conversion process has taken place. Unless, of course, we accept the assertion of one of the editors there that it is an "internal" process, and therefore there can be no source for such a "process." Bus stop14:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
That maybe so, but if there is no source for the negative either, then we should not comment on it at all.
There are sources for:
Christianity ... imagery used on such albums as Slow Train Coming (1979), and "Gotta Serve Somebody" (1980).
Some publications asserted ... Christian.
Dylan won "Best Male Vocalist" for his song "Gotta Serve Somebody".
When touring from the fall of 1979 ... "sermonettes" on stage...
"Dylan's apparent embrace of mainstream religion irked some.
John Lennon, for example, recorded "Serve Yourself"...
But for Rolling Stone editor Jann Wenner...
In the 70s he became good friends with Christian singer Keith Green...
What don't you get about the fact that this wasn't a block based on the content of the article. You violated WP:3RR, which receives automatic blocking. Period. There's a saying (to which I will not link for WP:BITE issues): If you've been told something, especially by several people in the community, it might be wise to consider the possibility that it is true. BLP doesn't apply here. End of story. Part Deux15:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The blocking wasn't automatic. There was point of view pushing, and there was resistance to point of view pushing. Do you see any relation between the removal of Dylan's Jewish-American status in the lead and the insertion of Dylan's Christian conversion process in the body of the article? They are related. No matter how many "people in the community" you might bring to tell me the two are unrelated, I don't think it would sway my understanding of such a thing. One does not put on blinders and refuse to see what is eminently relevant. From the point that the following was posted, I made no further edits to the lead:
▪ It is not standard practice or really appropriate to reference religion in bio leads. No one here has supported your position to date. You have been reverted by a host of editors and have now violated 3RR. --JJay 14:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
For the next few hours I only made edits to the body of the article. I was rewriting the paragraphs to introduce some balance. The block was also related to that. Bus stop16:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes...and what you are persistently forgetting to mention is that you reverted the article lead 4x in less than 24 hours despite nine talk page messages from four editors who objected to your action. See . That is edit warring. It is why I reported you . It is the only reason you were blocked. Breaking 3RR will get you blocked consistently. You need to move beyond the denial stage and accept the reality of your actions. --JJay17:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not think that is why you reported me. I do not need to "move beyond" any "denial stage" because I do not accept that I am in any denial stage. I think you reported me because you found it frustrating to discuss the issue with me on the article's Talk page, and you did not want to make edits to the article at the same time that I was making edits to the article, and you did not like the outcome of the combined edits to the article of the other editors and myself, in the five hours that transpired from the time of my last edit to the lead and the time at which the block went into effect. I am not in denial, but perhaps you are. Bus stop17:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Your edits to Lists of converts to Christianity
In your edit here, you keep removing sourced material. Have you proven that these sources are not reliable? Have you participated in the Talk page of the article? No you have not. Why do you then ask other users to use the Talk pages when you are not? I'm reverting your change for now. I'm seeing other users are having issues with you as well. --Matt5705:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I also agree that your actions regarding this matter have been much less than completely rational. As I have stated, if you can point to any evidence in reliable published sources to rival the Encyclopedia Britannica and New York Times citations in place, then perhaps your contention would be one I would even support. However, without such sources, I believe that the sources already provided can be included, and should be included to ensure NPOV. John Carter18:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Born-again Christians don't have a formal ceremony that indicates conversion. Demanding proof that such a ceremony happened is a red-herring. The sources provided on the talk page prove that it happened. Arrow74004:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Arrow740 -- It is not a "red-herring." All that you are arguing is that the term "born-again" is without meaning. I will not address whether the term has meaning or not. But if you are arguing that the term has no meaning, then what justification could there be to pin it on someone? It is not just the term "born again." Dylan is blithely being referred to by some editors here as a "convert to Christianity." That terminology is not being given any qualification, either. Dylan is being categorically referred to as a "convert to Christianity" by some editors here. If, as you say, there is no formal ceremony, then on what basis are we making this leap in understanding to put a born Jew on a List of converts to Christianity? You have to come up with some basis for that. Not just figurative language, but some real, hard basis for assuming conversion. Change of religion is not a light issue. Yet you seem to be arguing that such a transition occurs based on nothing tangible. I feel that if there is nothing tangible to clearly indicate actual religious conversion, and so far no editor has been able to point to anything in that area, then isn't it just point of view pushing to put Dylan on a list of converts to Christianity? And I am hardly alone in this thinking. This has been debated considerably on the Talk page of the Bob Dylan article. In fact, I've joined this debate late. It was going on long before I began participation in it. Just look at this: Proposal - Remove Bob Dylan from Category:Converts to Christianity, which took place long before I got here. Bus stop16:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I don't think 3R applies. For an extensive explanation, please see this on my Talk page. But, in a nutshell, Bob Dylan's status as a convert to Christianity is very much in debate, not just by me, but by many. (The previous link precedes my involvement in this issue.) I endeavored to do two things, engendering this block: 1) remove Dylan from List of converts to Christianity, and 2) add language after his name indicating that no real conversion ceremony or ritual can be pointed to by anyone. (This is a fact.) I think what I did is justified. WP:LIVING seems to me to say, for instance, "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Misplaced Pages, including user and talk pages." I request that you unblock me. Bus stop 17:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
WP:LIVING states: Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Misplaced Pages page. Such material requires a degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to our content policies: Verifiability, Neutral point of view (NPOV), No original research. We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The burden of evidence for any edit on Misplaced Pages, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material. Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Misplaced Pages, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Misplaced Pages:Libel. Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion. Jimmy Wales has said: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity: "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia."
Given the above, why does it presently say next to Bob Dylan on List of converts to Christianity: "Bob Dylan - popular musician (current religious status disputed)?" And equally important, why is his name on the List of converts to Christianity if his "religious status disputed?" Shouldn't his name at least be provisionally removed from the list until this issue is resolved? WP:LIVING seems to clearly say this. Concerning Bob Dylan, all of the editors involved in many days of discussion agree that no actual conversion to Christianity ever took place. I am stating that more forcefully than many others would state it, but in many days of discussion no editor has found any source indicating any event constituting conversion. There has been no citing for such hallmark signs of conversion as Baptism, religious ritual, public and/or formal acceptance of the new religion. All arguments have been based on the figurative use of language that is in abundance in many sources. Obviously sources are going to refer to his "born again phase" and his "conversion." But that is no reason for Misplaced Pages to put him in a List of converts to Christianity. (Lists and articles are different in several significant ways.) This is not just my issue, either. This has been hotly debated here, here, here, here, and here. And there are many additional places where this contentious issue has been debated. Given this atmosphere, why does Dylan remain on the List of converts to Christianity?
Here we have people using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox to advocate for the recognition of a Jewish convert to Christianity. WP:SOAPBOX says: "Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Misplaced Pages articles are not propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." A list is unlike an article in a very important way. In an article more than one point of view can be conveyed. Not so with a list. A list is an either/or situation. Either a name is on a list or a name is not on a list. Given that dispute, why does Dylan's name remain on the List of converts to Christianity? Shouldn't that information be deleted immediately? Why was I blocked for trying to either alter the comment next to Dylan's name on that list or trying to remove his name from that list entirely? Isn't this issue sufficiently in dispute for at least temporarily removing Dylan's name from that list? My personal opinion is that the List of converts to Christianity should be deleted in it's entirety. My personal opinion is that it's raison d'être is crowing over converts, so I simply find it in poor taste. But I have not let my personal opinions guide me in attempting to specifically modify Dylan's relationship to the List of converts to Christianity.
I don't think I've violated much, if any, Misplaced Pages policy because of WP:LIVING, above, especially that: "Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Misplaced Pages, including user and talk pages," and also that: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles."
While making my edits to remove and/or modify the "poorly sourced" information I also made considerable use of the Talk pages on both the Bob Dylan article and the List of converts to Christianity article. My edits have been made in good faith, to try to improve Misplaced Pages, and I have not spoken in an uncivil manner toward anyone. I think blocking me from editing is uncalled for, and I request that I be unblocked at this time. Bus stop 15:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your request is much too long. Please be more concise. Admins are volunteers and have limited time, especially for a block of only 31 hours. — Sandstein16:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
A statement from me (concerning this most recent block to my account)
WP:LIVING states: Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Misplaced Pages page. Such material requires a degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to our content policies: Verifiability, Neutral point of view (NPOV), No original research. We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The burden of evidence for any edit on Misplaced Pages, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material. Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Misplaced Pages, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Misplaced Pages:Libel. Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion. Jimmy Wales has said: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity: "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia."
Given the above, why does it presently say next to Bob Dylan on List of converts to Christianity: "Bob Dylan - popular musician (current religious status disputed)?" And equally important, why is his name on the List of converts to Christianity if his "religious status disputed?" Shouldn't his name at least be provisionally removed from the list until this issue is resolved? WP:LIVING seems to clearly say this. Concerning Bob Dylan, all of the editors involved in many days of discussion agree that no actual conversion to Christianity ever took place. I am stating that more forcefully than many others would state it, but in many days of discussion no editor has found any source indicating any event constituting conversion. There has been no citing for such hallmark signs of conversion as Baptism, religious ritual, public and/or formal acceptance of the new religion. All arguments have been based on the figurative use of language that is in abundance in many sources. Obviously sources are going to refer to his "born again phase" and his "conversion." But that is no reason for Misplaced Pages to put him in a List of converts to Christianity. (Lists and articles are different in several significant ways.) This is not just my issue, either. This has been hotly debated here, here, here, here, and here. And there are many additional places where this contentious issue has been debated. Given this atmosphere, why does Dylan remain on the List of converts to Christianity?
Here we have people using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox to advocate for the recognition of a Jewish convert to Christianity. WP:SOAPBOX says: "Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Misplaced Pages articles are not propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." A list is unlike an article in a very important way. In an article more than one point of view can be conveyed. Not so with a list. A list is an either/or situation. Either a name is on a list or a name is not on a list. Given that dispute, why does Dylan's name remain on the List of converts to Christianity? Shouldn't that information be deleted immediately? Why was I blocked for trying to either alter the comment next to Dylan's name on that list or trying to remove his name from that list entirely? Isn't this issue sufficiently in dispute for at least temporarily removing Dylan's name from that list? My personal opinion is that the List of converts to Christianity should be deleted in it's entirety. My personal opinion is that it's raison d'être is crowing over converts, so I simply find it in poor taste. But I have not let my personal opinions guide me in attempting to specifically modify Dylan's relationship to the List of converts to Christianity.
