Talk:List of converts to Christianity: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 13:19, 4 June 2007 editBus stop (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers44,012 edits →Looking back at the bigger picture: response← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 07:11, 16 February 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk \| contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,079 edits Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{skip to talk}}
	<!-- Please do not remove or change this message until the issue is settled -->
			{{Old AfD multi \|date=13 December 2021 \|result='''keep all''' \|page=Lists of religious converts}}
	<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="afd" style="margin: 0 5%; padding: 0 7px 0px 7px; background: #EDF1F1; border: 1px solid #999999; text-align: left; font-size:95%;">
			{{Warning\|'''Per Misplaced Pages policy on Biographies of Living Persons (])... <br>''' ''"Misplaced Pages articles can affect real people's lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility."'' <br> '''Do not list a person as having converted ''from'' a particular religion (example: Islam) unless there are references in this list to their former religious affiliation with citation backing it up.''' <br> (merely growing up in a Muslim family does not count.)}}
	'''A ] has been made of ] for mediation on this page.
			{{Calm}}

			{{Article history
	Please do not remove this notice until the issue is resolved. <small></small>
	</div>
	<!-- End of message, feel free to edit beyond this point -->
	{{WikiProjectBanners
	\|1 = {{ChristianityWikiProject\|class=List\|importance=Mid}}
	\|2 = {{WPReligion\|class=List}}
	\|3 = {{blp}}
	}}
	{{ArticleHistory
	\|action1=AFD		\|action1=AFD
	\|action1date= 26 March 2006		\|action1date= 26 March 2006
Line 17:		Line 9:
	\|action1result=no consensus		\|action1result=no consensus
	\|action1oldid=45591828		\|action1oldid=45591828

	\|action2=AFD		\|action2=AFD
	\|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of people who left Islam		\|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of people who left Islam
Line 22:		Line 15:
	\|action2result=no consensus		\|action2result=no consensus
	\|action2oldid=85816634		\|action2oldid=85816634

	\|action3=AFD		\|action3=AFD
	\|action3date= 3 May 2007		\|action3date= 3 May 2007
Line 27:		Line 21:
	\|action3result=kept		\|action3result=kept
	\|action3oldid=128099979		\|action3oldid=128099979
			\|action4=AFD
			\|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of former atheists and agnostics (4th nomination)
			\|action4date=16 February 2012
			\|action4result=kept
	}}		}}
	{{~~off~~ ~~topic~~ ~~warning~~}}		{{not a forum}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=List\| blp=yes\|
	{{Calm talk}}
			{{WikiProject Christianity\|importance=Mid}}
	{{archive box\|
			{{WikiProject Religion\|importance=\|Interfaith=yes\|InterfaithImp=}}
	*]
	*]
	}}		}}
			{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn\|target=/Archive index\|mask=/Archive <#>\|leading_zeros=0\|indexhere=yes}}
	'''Discussions from May 16, 2007 to the present. Please see archives for earlier discussions'''
			{{User:MiszaBot/config

			\|archive=Talk:List of converts to Christianity/Archive %(counter)d
	== List of Christians Tag ==
			\|algo=old(90d)

			\|archiveheader={{automatic archive navigator}}
	I have adjusted the article's introduction so that it no longer contradicts the tag placed on the article by JohnCarter. In doing so, I have pulled language from other such lists of notable converts contained on Misplaced Pages, thereby addressing editorial conformity issues on the encyclopedia. John Carter's insistence on identifying the individuals on this list in the present tense, combined with the definition provided of "Christians" negates any possibility of listing individuals who are not Christians. Hence, I have removed Bob Dylan from the list in accordance with ]. Any other individuals who have left Christianity should, likewise, be removed from the list. ] 02:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
			\|maxarchivesize=100K
	:I support this change. The list should only contain converts who have stayed converted as opposed to people who have dabbled in one faith before moving back or on to the next. I suppose people could be added to List of former Christians if someone really wants to find a home for Dylan though that could be spoiled by making that list only contain people who have moved away if Christianity was their first religion. ] 05:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
			\|minthreadsleft=4
	::Yeah, it's not a list of dabblers. It's a list of converts. Some people think the obvious definition of ''convert'' is "someone who has converted to a religion", others think the obvious definition is "someone who converted to a religion and remained that religion for the rest of their life"... I think it would be more appropriate to open an RfC on that question, than to just change it, since precedent (in both similar and dissimilar lists) disagrees with the change, and there are some valid arguments for each opinion buried in the wall of text above, making it inappropriate to announce one of the two definitions is "more obvious" or "more correct". — <font face="Courier New">] <sub>]</sub></font> 05:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
			\|counter=9