I don't think I've violated much, if any, Misplaced Pages policy because of WP:LIVING, above, especially that: "Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Misplaced Pages, including user and talk pages," and also that: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles."
While making my edits to remove and/or modify the "poorly sourced" information I also made considerable use of the Talk pages on both the Bob Dylan article and the List of converts to Christianity article. My edits have been made in good faith, to try to improve Misplaced Pages, and I have not spoken in an uncivil manner toward anyone. I think blocking me from editing is uncalled for, and I request that I be unblocked at this time. Bus stop15:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for having made your own complete and utter failure to abide by NPOV clear above. I quote you above: " personal opinion is that it's raison d'être is crowing over converts, so I simply find it in poor taste." Nobody really cares about your personal opinion, despite the fact that is your basic reason for your edits. In this case, your "personal opinion" and your own insistence upon acting upon it is a clear violation of WP:AGF and is inherently a violation of WP:NPOV. You don't like the Encyclopedia Britannica and the New York Times, but a music reviewer in Rolling Stone you see as an unimpeachable source? Hello? There are proper ways to handle such disputes, and they have been enacted, not by you by the way. Personally, I have no objections to your remaining an active editor, but your clear POV in this matter makes you clearly unqualified to work with this subject. I note that the only project you see yourself as a contributor to is Visual Arts, and that you seem to have some more basic familiarity with it than with matters of religion. I respectfully suggest that you confine your future edits to subjects which you know better than you do Christianity, which you seem to be at best ill-informed about. I wish no harm to you or anyone else, but your own ill-informed and unilateral actions are what get you in trouble. Please learn from these events, and don't put yourself in the situation where your actions will get you into trouble again. John Carter18:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
John Carter -- I also said, "But I have not let my personal opinions guide me in attempting to specifically modify Dylan's relationship to the List of converts to Christianity." Did you notice that?
And, what are you referring to when you say, "but a music reviewer in Rolling Stone you see as an unimpeachable source?" Did I say something about a music reviewer in Rolling Stone being an unimpeachable source? Maybe you are mixing me up with someone else. I don't recall saying that.
As for my being qualified or unqualified to involve myself in the articles and issues that we are discussing, I don't think that is for you alone to say. I notice that some other people have supported my point of view. I recall a couple of comments from others explicitly saying they agree with one point or another that I made. So, thank you for your discouragement, but I think I will participate in Misplaced Pages where my interests lead me. I think that is consonant with the basic philosophy of Misplaced Pages and also consonant with common sense. I live my life pursuing those subjects that spark my interest. Try it some time. You might like it.
One more thing: This dispute was going on long before I got here. I doubt if I've even added anything new to it. The Talk page of the Bob Dylan article is chock full of disputations concerning the placement of Bob Dylan in the List of converts to Christianity article. That leads me to believe my thoughts on the matter are not so off base. Bus stop18:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Then at least bother to learn something about those matters which "interest" you before deciding that wikipedia has to abide by your own ill-informed opinions. And try to learn something about the in-place dispute resolution process. It might even prevent you from being barred again. How many times has it been now? I would have thought that you might have learned something simply on the basis of having been repeatedly barred. Evidently I was mistaken. John Carter18:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
John Carter -- I try not to carry on conversations in the abstract. I like to speak in concrete terms, so that me and the person I am talking with, both know exactly what we are talking about. I don't appreciate your attempts to berate and belittle me. But if there is a specific issue you want to address in a specific way, I would be glad to respond to you. But I think your comments are just about attacking me, rather than addressing issues. Please try to focus on an issue; please try not to make ad hominem attacks. Bus stop19:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
"But I have not let my personal opinions guide me in attempting to specifically modify Dylan's relationship to the List of converts to Christianity."
Well, if you say so. On the contrary, you've said a few things which make your claims of neutrality in editing seem a little bit questionable. Let's take a look at some of "Bus stop's Greatest Hits":
From an edit to the article itself: "Untrue and unsourced and slanderous information should be removed IMMEDIATELY: Dylan is NOT a convert to Christianity, and does NOT belong on this list." See the diff here.
"Unsourced"... There are 9 sources listed, another which is from a Jewish site and is discussed on the talk page, there is a New York Times article (broken link, however) and there is an excerpt from the Encyclopedia Britannica.
"Slanderous"... It's slanderous to list someone as a convert to Christianity because we have 12 sources which all essentially affirm that he converted in some manner (ritually or through simple belief, most evidence to the latter), some of which go into great detail in regards to the events leading up to his conversion (change of belief), and some which detail the conflict between his new beliefs and those of his Jewish/Non-religious friends and fans. How is this slanderous? On the contrary, you have been focusing more on arguing with the sources present than adding sources which clearly and unequivocally state (as this appears to be your standard for sources) that Dylan did not convert to Christianity, and that it was simple an artist's 'persona'.
Note that it would have been incredibly simple to add a note which said "(conversion disputed)".
"We need a reliable source if we are going to say a Jew converted to Christianity."
What constitutes a 'reliable' source? Encyclopedia Britannica? Additionally, it seems here that you're most bothered by the simple fact that a Jew might have become a Christian. As if thousands of people aren't converting from one religion to another each and every day. Jews become Christians every day, Christians become Jews, Jews become Muslims, Muslims become Christians, etc. People have endless reasons for converting. It doesn't mean Judaism is inferior.
"Christianity considers it a triumph to convert a Jew to Christianity."
Ah, yes. I remember at our last J.C. (Jew Conversion), trumpets were blown, hymns were sung, and we spent the rest of the weekend throwing a festival in light of the occasion. Please.
I'm sure many Christians consider it a triumph for anyone to convert to Christianity, as do Muslims consider it a triumph for anyone to convert to Islam, and I'm sure many other religions, including Judaism, consider it a triumph when someone "finds the truth".
Your characterization of Christians makes it quite clear that you have probably had bad experiences with insincere or fanatical Christians. I could be wrong, however.
"I don't think we should be pushing the untenable point of view that Christianity has won a victory over a Jew as concerns the world to come or any such nonsense (my opinion)."
Once again, you are characterizing Christianity as being very simple and antagonistic. My last girlfriend was very, very Jewish, but I could care less whether or not she converted to Christianity, even though I make attempts so that we can understand each other's faiths. I (and most other Christians) are not on any sort of crusade to "defeat" Judaism, nor do we view faith and religion in such simple terms.
"Reliable sources are required. Most of the sources provided are Christian sources, or they are secondary sources. They are mired in the agenda of proselytizing."
From WP:NOR:
"Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Misplaced Pages, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them...
An historian's interpretation of the decline of the Roman Empire, or analysis of the historical Jesus, constitute secondary sources. Misplaced Pages articles should rely on reliable, verifiable, published secondary sources wherever possible....
Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases)."
Secondary sources are actually preferred. Additionally, a site is not unreliable simply because it has a religious bias. The site itself must be assessed independently from that assumption. As you claimed the sources were unreliable, I presented them for everyone to see on this talk page, so that we can assess which sources are actually unreliable and remove them.
You seem to believe that any Christian source cannot be trusted, as it is "mired in the agenda of proselytizing". It seems that you believe that any Christian that contributes to or runs a website is mainly concerned with warping facts in order to gain more converts.
Using that logic, simply because some Muslims vandalize and remove large sections from Criticisms of Islam in the interest of improving the appearance of their religion, we shouldn't trust any Muslim editors. After all, anything they write is probably "mired in the agenda of proselytizing", right?
"He was born a Jew and firm evidence should be required to dislodge him from that status, even temporarily."
This applies to any person converting to another religion from their birth religion. You seem to feel that Judaism is a magic religion which holds on to its adherents with an iron grip. You surely remember that 'Jew' is not only a religious term, but also a cultural (or racial) one. Many of the Jews I know are hardly religious, and I've spoken to many who participate in many of the rituals and celebrations, but do not even believe in a 'personal God'. This doesn't mean that they are no longer culturally 'Jews'. Many Jewish Christians (Messianics and such) believe that they are still Jewish, culturally and often even religiously. To them, there is no real conflict between their Christian and Jewish beliefs (I believe one of the sources states that this was Bob Dylan's belief).
For us in the Jewish community, anyone who claims that Jesus is their savior is no longer a Jew and is an apostate. Through that belief has placed self outside the Jewish community. Whether cares to define herself as a Christian or as a 'fulfilled Jew,' 'Messianic Jew,' or any other designation is irrelevant; to us, is clearly a Christian."
As there is a wide range of beliefs in the religion of Christianity, we must adopt a general definition if we are to accurately maintain the List of converts to Christianity. Many Christians would not define Catholics as 'Christians', and yet there is (of course) no dispute on whether or not they should be included in this list. So must it be for "Jewish Christians", Judaizing Christians", and "Messianic Jews". The shared belief in Jesus as the Christ, and as the last messenger of God, or as God himself, makes these people Christians. I include the second part of that definition to exclude Muslims, and since not all Christians believe that Jesus is the only way to salvation, that can not be a guideline.
"There are accountings of his re-involvement with Jewish rituals such as attending upon regularly recurring holidays of the Jewish calendar, since that time."
It seems clear that you didn't read the Jewsweek (a Jewish newsletter) source which includes apologetic passages explaining that many Jewish Christians still participate in Jewish festivals and ceremonies. If this was a Christian publication, you would undoubtedly claim that it's apologetic stance on your above assumption was "mired in the agenda of proselytizing"... am I correct?
From the Jewsweek article:
Even Mitch Glaser, the man who distributed gospel tracts for Jews for Jesus at Dylan's 1979 shows in San Francisco, wasn't disturbed by Dylan's presence at such a special event: "Well, first of all, the fact that he attended, or paid for, or encouraged his son's bar mitzvah, this would be normal for a Jewish dad. The fact is, there's a real bad presumption in all this: and that is that when you become a believer in Jesus, you don't have a bar mitzvah. And that is really, for the most part, false. I mean, I had a bat mitzvah for my daughters, and I would say lots of Messianic Jews have bar mitzvahs for their kids. And so that's not disturbing at all."
"In keeping with the nature of religion it would involve ritual. All of those factors are absent from your conveniently vague standards for conversion to Christianity."
Phrases like that make it seem as if we editors are somehow conspiring with each other to intentionally use ambiguous sources to 'pump up' the list. Yes, I suppose Dylan's personal quotations about Jesus being the one who saves, or his quote about Jesus being the only way to God are conveniently vague enough for us to 'insidiously' slip him into the list. Please assume good faith.
Additionally, it has already been argued by myself and others that not all of Christianity is ritualistic, and some do not even require any outward "expressions of faith". Many non-denominational Christians do not even think it is necessary to go to church, and some Christians believe (quite erroneously, in my opinion) that no change of lifestyle is required, by incorporating the beliefs that "salvation is by faith alone, not works" and that "salvation cannot be lost".
"We do not assume a Jew converts to Christianity. We assume the opposite. We are only swayed to accept that a Jew has converted to Christianity when standards of conversion have been met."
Again, this should be more general. We do not automatically assume that anyone has converted to any religion. It seems that you are assigning preferential standards for Judaism. This, essentially, makes Judaism seem superior to other religions. It is like the case of Abdul Rahman, where many considered him mentally incompetent because he would not renounce Christianity in the face of the death penalty. In this case, Islam is viewed as superior, and anyone willing to die for Christianity must be considered 'insane'. This is a rather ridiculous assumption. By expressing such strong disbelief that a Jew could convert to Christianity, you make the same basic assumption that the Afghans do: that one religion is superior, and conversion from it is hardly believable.
"Jews have been willing to lose their lives rather than convert to Christianity, historically. Therefore our assumption has to be that conversion has not taken place, unless reasonably convincing evidence to the contrary can be brought to the table."
Welcome to Christianity 101: The Martyrs. This doesn't mean that we should scrutinize claims of Christians converting to other faiths simply because "Christians have been willing to lose their lives rather than convert to another faith, historically".
The argument against preferential assumptions applies here as well. Interestingly, "reasonably convincing evidence" is a rather misleading, unclear statement, as many of the other editors as well as myself find the evidence "reasonably convincing". You happen to be the one who applies increasingly high standards in your disbelief, despite the presentation of more evidence which we happen to find "reasonably convincing"
"The Church is an institution. It has ways of accomplishing tasks. Dylan is a Jew. Stop pretending he converted to Christianity. That is advocacy."
We've already been over the fact that Christianity is not monolithic. As it stands, it is several, if not many, institutions, and it has a large variety of ways to "accomplish tasks". As stated, many churches and individual believers do not even belong to any of these official 'institutions', and do not adhere to the strict guidelines for "accomplishing tasks". I use to belong to one of these churches.
And again, you need to assume good faith. We are working off sources which we believe contain "reasonably convincing evidence" that Dylan was, in fact, a Christian- if only for a short period of time. And considering that you've spent much more time arguing against our "reasonably convincing evidence" than providing evidence of your own, it seems that we aren't the ones 'pretending'.
"It is preposterous to list him as a Christian convert, and it is abusing Misplaced Pages for advocacy purposes, which is against WP:SOAP."
Preposterous? We believe we have "reasonably convincing evidence". We are acting in good faith. We are not conspiring to trick people into converting to Christianity by listing their 'hero' on the List of converts to Christianity page. Additionally, you assume that the editors who are in opposition to you are Christians with the interest of proselytizing.
"No reliable, high profile publication, makes note in a straightforward manner of the religious conversion of such an eminently newsworthy person."
What is 'high profile'? Jewsweek? New York Times? The Encyclopedia Britannica?
How would it "make note in a straightforward manner"? Perhaps it would explicitly say, "he converted"?
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica: "In a dramatic turnabout, he converted to Christianity in 1979 and for three years recorded and performed only religious material, preaching between songs at live shows."
"If Encyclopedia Britannica got it wrong so be it."
Apparently, the Encyclopedia Britannica's researchers found "reasonably convincing evidence" for Dylan's conversion.
"The articles of the Britannica are aimed at educated adult readers, and written by a staff of 19 full-time editors and over 4,000 expert contributors. It is widely considered to be the most scholarly of encyclopedias."
It's too bad we'll have to part from the conclusions reached by Encyclopedia Britannica in favor of Bus stop's expert analysis.
I'm not claiming that the Encyclopedia Britannica is never wrong, but I find it hard to believe that from amongst a "staff of 19 full-time editors and over 4,000 expert contributors", not a single one has run into claims similar to Bus stop's. It is almost certain that they have, and it is almost certain that they found sufficient evidence to consider Dylan's conversion as authentic, if only for those few years.
Please assume good faith in our edits. There is equal reason to assume that you are advocating your position, rather than acting in a neutral fashion. --C.Logan00:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Bus stop, please come down from your pillar of rectitude!
Much to my shock, I see your name pop up at the community sanction noticeboard, which is generally reserved for persons of ill repute. Since you had the good sense to vote on the same side as me in a recent AfD debate, I figure you must have judgment and excellent personal qualities. So why are you out of control in the matter of Bob Dylan? I actually agree with you on Bob Dylan, but violating 3RR is a good way to go downhill fast. Please learn how to work the system, it's not that bad, and if we didn't have 3RR we would be in chaos. Please calm down for a bit and then try to find people who have common sense on the Dylan matter; there are probably thousands of them out there. EdJohnston20:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
EdJohnston -- 1) You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
2) What AfD debate are you referring to? I don't recall.
3) It certainly sounds like some want to silence dissent.
4) By the way, if you agree with me on Bob Dylan, why don't you express that in the discussions on the two relevant pages? Bus stop20:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
To speak in the "concrete" terms you prefer, there are many recognized churches, the Salvation Army among them, which do not have the formal ceremony of admittance which you seem to believe is an absolute requirement for describing someone as a Christian. On that basis, your entire argument along those lines collapses. This is why I told you that you might like to actually know something about a subject before pontificating about it. Evidently, however, you prefer to just revert sourced content from others, including from what are generally regarded as the most reliable sources extant, if they disagree with your own expressed preconceptions. Frankly, I cannot imagine that there is any further point in communicating with you, and think that your repeated failure to observe wikipedia policies, WP:3RR primary among them, may well make the point moot in any event. Good bye and good day. John Carter20:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
John Carter -- Why do you make all of the convenient assumptions? Aren't you conveniently assuming that only the factors that support your case apply? Isn't it as likely that a different Church than the one you are assuming was involved in the supposed Bob Dylan conversion? This is an encyclopedia. We deal in facts. We rely on verifiability. And where differing or conflicting information exists, we make allowance for that. Are you going to make the argument that whether we know or not these relevant facts that nevertheless Bob Dylan should be included in the List of converts to Christianity? Bus stop 21:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Bus stop21:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Artist Jew Christian Dylan
Is this just an issue involving Christians? Or does this involve Jews as well? How about artists? Do you think it might not involve artists as well? Who are you to say that an artist, a performing artist, can't assume the identity of a Christian without it constituting conversion?
User:Bus stop.Maybe this doesn't belong here, but I don't know where else to take this. The above user above has been blocked from editing three or four times now for three reversions of content on pages related to Bob Dylan, specifically regarding his conversion to Christianity in the late 1970's-early 1980's. Sources for that conversion include the Encyclopedia Britannica and New York Times and a published book of his own Christian statements from the stage. He cites "absence of a high profile publication is clear proof that no conversion took place." Evidently none of the above qualify, and in his eyes absence of evidence is clear prove nothing happened. User seeks to see some evidence of a formal sacramental initiation into Christianity, evidently not knowing or caring that several branches of Christianity do not use such practices, or perhaps believing that those Christians should not be classified as such. User has also questioned the good faith of editors seeking to insert such sourced material, using phrases such as "His Jewish heritage doesn't go out the window because he felt like exploring Christianity in 1979", Request user be blocked from editing the pages Bob Dylan, List of converts to Christianity, and List of Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians, as those three pages would seem to contain the only content which causes him to engage in these repeated reversions and other POV matters, that being questions about Dylan's conversion to some form of Christianity. User:Name removed by me19:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)''
Isn't is a contrivingly narrow approach to take to the entirety of this issue? Why is this only being portrayed as an issue involving Christians? Isn't that a pretty narrow approach? Contrary to what is asserted above, I've argued for only one point: that Dylan be removed from the List of converts to Christianity. Bus stop00:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Copied from Community Sanction Noticeboard:
I believe User:Warlordjohncarter account of events is somewhat misleading. For the most part, I have merely been watching this dispute from the sidelines. I, myself, also questioned the information in the article a few days back because the primary source for this information appeared to be a blog. The New York Times reference has only recently been added (after Bus stop's 1st block) thanks to his persistent requests for citations. It seems that User:Bus stop is legitimately concerned with WP:BLP issues. Editors on the "converted Christian" side of the fence seem to be perpetuating a possible misconception in the article, which seems to have struck a nerve with User:Bus stop. He seems to feel that he is addressing a libel issue that is exempt from 3RR. Regardless, he has behaved improperly and I do not defend him on that. I will say, however, that this is shockingly out of character.
I am concerned by User:Warlordjohncarter's statements above. Having followed these discussions, I find it very implausible that JohnCarter accidentally misrepresented User:Bus stop's block history. User:Bus stop has created a lot of work for the other editors by challenging their position. I can understand why they might want him - or his view - blocked from the page. I do not see User:Bus stop's request for evidence of a formal sacramental initiation as at all unreasonable. I'd like to see some myself! I know of no branches of Christianity that do not require converts to be formally baptized in Christ. It is a fundamental part of Christianity required by all denominations. User:Warlordjohncarter has taken User:Bus stop's statements out of context portraying him in the most unreasonable light possible. I know User:Bus stop to be a very rational and civil editor by and large. He was a significant contributor on the highly contentious Michael Richards article and is most capable of working productively and positively within the community's guidelines and policies. Hopefully, he will take advantage of this block as an opportunity to calm down."