			}}
	:::For instance, I think "someone who has converted to a religion" is the more obvious definition of ''convert'', and if someone later converted to something else, a parenthetic note makes more sense than leaving them off the list entirely. Bob Dylan is a good example, since a ''huge deal'' was made of his conversion, by him, his fans, and his critics. I also think this definition is NPOV, and the other is POV. — <font face="Courier New">] <sub>]</sub></font> 05:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
			{{archives\|age=90\|bot=lowercase sigmabot III}}

	::::I agree, Demong. There's points on both sides for this issue, but it's clear where I stand. Perhaps we should bring up an RfC on this issue alone, as this is the issue which actually has a chance of resolution. Additionally, it would be killing two birds with one stone. Arguing with a focus on Dylan just seems to get us nowhere.--] 06:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::::I have restored the text as it was, as it never was in contradiction with the new tag. Also, it could very easily have been suggested that the tag itself be changed, as it is demonstrably new. According to the page referenced, ], there are several different ways in which one could qualify as a Christian. I believe the definition in the now-restored text is the most significant, objective, and verifiable of them. However, there is nothing in wikipedia guidelines that I know of which demonstrate that the parameters for inclusion have to be identical to other articles. In fact, the definition used in the introduction is if anything more limiting than those listed on the ] page. Given that that page indicates that just about everyone in the Western world (at least in the eyes of certain practitioners of Islam) qualifies as a "Christian", it makes sense to me to limit the definition to that primarily used by Christianity itself, and that definition is the most verifiable of the three in the ] section. Needless to say, if a RfC is requested, I would have no objections to it. And, if others wish to use the broader definitions in the ] section, I would have to agree to that usage. For what it's worth, I think I may have been the first person to indicate that a separate list of "reverts" would also be valuable. If anyone wants to create such a list, be my guest. However, until that article exists, I believe all converts should be included in the most appropriate extant page. ] 13:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

	:::::: The definition in the introduction is not "more limiting" - but more '''expansive''' as it allows for the incluson of non Christians. Unfortunately, this stands in contradiction with your tag which refers to Christians in the present tense. Such contradictions are very misleading to readers and create potential liabilty issues for Misplaced Pages. ] 08:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

	::::::] -- Why are you inserting that apparent contradiction? If Dylan is a Jew, why would he be on a list that is clearly labeled at the top of the list, '''"This page is a list of Christians?"''' ] 16:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
	:This is not a list of Christians it is a list of people who converted to Christianity whether they continued to be a Christian or not. The consensus is cleartly for Dylan's inclusion here and BusStop and Cleos continued attacking seems to be like an attempt to drive people away from watching this list so that they can get their own way in removing Dylan. ] 16:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

	Incorrect, ] , I have no interest in driving people away from this article. It is ludicrous of you to suggest that. My interest is in keeping this article honest. You are incorrect on another point as well. It is not an article on any person who ever had a dalliance with Christianity. It is correctly an article on those notable people who have arrived at Christian identity by means of conversion. Please note the parameters of the article, ]. It clearly says, at the top of that article, '''"This page is a list of Jews."''' That sets high standards for the ]. That statement restricts the ] list to only Jews. Why can't the ] list live up to those standards? Can you tell me any reason why the ] list has to cast a wider net and gather people onto its list, people who aren't even Christian? You run roughshod over the lives of living Jews when you insist on including Bob Dylan on what is properly a list of Christians. And you've articulated no justification for the parameters you've chosen for this list. As such it remains a contrivance with no ostensible purpose other than to gather Bob Dylan onto your list. As such it is not an "honest" list. I am not here to drive anyone ''away'' from this list. My purpose here is the making of this list into an honest list. It might not be a bad idea if you made a mental note of that. ] 13:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