It looks like you're becomming the subject of a witch hunt. Is it really worth it? Maybe you should step back from this a little bit and chill? Just some friendly advice. Peace, Cleo12302:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Cleo, besides non-denominational Christian communities and individuals (which lack any unified structure and are heterogeneous in their beliefs), one such denomination which does not practice baptism is the Salvation Army. The Baptism page also notes that "a few Christian groups assert that water-based baptism has been supplanted by the promised baptism of the Holy Spirit, and water baptism was unnecessarily carried over from the early Jewish Christian practice."
My old (non-denominational) church held baptisms, but no one was required to take part. I never took part in any real statement of faith, and I considered myself a Christian then. No one argued with me.
Of course, the Salvation Army functions like a military organization, so there is some sort of conversion process. However, it is important to note that this denomination, which has over 100,000 adherents (according to their 2006 yearbook), does not see baptism as a necessity, nor do they encourage the practice of it. --C.Logan02:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Cleo. My primary objection is that Dylan should not be on the List of converts to Christianity. I do not know if the alleged conversion is valid. But neither does anyone else. The impression one gets when one sees a name on such a list in an encyclopedia is of veracity. Truth. A list is an either/or type of thing. You are either on the list. Or you are off the list. That is what a list is. It is black and white. I have seen no one come up with a shred of evidence that any transition from Jewish to Christian took place. I've heard the lyrics on Slow Train Coming cited as "proof" of conversion. I've heard a dictionary definition brought forward as similar proof. I've heard Dylan's "sermonettes" between songs cited as constituting conversion. This is what people do not come to Misplaced Pages for. In fact, all of that is original research. As soon as Misplaced Pages goes out on a limb and speculates about something that it is not sure of, all of it's principles go out the window. Neutral point of view is immediately gone when you speculate about things that you simply have no way of knowing. A list implies truth. An article can include shades of grey. A list can not. In the article on Bob Dylan there is much more leeway to deal with the "Christian" period in Dylan's professional career, and maybe even in his life. But without a subject meeting a fairly high standard of verifiability for conversion, inclusion on a list is unwarranted. There are really lots of reasons to believe no valid conversion took place. One of which is that there was no Christian life lived. Is there any indication Christianity had any bearing on his life after the supposed conversion? But I am admitting I don't know. To me it is clear that the editors arguing for the validity of conversion don't know either. What I hear in the guise of arguments is mere conjecture. That argues for removal from the list. Bus stop03:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, that's incorrect. As we are citing secondary sources which claim that he converted, this is not Original Research. Secondary sources are almost universally preferred on Misplaced Pages, as the usage of primary sources often leads to OR.
Also, it's interesting that one of you arguments against an actual conversion as that there is no real change in lifestyle, in the long term anyway. Let's go through the list then, and assess the lives of each person. We should remove each person who's lifestyle doesn't seem to reflect their change in religion. Oh wait, that's absurd. This is List of converts to Christianity, not List of converts to Christianity who actively practice their newfound religion.
It is indisputable that at least some of these people (if not many) included in this list don't actually live lives which reflect their religious change. Some may have only converted for marriage reasons, or for political reasons (as is supposed with Carlos Menem). That's not the point of this list. If someone has at one time professed belief in Christ as their savior, and/or has gone through a conversion ceremony, they are considered 'converts to Christianity and will be listed here, regardless of whether they converted out of the religion a week later, and regardless if they are still practicing. The same applies to all other religious pages listing converts.
I hate to be involved in this dispute. It's quite lame, but I must insist on my viewpoint until you can convince me otherwise. Show me sources, and hope that I don't reject their reliability as you have for the sources we've presented. Unfortunately, though, even if you do provide sources for insincerity of conversion, he'll likely remain on the list as a disputed conversion. After all, we're only supposed to express what the sources themselves say- not make judgments about them. If we have sources that say he did convert, and you actually bring sources that say that it was just an entertainer's act, that simply means we'll have to compromise. --C.Logan03:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I think Dylan would laugh like he does on "Bob Dylan's 115th Dream" if he witnessed this discussion. He is obviously not one to be boxed in. Why is he being put on a list of converts to Christianity? Do you really think he subscribes to the basic tenets of Christianity? He performed onstage in a reasonable facsimile of a Christian. But does anyone really think that he therefore should go on a list of converts to Christianity? Especially without any formal conversion process? And why are some people making an argument that only applies in some cases? Even if some Churches do not involve formalities in the conversion process, how does anyone know that Dylan was involved with such a Church? Isn't it equally likely that he was involved with a Church that did involve Baptism or other formality, and that he politely declined to go through with the entirety of the process? Isn't that possibility equally likely? Bus stop03:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
From what the sources actually say, he was involved with the Vineyard church, run by Kenn Gulliksen. Here's a page which provides information.
Additionally, this source actually says that Bob was baptized by one of Gulliksen's assistant pastors, but I have no doubt you'll refuse to recognize this source. I would like to find other sources which stated the same, but this is at least one which states that he formally participated in a ceremony.
Even if this source is unreliable in your opinion, and is removed from this discussion, it should be noted that I've refused baptism every time it was suggested. My family and friends had brought it up several times, and each time I gave a non-answer to the suggestion. However, I did consider myself Christian. The fact that I refused baptism laid more in my old opinion that it wasn't truly important in comparison to the faith itself. I don't mean to bore you with dull history; I'm only expressing that refusal of baptism does not constitute disbelief. --C.Logan03:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
It sounds as if your own involvement with this denomination may constitute a conflict of interest that might be coloring your point of view. Cleo12306:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, I'm no longer a member of that church (I'm actually rather against it's tenets, now). I'm simply stating that it's silly to make the assumption that the refusal of baptism guarantees disbelief, as it doesn't- and I myself can testify to that fact. I can assure you that my religious affiliation has little to do with my persistance in the argument- I just feel that the viewpoint shared by myself and several others is correct. Now if you'll excuse me, my cereal is getting soggy. --C.Logan06:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Gaming the system
Hi Bus Stop,
You don't seem to want to answer any of my questions over on the List of notable Christian converts, so until you do, I will assume that you are just gaming the system for the fun of it over there and that you really understand the Wiki rules on documentation and the Christian definition of conversion but just want to see how far you can get away with leading them around on a wild goose chase over there before they all realize that, that is what you are up to. Ciao.
Hi Scott -- I didn't know you had a question. What was your question? And I don't know what "gaming the system" is. I don't know if "for the fun of it" characterizes my participation in and contribution to Misplaced Pages, but there is nothing wrong with plain enjoyment, is there? I think my intellectual compass is accurate, but I am always due for a check up. There is no devious joke I am perpetuating on you or anyone else if that's what you're suggesting. I try to stay happy and have fun but I consider my endeavors serious. My participation in the discussions that you've been a part of has been a serious and sincere participation. Somehow I don't think "gaming the system" or "fun" are exactly the most appropriate or descriptive terms to apply to me. But hey -- everybody else has criticism of me too, so you are entitled to express your criticism to me -- any time. Thank you for visiting me here in my lion's lair. Bus stop10:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
This is an exact quote from you on the Talk:Bob Dylan page. "Christianity considers it a triumph to convert a Jew to Christianity. Judaism does not proselytize, but Christianity does." I fail to see how these statements are in any way relevant to the content of the article, or even what the other editors concerned with the content of the article are discussing. Regretably, your own intransigent position regarding your own clearly undocumented position, and other statements you have made on this and the Talk:List of converts to Christianity page, have made it increasingly obvious (and please note that an obvious statement is not in all cases necessarily the most accurate one) that you are yourself approaching this from a pronouncedly POV position. Were you to provide any sort of substantiation of your own claims (such as Dylan's "assuming a persona" such that he had to preach a religion he didn't believe in from stage), these reservations regarding your conduct I and others have might be alleviated. Directly responding to points which might seem to contradict your own position might help as well. As is, however, your own contributions to the discussion seem to be very little more than endless reiteration of previous statements, with no direct responses to the comments of others, and are I think, on that basis, of very little use in furthering the discussion. Having said that, I do think that I and the other involved editors would be interested in having you or any other interested party take part in the discussion if their new statements in any way, shape or form actually contributed to the discussion, and were not simply rehashings of previous statements. John Carter14:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me just add that I feel that many of Bus Stop's copious talk page postings are filled with statements that violate WP:Talk, namely: Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. The quotes above are flagrant examples. Repeatedly using talk pages to argue a POV position crosses the line into WP:TE. Per that essay, we are not here to "right great wrongs" and the standard at wikipedia, per WP:OR is "verifiability, not truth". I would strongly encourage Bus Stop, if he intends to continue participating in talk page discussions, to support his comments with references, rather than unsubstantiated opinion. JJay15:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Bob Dylan and Christianity and Judaism
Hi BusStop,
I agree with you completely. It appears to me that Bob Dylan practices Judaism in a personal way, and doesn't really care what everybody else in the world thinks. He maybe flirted with Christianity for a few years, and why not, but there is no evidence that he was baptized, or that he had a formal return to Judaism later on. Whatever he does, he wants to do it privately. If I ran into him at Kabalat Shabbat this Friday, I would say Shabbat Shalom to him, but I wouldn't come back here and tell you about it (or anyone else), even though I've been involved in this argument. I would just want him to have his privacy.
However, if he came up with a new melody for Lecha Dodi, I would try to learn it from him, and I would tell you that some "mystical guy" I met last Friday was singing it.
I kind of started this by starting the debate a month ago. I feel like I upset a hornet's nest, and I almost don't know what I can do for you here, except to say that what people on Misplaced Pages decide doesn't determine in any way what Bob Dylan is. Only Bob Dylan determines that.
I'd say take a breather and work on something else in Misplaced Pages for awhile. That's what I always do when I come up against this kind of mishegoss. Metzenberg05:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Metzenberg, please check the sources, both internet-based and published, which are in agreement of the details leading up to his conversion and mentioning his baptism. We are not drawing things from the text here- the sources say these things. I have not seen any source presented by Bus stop which has denied his baptism... unless Bus stops words count as a 'source'.
Yet again, this is not a list of current Christians. If Bob was on the List of Christians, the argument would be much more sound, and I would be inclined to agree with his removal from that list. The list in question is for converts to Christianity, regardless of continued devotion. The list includes a disclaimer to clear up confusion in this matter, which I feel is redundant, considering that any converts who later left the religion would have this clearly indicated in their entry.