	::] -- Antisemitism is frowned upon on Misplaced Pages. <personal attack removed> Christianity is to a great extent concerned with the Messiah-ship of Jesus Christ. Do you know that Judaism rejects the Messiah-ship of Jesus Christ? This list is ostensibly a list of Christians. It happens to be a list of Christians who have arrived at Christian identity by way of conversion. It even says at the top of this list, in a tag that you, John Carter, added to the article yesterday, '''"This page is a list of Christians."''' <personal attack removed> (Dylan) by placing him on a list where he clearly does not belong? That is antisemitic, in my opinion. And I think others would see it that way as well. ] 16:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::Please indicate exactly how including someone who has been verifiably baptized into Christianity is somehow "denigrating" to him and/or Antisemitic. I do not see how including verifiable content is in any way slanderous or libelous. Please specify exactly which policies or guidelines you believe are being broken, and exactly how they are being broken. Otherwise, I can have no clear idea of what the specific complaints you so repeatedly make are. ] 16:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
	::Your last statement above is clearly an inaccuracy. You stated that there is not a consensus for the existence of this list, and yet the last attempt to delete it resulted in a clear consensus to keep. Also, your own opinions, however strong, are by definition ], and have no place determining content in wikipedia. I also notice that you have once again apparently tried to avoid directly responding to comments you have been specifically and pointedly asked to clarify by instead responding to something else instead. As previously requested, please indicate exactly which policies and/or guidelines you see are being broken, and specifically where they are being broken. Should you not do so, I can only come to the conclusion that you cannot produce such evidence, particularly after you have been asked so repeatedly to produce it. ] 17:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::'''Note''': The statement to which the above statement is a response is that of ], who has since deleted that post, for whatever reason. If anyone is curious as to what that statement was, it can be found in the history of this document. ] 18:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

	::Though Bus stop has removed his comment for an unknown reason, it was simply a reiteration of his ten major points of argument, which I will now attempt to explain for the casual reader:
	::# He believes that we are a collection of Christian proselytizers who must be operating as a team.
	::# He believes that the presence of clarifying statements in an article is a sign of corruption.
	::# He believes that factual statements, related in a truthful and sufficiently explanatory manner, can be considered slanderous.
	::# He believes that one list's disclaimer enhances the encyclopedic value of that list, while another list's (this one's) disclaimer is a sign of abuse and couldn't possibly have been set in place for the purpose of presenting relevant information.
	::# He believes that the editors who oppose his viewpoint care about Bob Dylan's inclusion because he's a 'prize catch', and refuses to believe that the main reason for the continuing argument is his own frequent side-stepping of questions and statements directed at him, his ridiculously high standards for sources presented to verify a simple assertion (which I doubt could ever be satisfied, at this rate) along with his unwarranted belief that he has no need to provide sources for his own assertions about Dylan's life.
	::# He believes that it is reasonable to cite a violation of ] against the use of sources which have, in actuality, fully satisfied the requirements set for reliable sources stated in the aforementioned policy.
	::# He believes that every issue involved in this article is increasingly dramatic and makes obvious parallels to the historic persecution of Jews under medieval Christians, amongst other historic and theological issues.
	::# He believes that the editors involved with the page are operating under this medieval mentality and thus dismisses all arguments presented by these same editors because he believes that their faith alignment alone is sufficient evidence that they is operating from a biased standpoint.
	::# He occasionally takes small breaks to note that he's not assuming that all Christians are bad, but simply the biased and insidious editors operating within the shadows of Wikiproject Christianity. Never mind the fact that the only editor actually involved with the project is John Carter, and John had even forgotten that he was a member!
	::# He believes that, because several of the editors involved have little Christian userboxes on their userspaces, it is sufficient enough for him to suppose that these editors must be in disagreement with him simply because of their religious bias, and certainly not because these editors believe that he himself has made no effort to produce a valid point outside of his own apparent bias.
	::This is just a little compilation for those who may not have been following the entire drawn-out, never-ending argument (which has continued for weeks now, and sadly shows no real signs of slowing down). --] 18:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

	] -- Today ] removed the tag that yesterday ] put on the article, which said, in part, '''"This page is a list of Christians."''' This, to me, indicates the presence of ''strategy,'' not good faith. Antisemitism is not a noble motivation for compiling an encyclopedia. <personal attack removed> That is antisemitism, in my humble opinion. And each time they changed the parameters of this list it was in response to challenges to Dylan's presence on this list. <personal attack removed> How many more times will they change their parameters for this list in a strategy to do the illogical? ] 19:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
	::And how many more times will you continue to making statements assuming coordination of effort (when there clearly is none), which seems to be an explicit failure to ], without ever producing anything remotely like tangible evidence to support it? And, for what it's worth, you '''still''' haven't answered the points raised earlier. Big surprise there, huh? ;) ] 19:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

	== Converts implies current status ? ==

	Though I feel the Dylan supporters have gone on way too much the point they have is that the title implies (to me too) that someone has converted and is currently participating in 'x'. When I convert a PC from Windows to Linux I call it a Linux box and if I convert it back it's a Windows box. I wouldn't list a currently running Windows box a convert to Linux if it wasn't still running that OS (i.e. Linux). Same applies to humans. If someone is running a particular ethical system then they could be listed as converting to that but if they run another ethical system then they should not stay on this old list. They could be on a list of former 'x' but not the current list. I feel this list is the current list. So what are we going to do to resolve this ?
	* RFC the issue (I prefer this one) ?
	* Edit war until we run out of 3RR ?
	* Edit war until a friendly admin protects page on the version we like (kind of seen this happen) ?
	* Slow revert until people get bored (I like this one too ;)
	* Call up the Zionist Misplaced Pages Cabal (I've heard they exist but I could be mistaken).

	] 18:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

	:I understand what you're saying, but the point of inclusion has never really been based on the issue of continuing status. Although we've been continually accused of changing the parameters for this purpose, the article was created with Dylan on the list ( with a clear note about his return to Judaism), so I believe that the article was created with the static definition in mind.

	:For instance, the point of inclusion on the oft-cited ] is not based in the issue of continuing status, but participation in the rare change of philosophy/practice at some point in their lives. The same idea is present in ], which also includes people who are former implant possessors (removed for whatever reason). Once again, we see there that the point of inclusion is not continuing status, but because of the participation in a rare change of physical status.

	:I'm not saying that this article should follow suit merely because of these examples, but I'm stating that the reason for including people on the list seems to have been misunderstood by some. One could argue that the inclusion of a former vegan on the list of vegans is some form of 'advertisement', but it's doubtful anyone would- food preferences don't bring out the same unreasonable outrage that religious issues do, and most unbiased readers can easily see that the point of inclusion was their participation in the practice, not their continuing adherence.

	:The presence of any person here is based solely on the fact that they made an uncommon change in their lives from one practice or ideology to another. I understand fully if you disagree with this reasoning, but I'd just hoped to clarify again in case any there was any misunderstanding.--] 18:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

	::] -- I don't say it is an advertisement. I say it is antisemitism. It may be advertising too. It could be and it probably is a combination of things. But it is antisemitism too. ] 19:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
	::::Come on ] that's not an answer that is very helpful. You're losing us here with the antisemitism claim. I was hoping for something like say the majority of other convert pages only show current advocates to 'x' but so far what people are saying (which is what I understood it to mean too) is that the converts to 'x' page need not mean that the person is still 'x'. Your attack on the other editors isn't really helpful towards consensus. ] 22:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

	] -- <personal attack removed>. It doesn't really matter how they word it. It is antisemitic to put a Jew on a list of Christians. That is forced conversion. But you are right, insofar as the ] makes the upfront claim that '''"This page is a list of Jews."''' By doing so it leaves itself a high standard to live up to, and it leaves grounds on which anyone can challenge it for overstepping it's bounds. The ] wants no such bounds. That list wants to have the freedom to gather names willy-nilly. They are claiming for themselves a much wider field of qualifying names. That is antisemitic. That is antisemitic because as we have seen, the sole object of their quest is Bob Dylan, who happens to be a Jew. <personal attack removed>. Those contrived parameters are manipulated to force the presence of a Jew onto what should only be a list of Christians. In the case of the ] we see the self-restraint that does not try to overreach and claim for their own what is not rightfully theirs. (And if any reader should feel that any name placed on the ] does not belong there, due to their '''not''' being a Jew, well they have perfectly good grounds on which to challenge that.) This article (]) is very much a locus of abuse. That should be obvious to everybody. The small clique of editors changed their parameters for this list '''twice''' in the past 24 hours'''!''' All they want is to have Bob Dylan on their list. That is the be-all and end-all of this list as far as those editors are concerned. <personal attack removed> All of their "disclaimers" are only indication that the name (Bob Dylan) shouldn't be there in the first place. In case you don't know this is not an emotionless issue. I am not referring here to my emotions. I am referring to the often tumultuous history of Jewish-Christian relations. The Pope himself recently had to apologize on behalf of Christendom for the wrongs historically committed against the Jews. Mind you, ] did not occur in the opposite direction: Jews did not force Christians to convert to Judaism. It is ludicrous to consider the possibility -- Judaism doesn't even proselytize. This article is a clear locus of abuse because it oversteps the bounds that even the ] accepts upon itself. '''This list is correctly the list of those Christians who have arrived at Christian identity by way of conversion.''' It is a ludicrous contrivance for a small clique of editors to redefine this list, at variance with the parameters of the ], to be the list of all those who have '''ever''' converted to Christianity. That is a contrivance. The origin of that contrivance are challenges to Dylan's presence on this list. Many other editors have challenged Dylan's presence on this list. It is only in response to those challenges that some innovative editors have concocted the present parameters. Of course, todays parameters are not yesterdays parameters. And today's parameters ''may not'' be tomorrow's parameters. As far as conversation on these Talk pages is concerned, no editor has yet explained why the ] needs different parameters than the ]. But one can hope that eventually they will come up with some justification for their present charade. I would be interested to know why they think the ] needs to (or deserves to) cast a wider net than the ] does? ] 12:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