"what people on Misplaced Pages decide doesn't determine in any way what Bob Dylan is."
That's true. The sources themselves decide what Bob is. And the sources agree that Bob became a Christian in 1979, through baptism. He may have returned to Judaism later- this seems likely. However, he is not included on the list because 'he is a Christian', but because 'he converted to Christianity'. Not only that, but the event was widely publicized and criticized. Many fans rejected the new Bob and his musical changes. This conversion is more notable than most because of the uproar it caused, both positively and negatively.
If Bob is Jewish now, than I am happy for him. I would go to temple with my ex-girlfriend, and her dad would make me read the English reading during celebrations. I wore the (loaned) hot pink yarmulke, and in spite of this, enjoyed the services. Judaism is a wonderful religion and has a wonderful culture behind it. No one is denying Bob of his Judaism. The article has clearly stated his perceived return to this faith, although Scott Perry's recent edit has re-worded this. --C.Logan17:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
So it sounds to me like the debate has turned into a question of whether the list is one of people who "are" christian, or people who have "ever been". It's just my opinion, but it seems like Dylan's Christianity was about a 2-3 year phase, about the length of one relationship. Does Dylan also belong on a list of Christian apostates because he no longer practices Christianity? I don't think he belongs there either. There are a lot of religioun seekers who try out everything, going from one faith to another. I have met Jews who are both ex-Christians and ex-Muslims or ex-Budhists. I'm sure some of them will later become ex-Jews too when something new comes along.
Yesterday, I authored some new material tangential to this whole debate by writing a new page on Larry Yudelson, the Jewish publisher and blooger who created the Dylan Tangled up in Jews page. Now you'll know who he is. --Metzenberg19:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
It may have been a phase, but it's certain that he had enough of a belief in it to fully convert. Several of the people on the list may have only converted for political reasons (such as Carlos Menem), and they may not have had true belief in this faith. However, that's not really up to our judgment. The sources say that these people have converted, and therefore we must take the sources' word for it.
As far as Dylan belonging on a list of apostates, it's questionable. Has he publicly renounced Christianity in the same way that he was converted into it? If sources can be compiled for the fact, then I would say he does belong on such a list. --C.Logan19:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The "sources" for any Baptism for Dylan are flimsy at best. The source is one individual who says he doesn't know where or when the supposed Baptism took place. That source says it took place at some point in time over several days, and "probably" in the "ocean." That qualifies as gibberish. Obviously no witness to any such "Baptism" has been found. Bus stop19:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Dylan is a Jew by way of having been born a Jew. His mother and father were Jewish. He need not "renounce" anything. He does not have to convert to Judaism. Bus stop19:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, right. I forgot the policy which state's that multiple published sources hold less weight than Bus stop's assertions. Additionally, as I have said several times, the fact that location is unknown does not mean it did not happen. I can know that my friend was married, without knowing where the marriage took place. Your assumption is fallacious. Additionally, it should be noted that only two of the published sources available are used. User Mick Gold has explained to me that many of the books he owns contain conversion evidence (though he was not clear about what they said), and I have two or three more books on my list which still must be looked at.
Additionally, Dylan's cultural Judaism has never been denied. The way you are using it in a religious sense is like saying that "since Muhammad Ali was born to Christian parents and was raised Christian, he does not have to convert back to Christianity to be a Christian again. He does not have to renounce Islam to be a Christian again." I don't think that any Christians or Muslims will consider that assertment valid.
Please present sources which support your viewpoint, and your assertion will sound a little less ridiculous. And, holding you to your own standard, be sure it says "Bob Dylan was never baptized", clearly and explicitly. --C.Logan20:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
C.Logan, you need to calm down. I am beginning to think that it is you, not User:Bus stop who is in need of a Wiki break. Multiple editors have now stated that your "source" for the baptism is a flimsy and unacceptable source. The murky self published statement of someone with an obvious agenda is not acceptable under Misplaced Pages standards. For goodness sake, your primary source is some sort of a newsletter! Notable publications reiterating the fact that this pastor said this, do not make the pastor's statement true. This can be adequately addressed in an article, but not on a list - which reads as a statement of fact.
Your hostile statements towards User:Bus stop are unwarranted. You are apparently very proud of the fact that you dated a Jewish woman, however, your remarks indicate a profound lack of understanding of the Jewish faith. Bloodlines are extremely important in the Jewish religion. Because Dylan is born of pure Jewish blood, he is, was and will always be a Jew. User:Bus stop is dead on when he says there is no need for Dylan to convert back to Judaism, for one cannot "renounce" their blood. If, for example, a Christian woman converts to Judaism - her children are not truly considered Jewish. She and her children may practice Judaism, but Jewish blood must pass through the maternal bloodline for an individual to be considered a true Jew. That is the point User:Bus stop is making and perhaps that is why Dylan's inclusion on this list is so offensive and improper from a Jewish perspective.
I really don't understand why his inclusion on this list is so important to you. Your admission of a prior involvement in the Vinyard Church, leads me to suspect that there is an editorial bias on your part, whether it be a concious or unconcious one. The man is a practicing Jew. You have yet to produce any evidence that he "renounced" Judaism - only that he briefly embraced Christianity. Cleo12323:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
But as I understand it, even "briefly embracing Christianity" is sufficient cause for inclusion in the list. Please inform me why this should not be the case. I also note that the preponderance of the evidence, including Dylan preaching Jesus from the stage and several contemporary reports, make it clear that he did in fact embracing Christianity, which is the sole criteria, as I understand it, for inclusion in the list. Please illustrate specifically which point of logic you are using to justify the conclusion that he had to "renounce Judaism" to embrace Christianity. John Carter00:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Cleo, I think you should re-check that. The sources for baptism are 2 books, both of which are widely published and well known, from what I can see. Make sure to take a look at the sources before you make a statement like that. Additionally, if by "multiple editors", you mean "Bus stop", then yes, multiple editors have called these book sources "flimsy at best". I'm going to assume you mean the first-listed sources, as we are discouraged of using primary sources on Misplaced Pages.
I don't know if you noticed, Cleo, but whether or not he is 'culturally' Jewish, or Jewish by blood, however you'd like to term it, he can still become an apostate. As I've quoted before, according to the Central Conference of American Rabbis:
For us in the Jewish community, anyone who claims that Jesus is their savior is no longer a Jew and is an apostate. Through that belief has placed self outside the Jewish community. Whether cares to define herself as a Christian or as a 'fulfilled Jew,' 'Messianic Jew,' or any other designation is irrelevant; to us, is clearly a Christian."
Therefore, it should be clear that faith in Judaism is not solidly linked to Jewishness. It seems clear to me, considering this, that mere expression of Christian belief is akin to renouncing your Jewish faith, if only to this council of rabbis. However, this is really not a big part of the argument, as it doesn't really matter what Dylan is now, considering the criterion.
The criterion for inclusion on the list is clearly defined at the top of the list:
The following is a list of people who have at one time converted to Christianity.
Important note: This list is known to include some individuals whose initial conversion experience may have since lapsed or reverted. Inclusion on this list is not necessarily an assertion that an individual continued to practice as a Christian throughout his life after his conversion.
Cleo, it troubles me greatly to read this, and I almost laughed at how clearly you show that you're not paying attention to what I'm saying:
Your admission of a prior involvement in the Vinyard Church, leads me to suspect that there is an editorial bias on your part, whether it be a concious or unconcious one.
Please show me where I said I was involved in the Vineyard Church. I told you I was involved in a non-denominational church. At what point this came to mean "Vineyard Church" to you is beyond me. If you'd like to know, I used to go to Flamingo Road Church. Please make sure you don't draw the wrong assumptions from the text before you make accusations.
Finally, don't assume my tone from the text alone. I'm unsure why you seem to think I'm getting hot-headed about this.--C.Logan01:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
My impression that you have a previous involvement with the Vinyard church is based upon your admission on April 28th:
It sounds as if your own involvement with this denomination may constitute a conflict of interest that might be coloring your point of view. Cleo123 06:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, I'm no longer a member of that church (I'm actually rather against it's tenets, now). I'm simply stating that it's silly to make the assumption that the refusal of baptism guarantees disbelief, as it doesn't- and I myself can testify to that fact. I can assure you that my religious affiliation has little to do with my persistance in the argument- I just feel that the viewpoint shared by myself and several others is correct. Now if you'll excuse me, my cereal is getting soggy. --C.Logan 06:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Did you mis-speak?
As for the two books, I have not seen them and cannot verify what they say. I am concerned that information has been twisted and taken out of context to support a POV here. I believe you yourself, have previously listed 7 editors who disagree with your point of view. Based on his comments above, it looks like you can add Metzenberg to your list. He, himself, acknowledges initiating this debate - not User:Bus stop, who has become a bit of a scapegoat here. Let's try to keep article related discussions on the article's talk page. Cleo12302:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see where the misunderstanding is. When you accused me of my affiliation interfering, I was assuming you meant my involvement with a non-denominational church. Take a look at the whole thing:
From what the sources actually say, he was involved with the Vineyard church, run by Kenn Gulliksen. Here's a page which provides information.
Additionally, this source actually says that Bob was baptized by one of Gulliksen's assistant pastors, but I have no doubt you'll refuse to recognize this source. I would like to find other sources which stated the same, but this is at least one which states that he formally participated in a ceremony.
Even if this source is unreliable in your opinion, and is removed from this discussion, it should be noted that I've refused baptism every time it was suggested. My family and friends had brought it up several times, and each time I gave a non-answer to the suggestion. However, I did consider myself Christian. The fact that I refused baptism laid more in my old opinion that it wasn't truly important in comparison to the faith itself. I don't mean to bore you with dull history; I'm only expressing that refusal of baptism does not constitute disbelief. --C.Logan03:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
It sounds as if your own involvement with this denomination may constitute a conflict of interest that might be coloring your point of view. Cleo12306:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I was speaking of my own former church, which doesn't pressure anyone into baptism, and doesn't consider it essential. This was brought up in response to Bus stops assertion that 'to be a Christian, you must be baptized', which isn't true... I was pointing out that my church has never forced it upon anyone, and many people choose to remain unbaptized, as it is seen as soteriologically unimportant. It's unfortunate that I didn't clarify when jumping from one subject to the next.
Hi Cleo. It's good to see you. You are always welcome to post on my page. I think you spoke one thing in error though. I am not an expert, but I think a Christian woman who converts to Judaism has Jewish children. I believe you were mistaken when you said that her children are not Jewish. In point of fact her children would be Jewish. Bus stop00:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
You'd think, wouldn't you? There is apparently some difference of thought on this between conservative and reformed jews. My own experience proves that not to be the case. (I consider this a personal side bar - as it has no direct baring on the article, so I see no issue with "original research".) I am of mixed heritage, myself, and a maternal break in bloodline several generations back has created issues for me. A rabbi indicated to my former fiance, that my children would not be "true" jews due to this break in the maternal line. Go figure! I guess it depends who you talk to. I've heard the opposite as well.
As long as we're discussing religion, I know that I was among the multitude of people who accepted a gohonzen in the 80's. I think I'd have a fit if I ever found myself on a list such as "people who converted to Buddhism." LOL! I'm not sure Bob Dylan's situation is all that different. LOL! Cleo12301:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
It's exactly the same thing, Cleo. That is why it is proselytizing. It is simply for the purposes of promoting Christianity. That is why I want him (Bob Dylan) off the List of converts to Christianity. It is such a contrivance to say that it is a list of anyone who ever converted to Christianity. That does not make logical sense. Why not make a list of anyone who ever converted to Christianity while wearing a yellow hat? How about we create an article on all those who ever converted to Christianity while wearing a red hat in a yellow taxicab? All that they are doing in order to proselytize for Christianity is concoct weird parameters that don't make natural sense. It is just a contrivance. A list that makes sense (and it is seriously debatable if any such list makes sense) is a list of "all those who have come to Christianity by way of conversion" (as opposed to being born Christian). That is a logical category. That is not a contrived category. The contrived category that they are promoting is precisely in order to capture Dylan and people like Dylan in it. Another thing they are in violation of is WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. That says that "That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages." The unnatural category they've created captures indiscriminate information. That Dylan had a fling with Christianity 25 years ago in no way makes him a "convert to Christianity." The whole category is a contrivance. I think it constitutes an abuse of Misplaced Pages. Promotion of religion on Misplaced Pages annoys me. I guess it is just one of my pet peeves. Bus stop03:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
"That is why it is proselytizing. It is simply for the purposes of promoting Christianity."
No, it isn't. This list is for reference. His conversion is notable. It was the watershed moment which began his "Christian phase", and caused a wide variety of reactions from both critics and fans.
It's amusing that you aren't getting so riled up about the fact that the list of vegans includes people who no longer practice veganism. Is this simply for the purpose of promoting veganism? No, it is for reference. It is notable that these people were once vegans, and it is notable that Bob Dylan went through the conversion process and became a Christian. If I'm not mistaken, books have been written about this conversion and the ensuing change of style. Documentaries have been made. The man converted to Christianity, officially, through baptism, according to at least two books, widely-available- and this is still considering that I have yet to finish my source-seeking at the bookstore. You have provided no source which claims that he had not. You have no sources that claim that he was not baptized. Please provide these, and I will respect your argument much, much more.
I have company over now, so I'm sorry to cut this short. I'll finish it later. Have a nice night, Bus stop & Cleo. --C.Logan04:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
As the above note seemed to "jump" over my direct question to Cleo, I repeat it here. Please illustrate specifically which point of logic you are using to justify the conclucion that he (Dylan) had to "renounce Judaism" (to use the phrase you used) to embrace Christianity. John Carter00:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
You appear to be misinterpretting my statements. I will respond on the article's talk page. I think too many issues related directly to the article are ending up on User:Bus stop's page. Cleo12301:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Christian proselytizing shouldn't be pursued on Misplaced Pages. That is exactly what the inclusion of a Jew in the Christian List of converts to Christianity is all about. The proselytizing is accomplished by including a prominent and charismatic and, importantly, Jewish man on the list. That is advocating for an idea, in clear violation of WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. It is just a contrivance that the proselytizers have defined the parameters of this "list" to retain on the list living people who clearly are Jewish. Too bad Misplaced Pages is being diverted to this narrow religious end. Bus stop20:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Your logic is incredible! Including a person who became a Christian and then left the religion is an endorsement to Christianity? Considering that the article states at each person their current religious affiliation if it has changed, and considering that the article clearly states at the top that the article only lists conversions to Christianity, not continued adherence. Considering Bob's drastic changes following his conversion, it's undeniable that it's notable for both his own noteworthiness and for the results of his conversion (which you continue to debate with your special "I don't need sources" pass).
Only an idiot would convert to a religion simply because Bob Dylan did the same, especially when Bob Dylan apparently did not continue in this religion. His entry is as much of an endorsement to Christianity as using the List of ex-Christians is an endorsement of Christianity. --C.Logan20:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Bus stop, this statement, "Christian proselytizing shouldn't be pursued on Misplaced Pages. That is exactly what the inclusion of a Jew in the Christian List of converts to Christianity is all about" is proof that you are not yourself approaching this discussion in good faith. On that basis, I very strongly urge you to cease from further comments based on your existing POV, as you are completely and utterly failing to assume good faith on the part of any other editor involved in the discussion and clearly using your own point of view as the only relevant matter, again without any sources cited, yet another rule of wikipedia, that I can honestly say that you have demonstrated a disregard for the rules of wikipedia. This blatant demonstration of your own lack of objectivity is I think sufficient cause for you to recuse yourself from any further discussion of this matter, before you once again cause further action that I believe we would all find regretable. John Carter21:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
It makes little sense to judge our inclusion of Dylan when you are basing it on your own criterion. You already know the criterion for inclusion, and yet you disregard our criterion and use your own to criticize us and call us advocates. We make the criterion clear to the reader so that there can be no deception. Also, please take a note that the article is called List of notable converts to Christianity.--C.Logan21:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
However, talk pages are according to policy primarily there so that individuals can exchange ideas and comments regarding wikipedia which may not be appropriate to a given article. I thought you already knew that. And, certainly, the majority of your, dare I say repetitious(?) comments which you have insisted on placing on both the page you referenced and the Talk:Bob Dylan page, certainly make it clear that you are very interested in at least talking to others. And please note that the editor you are criticizing has actually contacted others regarding on their talk pages regarding how to deal with what I think might be fairly described as your apparent intransigence. Considering that the question really seems, at least to me, not regarding the fair content of the article, but your insistence that the article conform to your own apparently pre-existing opinion, this actually is the appropriate place to discuss it. John Carter00:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
It's a shame you feel that way, Bus stop. You're always invited to stop by my talk page, if you'd like. Not much entertainment going on there, I'm afraid. --C.Logan01:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for catching problem in cave painting article
Wow, I've never seen such a massive discussion on a user Talk page. I see EdJohnston appeared here. Befriend him. He's really balanced in his judgments. Anyway, thanks for catching the problem in my revision to the cave painting article when I deleted "however" according to the guideline on words to avoid. See if you think it reads okay now. TimidGuy15:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Great. Thank you for saying hello. I think EdJohnston is a cool enough cat. I need all the friends I can get. Feel free to stop back. Yes, I checked into that cave again. It looks OK to me. And I'm glad to know the circuit is complete, in the sense that you did further work on the article after I did a little adjustment to it. What goes around, comes around. I can't think of anything else to say, so, take care. Bus stop15:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that Barnstar. I really do appreciate it.
I find it especially interesting that they think they can get away with this. I can try to turn away from this subject, but I can't. It is the inherent injustice that stays on my mind. There is an inherent bias. It is built into their chosen criteria. Do they think no one will notice this? You can't contrive parameters. Either parameters have a natural existence, because they arise naturally, or you had better have a very good reason for deviating from natural parameters. That is the way I see it. Deviation from natural parameters would certainly require an explanation. Yet there has been no explanation forthcoming. Do these editors seriously think they can foist their tailored parameters on others without the need to explain their out-of-the-ordinary choices? Natural parameters I think calls for a list of all notable Christians who came to Christianity by way of conversion. That is a description of a set of naturally arising parameters that I think would suit the sort of page that this is. But the editors involved in this list have introduced a series of parameters at variance with the ones I just described. In their opinion it should be a list of all those notable people who have ever converted to Christianity. Why that set of parameters? To get Dylan on the list? Any other reason? Are they interested in presenting those Christians with a non-Christian origin? Or are they interested in showing off all those who flirted with Christianity? If they are interested in displaying for the world to see, all those who ever flirted with Christianity, then they are advocating unnaturally for Christianity. That is the introducing of a bias. That is deception. That is misleading. That is a farce. That is attempting to present something that isn't true. That is abusing the context of the list. That is misusing the list. There is a Bob Dylan article on Misplaced Pages. That is where the Christian phase in Dylan's life can be presented to the viewer in a context that is sufficiently descriptive. "Disclaimers" are not sufficiently descriptive to provide the Christian phase in Bob Dylan's life with an appropriate context. The reason the editors have resorted to posting disclaimers at more than one point in the list is in order to right clear wrongs. The list is wrong, as presently configured, and it has got to be changed. The criteria are a contrivance. The editors should change the criteria. They will have a more elegant list. I've suggested basic, unadorned criteria above. The editors can devote their energies to explaining this phase on the Bob Dylan page. But bias is never to be tolerated. Misplaced Pages espouses a neutral point of view, and we all should uphold that. We all should honor that. That is an essential beauty of Misplaced Pages. The article as presently configured is in violation of WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. Dylan has no place on a list of converts to Christianity. I hope the editors involved will take this action to remove him from the list as a first step to remedy this problem.
Hi, I just came around to look and see what had happened with the Dylan/Convert issue. I see that his name is no longer on the list. Does that mean this thing is over with! (Sigh of relief!) --Metzenberg23:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
This user page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump.
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page.