	:::One need only to Ctrl+F and search for 'advertising' and 'advertisement' to note the numerous times you've brought up on the issue on this page alone. Are you softening or rescinding your previous statements? --] 19:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
	:My response to the original poster on this thread is more or less what I have said before. Clearly, my personal reasons for trying to keep this name included are both that removing it seems to me to be in effect kowtowing to POV, which I find disreputable, and because I believe that these pages are some of the only content wikipedia currently has relating to inter-religious topics. I have stated before more than once that I would have no objections to the creation of a separate page (or maybe separate sections in the existing pages) for "reverts", or for "multi-verts". One of the first articles I created, ], is about such a person who was ordained by five different churches in five years. However, I have yet to hear any real responses to that request. Because I think the content relating to multi-verts should stay '''somewhere''', and such pages do not yet exist, I favor its inclusion here. However, if someone were to create such page(s) and/or sections of existing pages, I would have no objections to seeing such individuals placed there. I would however like to see a response from ] regarding his previous use of the word "advertisement", though. With any luck he won't start another section (''again'') to avoid directly answering the point. ] 20:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

	] -- What happened to your strategy of yesterday, in which you applied the tag reading, '''"This page is a list of Christians"''' to the top of the article? You don't seem too concerned that today ] removed your tag. Was that a strategy that didn't work out? ] 21:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
	:Once again you display either a total lack of familiarity with the posts of others and/or a total disregard for them. And I once again question your use of language at least implying that there is some sort of "conspiracy" taking place here. I gave my reasons for inclusion of that template above, '''if''' you ever bothered to read it. And if you're making reference to the anonymous vandalism of my user page and the ] article, I believe that anon has already received his final warning. But you probably don't know anything about that, do you? ;) Please do not continue to try to take over every thread of this conversation with your accusations and unfounded comments. If you feel obliged to continue them, please do so in the thread above, and maybe directly answer some of the points which have been raised against your position, as you have been repeatedly requested to do. ] 21:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

	::] -- Did your buddy rescue you from an error in strategy? Wasn't it only 24 hours ago that you posted a tag on this article, which read, '''"This page is a list of Christians?"''' Why the change in strategy? The upshot of the edits between you and ] is that you prefer contrived parameters to outright contradictions. Why don't you make up your mind what the parameters are that you prefer for this article? Or don't you distinguish between the Jewish religion and the Christian religion? You've vacillated between this being a list of Christians (yesterday) and this being a list of anyone who has '''ever''' converted to Christianity (today). What parameters will you come up with in order to keep the high profile and charismatic Jew, Bob Dylan, on your list of Christians ''tomorrow?''

	::I know nothing about vandalism to your user page, or any other page for that matter. ] 23:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

	== Second removal of Christianity tag ==

	I note that the most vehement of the editors in this discussion has just replaced the {{tl\|Christianity}} despite agreement on the ] page agreeing to its removal, on the basis that it is in no way directly relevant to the content of this article. On that basis, I believe it can be assumed (correctly or not is another matter) that that party has acted unilaterally in a way which is out of step with the will of the group whose primary responsibility that template is to attempt to continue to cast aspersions on both the article and its content. I sincerely wonder if such behavior is counted as being acceptable. I have, needless to say, removed the tag, in accord with the opinion expressed on the page referenced above. ] 14:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

	: I see no agreement on the ] page for your actions. Apart from yourself and Bus stop, only one editor commented. ], please stop edit warring on this article. ] 22:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

	:] --The {{tl\|Christianity}} tag is "directly relevant" to this article because it is a powerfully "Christian" article. That is it's context. Christianity is it's context. What I see is a continued effort at "stealth" on your part. What I see is the continuing effort to slip Bob Dylan onto a list of Christians, unnoticed. The plain and simple fact is that this article comes from a Christian perspective. Why are you seemingly trying to tone down the fact of Christian influence over this article by removing its normally occurring description of itself as part of the Misplaced Pages Christianity project? ] 14:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
	::Is there the slightest chance that you will actually produce some real ''evidence'' to support that accusation '''this time'''? It would certainly be a major change of pace for you to actually support any of your allegations. ] 14:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

	:::] -- It is a Christian article. That is self evident. I can produce no evidence beyond that. Why are you seemingly trying to tone down the fact of Christian influence over this article by removing its normally occurring description of itself as part of the Misplaced Pages Christianity project? ] 14:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
	::::Because it is officially within the scope of another project, admittedly still proposed, which is created to deal with articles of this specific type. If you actually read the comments posted above, you'd know that. :) ] 15:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

	] -- The article happens to be antisemitic in its present configuration. All one need do is compare this article to its sister article, the ], to see this quite clearly. The ] states very clearly at the top of the list that, '''This page is a list of Jews''', and it lives up to those parameters. If it fails to live up to those parameters, any entry on that list can be challenged on the basis of that person not conforming with the parameters stated at the top of the list. Why shouldn't the ] have to uphold similarly high standards of admissibility to their list? The ] casts a much wider net. Why the discrepancy between two ostensibly similar lists? ] 15:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
	::And the person involved qualifies as a Christian on the basis of his qualifying under the criteria for inclusion on the list at the top of the article, which are if anything stricter than those employed on the page ]. This has been stated before, although you seemingly haven't been paying any attention. Please read, or at least pay attention to, what others say in response to your one-note, seemingly infinitely repeated, statement. ] 16:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

	:::] -- Bob Dylan happens to not be Christian. You are mistaken about that. Bob Dylan is a Jew. From where did you get the notion that Bob Dylan was a Christian? Can you explain that to me? This is not a rhetorical question. Feel free to answer it. ] 17:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
	::::The last statement above, requesting a direct answer from someone just about everyone else in this discussion has repeatedly noted rarely if ever directly answers any questions, is frankly amusing. :) As has been stated before, you might start getting civil responses if you demonstrate any capacity for them yourself. :) Unfortunately, to date, you have rarely, if ever, done so. ] 17:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

	:::] -- In other words you haven't formulated anything in the way of justification for your statement that Bob Dylan is a Christian. I have to assume that if you had a shred of evidence for, or argument in support of, your contention that Dylan was a Christian, you would be stating it. You've provided no explanation for your assertion that Bob Dylan is a Christian. That is typical of the merry-go-round that characterizes your conversational style. ] 17:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
	::Your assumption clearly demonstrates that you have not read any of the comments that have been made before, which directly address this matter. Maybe you can learn to read what others post? :) Or do you demand that everyone indulge in the same sort of unthinking repetition that has become your calling card? ] 17:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

	*The Chistianity tag was clearly inserted in order to redefine the list, with the specific goal of removing content that was relevant under the pre-existing definition. This was not done with an interest in maintaining or improving the exisiting list, but simply as a tactic to remove content that the editor/editors found objectionable. Two aggressive editors are simultaneously editing an article that they believe should have been deleted, and they're editing in a destructive manner. Tags are being added with the false and irrelevant claim that only to immediately follow up with an edit to remove content. The fact that was simultaneously used to redifine the parameters of the list and to remove the most controversial content of the page (Bob Dylan's entry) clearly demonstrates how and why this tactic was used. It is inappropriate to subvert the list this way. Why not just add the tag "This is a list of people who have at some time converted to Christianity except for Bob Dylan because we don't want him here." The description of the list which clearly stated that this is a list of people who have converted, with no claim on their current religious beliefs was an accurate description of the list and its contents, and is very maintainable, as we simply CAN'T make credible claims on the current religious beliefs of all people included here, and shouldn't try. This was edited to replace it with an INACCURATE description of the list, and the same editor then proceeded to remove content because it failed to conform to their own inaccurate description! ] 03:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

	] -- Some points: 1) Yesterday ] added the tag which reads, ''This page is a list of Christians.'' 2) The ''Misplaced Pages Christianity project'' tag has been there for a very long time. 3) Bob Dylan is Jewish. ] 03:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