Thank you,
By the way, it should be noted that additional terms can be placed in the proposal above, provided that other parties agree to them. If you should have any should additional data you want to input, please make comments to that effect on the talk page of the request form. I for one will certainly serious consider any such proposals; however, I cannot categorically say I would approve of any additional stipulations in advance, so request that any additional requests be discussed in advance. I am sure any reasonable additions will be quickly consented to. John Carter19:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
A short letter to Bus Stop
Hey there buddy. Your attitude towards everything related to bob dylan is pretty negative. I would just like to ask you one question (and you may answer it here or on my talk page). Can you show me a source about "bob dylan's return to judaism" which you speak of so much? I am not very involved in this whole ordeal, I am simply a guy who like Dylan's music. I would like to know whether he ever did return to judaism? It's out of interest, although if you could provide such a source, everyone involved would enjoy this whole dealio much more.
Dylan "returned" to Judaism in 1982. There is no question that Dylan experimented with and explored Christianity in the late 70's. The question is did he formally convert to Christianity? Dylan himself is vague on the subject, the tenatious editors on the otherside of this argument repeatedly present the flimsy self published testimonial of a pastor with a very transparent agenda. Their other sources are either unavailable online or are simply secondary sources that rehash the pastor's remarks. I don't think anyone disputes Dylan's exploration of Christianity, however, to say that he formally converted is taking it one step to far, and adding Dylan to a list of Christian converts is inappropriate, considering the quality of their sources. Cleo12306:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd be astounded if Bus stop attempted to use this, considering that the reason I took a trip to the book store to transcribe three of Dylan's biographies was that Bus stop would not allow the submission of 'biased sources' (i.e. Christian sources). I intend to hold Bus stop to the same standard. Additionally, the sources at present (including those from Jewish sources) lean towards the belief that Dylan remained in contact with Jewish parties from a Christian perspective. If you could present a non-'biased' source which would claim the same, preferably a published source, then I would be willing to take it into consideration.--C.Logan06:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe User:Bus stop has made it clear that your trolling remarks on his talk page are unwelcome. I, too, have made it quite clear that I have no interest in engaging in any dialogue with you as I consider you to be a disruptive and tenacious editor. I would suggest that you take a look at WP:STALK and stop harrassing people. Cleo12306:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Trolling? I was simply here to point out the above, saving Bus stop valuable time which would be wasted by suggesting a source of a similar caliber that he has repeatedly rejected. --C.Logan07:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I find the above comment from Cleo 123 inflammatory and not at all supported by the evidence. Advising someone of the standard of evidence one would seek to require is, from Bus stop's own actions, apparently clearly acceptable. Also, considering Cleo123 has already made a blanket comment in this discussion which is specifically contradicted by the existing evidence, which is probably at best not the best indicator of good faith on that party's part, I think it might be appropriate if such inflammatory statements as the one above are avoided, until and unless specific evidence to support them is provided. John Carter15:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, at the time I made the above statement, I had clearly asked User:C.Logan to stop leaving me messages. I made it very clear on the article's talk page that I had no intention of engaging in any further dialogue with him, yet he has continued to bother me. Likewise, User:Bus stop had told User:C.Logan that his remarks were unwelcome on this talk page. Bus stop has since changed his position, however, my remark was entirely appropriate at the time it was made. What is inflamatory, is User:C.Logan behavior. He continues to follow editors from page to page inserting himself into discussions with others, at break neck speed. (Indeed, he appears to be monitoring everything related to Dylan nearly 24/7.) In my opinion, his tone is one of harrassment and intimidation. His edits, like your own, appear to be geared towards silencing dissenting opinion, by making editing as unpleasant as possible for those who oppose your view.
As for your repeated complaints about the "blanket statement" I made. When I said that "I believe we all agree that a formal conversion, includes baptism" - I did so in good faith. I had not noticed that your hairsplitting remarks disagreed with that view. I suppose I should have said "all of us except User:Warlordjohncarter". My appologies. This is not the first time you have mentioned this. I am sorry that this minor oversight on my part has caused you such tremendous upset. I assure you the remark was made in good faith. Unfortunately, you and your views are not at the top of my radar. Perhaps, you should get over yourself and stop trying to manufacteur conflict with others.
I believe that there is an inappropriate gang mentality among the editors on your side of this argument. Your own failed attempt to have User:Bus stop banned from editing the article is shockingly hostile and inappropriate. My goodness, the article's talk page included blatant remarks in which an editor proposed a conspiracy to set User:Bus stop up for a 3RR blocking. I think the editors on your side of the fence are completely out of control on this issue, and you ALL are in need of a break, as you have become increasingly uncivil and to my mind - disruptive. I sincerely hope that an administrator will take a serious look at the actions of editors on your side of this dispute. To put it plainly, you have not played fairly at all. Cleo12322:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
John Carter -- No, it is not inflammatory. It is supported by the evidence. It is based on my having said to C.Logan that I did not invite him to my Talk page. It is a non-issue. Please stop making a mountain out of a mole hill. Bus stop15:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Regretably, Bus stop, I think that you may be once again trying to set your own opinions over and above the policies and procedures of wikipedia. These talk pages are not by "invitation only", as you seem to be implying, but intended as a place where other interested editors can discuss relevant content with editors which may not be appropriate for article talk pages. Please stop trying to rephrase the policies and guidelines of wikipedia in such a way as to defend your own position when they in fact do not do so. John Carter17:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
John Carter I implied nothing of the sort. Perhaps you require a very explicit statement from me: All editors are welcome to post on my Talk page. Is that OK? Bus stop17:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I thank you for asking the question, and giving me this opportunity to lay out some of my thoughts.
First of all the notion of conversion to Christianity has little inherent meaning. It has no meaning. This is not according to me. This is according to the editors of this article who apparently feel compelled to find Bob Dylan among their "converts to Christianity." They themselves have argued that a person becomes a Christian by the slightest of means anyone can enunciate. They themselves have argued that one becomes a Christian merely by "showing up." Bob Dylan has been said to be a Christian merely because he sat down with a Christian priest for a learning session. By this notion of conversion merely investigating Christianity constitutes conversion. The proponents for the notion of conversion to Christianity are playing fast and loose with terminology.
I don't have to provide a "source" for Dylan's "return to Judaism." I do not speak of Dylan's return to Judaism. I have never used such locution. Dylan's abiding religion is Judaism. By my reasoning he need do nothing to "return to Judaism." The Church has been shown to be a vacuum, as far as "conversion" is concerned: To set foot into it is to become a Christian. Don't get me wrong -- I've got nothing against Christians. But we've seen that the flimsiest reasons constitute conversion, in the eyes of those who clearly have an agenda to get converts. Since the threshold for conversion is so nonexistent, what meaning is there to your suggested notion of returning to Judaism. "Easy come, easy go," no? It would seem to me that if all you had to do to become a Christian was to "step into the Church," then all you have to do is step out of the Church to "un-become" a Christian. So, by my reasoning, and I think it's quite sound, the 27 years spent without an iota of involvement in Christianity is more than ample evidence that he is not a Christian. Does it take much mental gymnastics to say that if he's not a Christian, then he is a Jew? I think a person has to have an agenda to, at present time, insist that in Dylan you have a "convert to Christianity." I think the whole notion is absurd.
Anyone can post on my Talk page. Cleo, thanks for speaking up on my behalf to C.Logan concerning my previous indication concerning his posting on my Talk page. At that time he was only using my Talk page, not the article's Talk page. I did not like that. That's why I acerbically said that I didn't invite him here. But that need not stand. Bus stop15:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply Bus Stop. May I ask just a question to clarify something for myself? I agree, he experimented with Christianity and it may not be known whether he converted or not - this isn't really important, it only really matters for the question of whether or not he should be included on that list. This isn't important to me. And I understand, his relationship with Christianity has most definitely diminished if not disappeared since that time. But the question I have regards your statement of "if he is not a Christian, then he is a Jew." I am truly curious how this happens. Undoubtedly, he is a Jew in regards to his ethnicity and culture. But why should his religion revert back to Judaism when he stopped exploring some other religion? I think Judaism is much more than that. But I am truly curious why "if he is not a Christian, then he is a Jew," and eagerly await your response. SECProto14:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Dear Bus Stop,
If you were to spend only half of the energy that you are spending on the Dylan debate, in other more positive ways to represent Judaism, such as editing articles about the many great acts of Jewish heroism, generosity and kindness, throughout the centuries, perhaps you would accomplish more positive results with less effort.
-Scott P.12:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
PS: Perhaps starting and editing an article on Jewish mitzvahs of kindness might be helpful. At present there is no such article, and I think one might be in order. -Scott P.14:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Mediation
As you are no doubt aware, the discussion on the List of notable converts to Christianity has formally ended. You have through the 11th (7 days after filing) to accept the case, or it will automatically be rejected. Should that happen, I would think that WP:ARBCOM might be the next step invoked should there be any further attempts to alter the article substantively, certainly from the end of those who wish to include Dylan and possibly from the others as well. You should note however that that body has the right to put down any decision they like, up to and including banning an editor. On that basis, I believe your best next step would be to accept the mediation. And, on a similar note, it is my personal belief that your own presentation of your case might not be the best possible presentation, particularly since you only rarely cite any sources for your arguments and then only in the vaguest possible way. I think you might benefit from having one of your allies in the discussion to help prepare the "case" for you, as it were, particularly in the matter of citing specifics of existing policies and guidelines which you think might be being impinged upon. John Carter01:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
If you wish to pursue the mediation route, I'd be glad to assist you in preparing your argument. I don't think I'd be the best "spokesperson" for you, however. I think I've had too many heated exchanges with the other parties and that might be held against you somehow. It seems to me that User:Metzenberg or User:Modernist would be ideal. They both strike me as wise and level headed. You might want to ask them for help.