	:: ], you have the facts backwards. The Christianity tag was on this article long before this dispute began on April 22. Please, review the article's history. The long existing parameters of the article were adjusted by a group of vociferous editors who did not want to remove libellous material from the article. Recently, they have attempted to up the anty by adding the "This is a list of Christians" tag, which they have argued for on this page. When it was pointed out that inclusion of the new tag necessitated the removal of Bob Dylan from the list, they did another 180 attempting to remove what they had argued for. Please, read my comments below for a clearer picture of the chain of events, with supporting sources. I have not "inserted my own inaccurate description of the list" - I have '''restored''' the original parameters to the list, which are consistent with all other such lists contained on Misplaced Pages. ] 03:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

	:::Who is this mysterious 'they'? --] 05:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

	::::Who is the mysterious "we" that you repeatedly reference in your posts? ] 05:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

	:::::The 'we' is what is said when a group of editors have agreed on a certain point. However, you continuously use 'they' for actions made by solitary editors, and make these actions seem like coordinated efforts. Don't misrepresent certain actions as being motivated by a group, when we are in agreement of only some points of argument and in general approval of few actions.
	:::::As you may have seen, I've questioned edits made by users such as Demong numerous times. I am not opposed to Demong personally, but I feel that some of his edits have been counterproductive to the discussion (sadly, nothing has been as counterproductive as continuing the discussion itself). This is the general view I hold concerning all other editors.

	:::::I have disagreed with John Carter on several things, but I feel that he is properly motivated, and I agree with him in the ultimate point of his argument. Is this not the same view you hold of Bus stop? Once again, I will state quite clearly that we are not editing in any form of universal agreement.

	:::::Me, John, JJay and the rest are in agreement, at the least, that your points of argument are half-baked and rely on warped assumptions about the motivations of Misplaced Pages editors. We're not arguing for petty points here.

	:::::And before the locking of the list without Mr. Dylan on it, you may want to read the fine print first: ''"Protection is not an endorsement of the current version"''. Perhaps this same difficulty in reading the actual text might be the cause of your frequent misinterpretation of WP policies, article text, and my own personal statements. --] 06:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

	:::::: Gee, if you were not working in tandem with John Carter when he added his list of Christians tag to the article, how do you explain ? It certainly wouldn’t appear that you objected to his actions as you seem to be implying. People aren’t operating as a gang on this? How do you explain these recent contributions adjusting the article’s introduction: Or these contributions removing the Christianity list, once you realized it no longer served your argument: The edit history of the article does not support your statements. As for your latest uncivil remarks, I am quite capable of reading. I doubt, however, that any administrator looking at the manner in which you and yours have bastardized the parameters of this article to avoid removal of libel will support you. Administrators tend to adhere to ], rather than fabricating work arounds, as you have tried to do here. ] 07:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

	:::::::Tandem? Because I added a tag which stated that ''"The inclusion of items on this list, exclusion of items from this list, or length of this list is disputed"''? Is this some sort of falsehood? Is this not a relevant template? I'm not sure what you're saying, but it seems a little funny that the evidence you bring is that I added a 'listdisp' template- which probably should have been added a long time ago.

	:::::::Or, perhaps, are you bringing such accusations because I didn't remove his changes? Perhaps this could be because John had created the template from scratch earlier, and the purpose for its inclusion (or more specifically, the point or purpose of his action) had (and still has) not yet been thoroughly explained. While this may seem like a crazy idea, I like to assume good faith most of the time, and considering that John has been very reasonable in this discussion (for the most part), I'd assumed that he was acting with positive intentions and good reason regarding the addition of the template. Since John has been less than clear about the issue, I don't see any issue in removing it now unless he decides to be clear in explaining it.

	:::::::Additionally, I find it very, very unusual that you seem to argue that when several individuals are reverting an edit by you or Bus stop to the text (which seems to be agreed on by the majority of editors on this page), it requires some form of teamwork. It seems that Bus stop is all too eager to edit war over the matter (and you find it reasonable to support him), and in fact, noting again, you seem to be overjoyed over the most petty of circumstances. Perhaps you ''should'' have a little Merlot. Relax! ''This discussion is not that important.''