Then again, you may just want to ignore their request. You are not edit warring on the article and nominating the List of notable converts to Christianity for deletion, not only had merit - but support. Your argument may not always have been expressed in the most rational manner, but you did ultimately formulate a valid policy based argument with merit that was recognized by others. On the surface, it looks like they may be pursuing a vendetta against you. Sure does sound like he's trying to intimidate you here. Seems like he's saying : "If you edit the article - I'll take you to ARBCOM. Interesting, since you have not been blocked from editing this or any other article. Upping the anty by moving to WP:ARBCOM may backfire and reflect very badly on them. Cleo12306:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I notice the above party is once again jumping to conclusions. Personally, I honestly have no interest in either article per se. As indicated on my talk page, I came to the discussion at a request from others, and have primarily participated in it on the basis of trying to defend what seem to me to be "reliable sources" for biographies of living persons as they are currently referenced in Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. I personally have no real interest beyond that. The reference to ArbComm above was simply to point out that if any further action is taken by anybody (and I don't think it would be me; I personally hope to never see either article again in my lifetime once this discussion and my adding references to the list is done; they really are both outside of my own area of interest and expertise), that that step to ArbComm might be the only step they can take at that point, and, given your own previous history of 3RR, the people at ArbComm might jump to conclusions on that basis. They are after all only human, and people do make mistakes. I do think that the above party is possibly more emotional in this matter than is necessarily called for. I guess the question for you is whether you want to pursue the matter at all once this discussion is formally concluded. If yes, then I think following the steps outlined by wikipedia for resolution are the way to go, and this seems to me to be the next step as outlined by policy and guidelines. I have been reading up on them lately, as I've never actually dealt with them anywhere before that I remember. And, to repeat what was said before by me, I think being able to point specifically to exactly which policies or guidelines you are referring to, rather than simply mentioning the page in question, would really help any outside party in their achieving whatever decision they come to. John Carter13:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for your recent contributions to an article relating to graffiti or graffiti culture! You may be interested in WikiProject Graffiti, a group working to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of topics relating to graffiti. We would greatly value you joining our WikiProject, or adding some input at our talk page.
Please stop edit warring. You were recently reported for a 3RR violation at List of notable converts to Christianity. The report was inaccurate, as you had only reverted three times; however, I considered blocking you anyway (remember, the 3RR does not entitle you to three reverts, and you may be blocked for revert warring even if you revert three or fewer times). I'm only not blocking you because I have stopped the edit war by protecting the article. I warn you that if you continue to edit war, rather than discussing with others, you can expect to be blocked, whether or not you technically violate 3RR. Heimstern Läufer(talk)03:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
LOL!
Hey!
I'm not sure whether or not you noticed, but BD is not on the locked version of the list! LOL! I'm cracking a good bottle of Merlot to celebrate! Of course, I still want to get the contrived parameters to the article addressed. These folks are out of control and there's no telling how many other celebrities could become their next libel victims.
You may want to respond to the warning above. Looks like there's some confusion between edits to "Christianity" and "Christian list" templates. It didn't look to me like you were even close to 3RR. JJay just won't give up, will he? Ah, Misplaced Pages... Cheers! Cleo12305:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
LOL! Have you seen this? Seems like vandalism of your comments to me. I just noticed it. Thought you'd want to know. I find it very amusing that they see JJay as a legitimate editor, as opposed to what he is - someone who is just following us from article to article. Cleo12308:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
It is vandalism. It reminds me of book burning. There is a concerted effort to silence dissent. It is really profoundly saddening. It makes the experience of editing Misplaced Pages distasteful. Instead of it being an uplifting experience, the experience is more like being in a war of attrition. Bus stop08:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Editing talk pages. Be careful when editing other peple's talk.
Never edit my (or I guess other people's) article talk page edits as you did with . I don't care if I made spelling mistakes or other indent errors really just never edit talk unless it is to remove clear vandalism. Technically I indented it the way I did so that the introduction sentence and the "no,no,no" were left and the list was indented. This (as with much of what I write) is deliberate. Ttiotsw21:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. I only wanted to make the section better, visually. Sorry, I didn't realize you wanted it a particular way. Please accept my apology. Bus stop22:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I didn't correct spelling or alter words in any way. Indentation is all that I altered. I still apologize, but it was only indentation that I altered. Bus stop12:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Seen this?
So, have you seen this little gem? I think it's really time to begin cataloging all the personal attacks. Ignoring all the violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA only seems to embolden them. I think it's time to consider a formal complaint. Any thoughts? Cleo12323:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
C.Logan, again, I'm going to suggest you take a look at WP:STALK and WP:HARRASS. I know I haven't engaged in name calling and personal insults. I don't think that editors on your side of dispute can say the same. Cleo12300:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I have- have you? What point, specifically, do you feel that I am at odds with from the article you cite? Do you consider my response disruptive? As it should be clear, I'm merely pointing out that your own perceived incivility and borderline personal attacks are noted by readers. If you would like to make such a complaint, I'm sure that several other editors will gladly follow suit in regards to your own comments. Therefore, I'm saving you the trouble by pointing out that you may want to take note of your own statements, which to many users are clearly personal attacks. I'm not defending other users- I'm merely pointing out that the pot should not call the kettle black. I'll leave you now, if you really prefer, but please- cease being so quick to accuse others. --C.Logan00:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
No, you obviously haven't read these policies too closely. If you had you wouldn't still be following people from page to page, encouraging vandalism as you did here, and interjecting yourself into other's conversations in a manner that can only be catagorized as flaming. You have been previously warned about this sort of behavior. Sorry, you consider my comments "borderline attacks" - I'd catagorize many of the comments from editors on your side of the argument as very blatant personal attacks.Cleo12301:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Once again, you appear to be misreading diffs. Note the text of my comment. I'm referring to the passage, not the change of title. As for "following someone around", I think you enjoy to stretch the text to your own benefit. Note that I've only "followed you around" to the talk pages of editors directly involved in the discussion, and I've responded to your comments on article talk pages which are directly related to the discussion. I would suggest taking the whole text of the guideline into consideration and noting the examples given- there is no need to play up a tame response on an editor's userpage (an editor who you are, in fact, involved in a rather long-running discussion with) as "stalking" or "harassment". Additionally, it's nice to know your opinion regarding the statements of other users. I would suggest you take a while to relax. Good eve. --C.Logan01:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Cleo -- I consider reference to mad hatter to be of a mildly antisemitic nature, given the subject matter under discussion. But I am sure (or at least I would assume) that such anti-Jewish intent would be denied. Mad-as-a-hatter has historical applicability and use, and is certainly not always of an antisemitic nature. So there is ample room for deniability. The Bus -tards reference would appear to be an attempt to make fun of my name, Bus stop. I'm not really hung up on my name Bus stop, so I can dismiss people playing with it's spelling and linguistic construction. It is certainly in violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Having said that, I think the important point is that it is indicative of the underlying problems concerning the misuse of list of converts to Christianity, which is, after all, what this whole problem is about. There is a lack of rationality in that discussion that is only confirmed in the above examples. Bus stop15:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
And now it inevitability starts -- the race card. I had a feeling this was going to come up eventually. Bus really has room to talk. He has been anything but civil. Drumpler13:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes,Drumpler, the above is in reference to the following edits, onUser:C.Logan's Talk page:
Trying to reason wtih the mad-hatter
Suggestion: Don't waste any more of your time knocking your head against the wall, the wall that is Bus Stop. Until he provides real documentation, we have no need of indulging him with our time, there is no use wasting any more of our energies trying to convince him why Wiki requires documentation. He is apparently on some sort of a religious kick, trying to defend what he believes to be his native religion at the expense of even logic itself. Logic demands documentation, not opinion. There's no point in trying to reason with the mad hatter, it will only make you mad.
By the way, thanks for letting me know about my excessive re-edits. I'm trying to work on that.
The Purple Star
This award is designed for those who have been injured or insulted by others for less than good reason. Given the amount of work you and another have both put into a certain page whose content is regularly being vilified by a certain "mad hatter", I believe this slight recognition has been more than earned by both of you. Keep up the good work, and don't let the "Bus"-tards get you down. John Carter01:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
What is the issue that you take with my commentary in relation to the above two posts? I believe there may be more commentary of this sort, but I am not inclined to look for it.Bus stop14:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The Mad Hatter is also a character in Alice in Wonderland with zany attributes. I doubt that much research went into that comment and I'm sure its in reference to the character. You've made several indirect accusations of anti-semitism on the article's talk page also. All such accusations do in the end is make you look unprofessional. Drumpler18:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Mad Hatter also sounds like a reference to the Jewish propensity for head coverings on males. The yarmulke is the traditional male Jewish religious head covering. Hats are also used for this purpose. Bus stop19:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
That's quite a stretch. Let's not misconstrue names and concepts which have a common definition. If this is what you took from John's statement, then I apologize on his behalf, but it seems fairly obvious that he's referring to the character from popular culture. --C.Logan19:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Ironically, it would seem that your implication of racism on John Carter's part only serves to give some credence to his actual intention in using the term Mad Hatter- that you are irrational and largely unfamiliar with reasonable thought and argument.
Could Mad Hatter be considered a personal attack? Sure; he's pretty much calling you 'an irrational nut'.
Could it be construed as a racial/ethnic/religious slur? No, it couldn't, save by an individual who is all too eager to feign victimization and play the 'race card'.
Am I accusing you of doing just that? No, but your eagerness to transform a relatively benign insult into a racial/religious slur makes your reasoning questionable. --C.Logan02:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
A Private Conversation?
Hey!
I'd like to talk to you - away from prying eyes. I'm not sure if you are open to that. If you'd like to talk off-wiki, go to "my preferences" (top right}, enter an e-mail address and enable e-mail from other users. If you're not cool with this, I totally understand. It's all good, either way. Let me know what you think. Peace, Cleo12308:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Please e-mail me when you get a chance. I would love to talk to you away from the prying eyes of others. Bus stop18:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
What's your problem?
Seriously. Why are you so possessed with keeping Bob Dylan's name off the list, even when a list of former converts was added later? It borders neurosis, in my opinion. Drumpler13:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Drumpler -- That is your characterization of me. That is not my characterization of myself. In point of fact, I oppose contradictions. In point of fact, I oppose contrivance. In point of fact, I oppose low standards.
In point of fact, I oppose the use of Misplaced Pages to promote religion in an article with the use of contradiction, contrivance, and low standards. Please feel free to discuss this on the article's (List of notable converts to Christianity) Talk page.
And please stop edit warring. You have been doing far too much of that. Please try to use the Talk page of the article to articulate your point(s). Bus stop15:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Given that many of your contributions deal with the subject above, I thought you might be interested in knowing that there is a group devoted to working on those articles. John Carter22:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