	:::::::Regarding the last three edits you've referenced, I find it very baffling that you try to string together any sort of argument from these examples. Note that the Christianity template, which was- as far as I can see- added initially by an on April 18, which is around 3 days before Bus stop made his first edit (April 21). So much for 'long-standing'. Additionally, it would appear that user JJay offers a good reason for the removal in his edit summary: ''"rv- no consensus for use of template, which dioesn't even mention conversion- hence not part of the series"''. Now it seems you posted John Carter's coincident edit in order to show some sort of unspoken connection. I could be wrong, but it's unusual that you should post the edit diff with the non-descriptive edit summary when shows John offering the same sound reason 5 days before JJay: ''"removing article link template that's inappropriate to article as article is not mentioned in template"''. Seems like those guys offered a pretty reasonable explanation for the removal of the template, which was only added shortly before this counterproductive discussion was initiated. There's something disturbing about seeing an editor accusing other editors of conspiratorial action when they're using reason to make positive edits.

	:::::::Regarding Gustav's edit- what does that have to do with anything? If anything, you just supported the fact that there is no real cooperative action here- even those who take the same position in the discussion are in disagreement regarding the changes made to the article.

	:::::::Once again, you cite ]. Can you please explain what it is that you think this article is at odds with? As I've demonstrated, the sources which are in use are fully compliant to the standards set in WP:BLP. If you're referencing a separate issue, I would appreciate it if you would clarify with the specific statement you find the article in violation of. At that point, we can all actually have a meaningful discussion using policies, rather than assertions and accusations (most of which seem to be based in theological and historical drama which is largely irrelevant to the discussion). --] 09:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

	] -- I don't know if you noticed ]'s comment relating to ''"fabricating workarounds."'' Let me paraphrase: We don't fabricate workarounds to avoid the correct parameters. This article had the same parameters as the article which is it's natural "Jewish" sister list. And the ] still has those parameters. Why is the ] fabricating workarounds to what the parameters should be for these lists? Is there some reason why the "Christian" list needs to, or deserves to, have less restrictive criteria than its sister counterpart? The Jewish list holds itself to incalculably more restrictive standards. The Jewish list clearly states that, ''This page is a list of Jews.'' That is an incalculably more restrictive standard for a list to have to live up to. The "Jewish" list is setting standards for itself that it must abide by. Why can't, or why shouldn't, the "Christian" list set similarly high standards, for itself? Should the ] be engineering workarounds to its parameters in order to claim for its contents people who are ''not even presently practicing Christianity?'' Isn't that a little cynical? The "Jewish" list does not allow itself to do this. The "Jewish" list is forced to abide by the standards that it sets up for itself at the outset. And, if it fails to abide by its own standards, stated in the enunciated concept that, ''This page is a list of Jews,'' then it is clearly subject to to being altered for failing to live up to its own clearly stated, and highly restrictive standards. How come the "Christian" list, in its present iteration, is lacking a similar statement? Why does not the "Christian" list say that, ''This page is a list of Christians?'' Can you tell me some reason why the "Christian" list feels it should have less restrictive standards for inclusion than its "Jewish" counterpart? Should you be engineering workarounds to avoid the parameters that naturally apply to these lists? There are only two ways for a person to become a Jew or a Christian. Those two ways are by birth and by conversion. These lists are simply of those notable people who have arrived at their religion by means of conversion. That is what the "Jewish" list is. In fact, that is what the "Christian" list ''was.'' In its various iterations, the parameters of the "Christian" list has vacillated between one set of parameters and another. In each instance, its changing parameters were in response to challenges to "Dylan's" presence on the ]. Dylan happens to be a Jew. Why is the ] contriving parameters in this way? ] 04:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

	::Well, I've noted that all religious conversion articles should include the parameters which you call into question- that is, those used presently in this article (and which have been used, apparently, since the article's inception). It's not a matter of the Christianity conversion article alone receiving these parameters. As it appears, this article was created with such parameters in mind, with Bob Dylan on the list of 3 people, which his reversion to Judaism clearly explained. I, too, don't believe this article should receive special treatment- however, I disagree as to what the solution should be. To you, the solution is to remove the parameters which are in place. To me, the logical solution is to use the arguments given for the parameters and apply them to all the other religious conversion lists. Additionally, you note once again that the List of notable converts to Judaism has the tag which reads 'this is a list of Jews'. There is a reason for this tag, and it's not the one which you often suggest. As you've noticed, no other conversion article contains such a tag, nor do they need to. The purpose of the tag is to explain quite clearly "]" by providing a link to the wordy explanation- not because of the issue of clarifying that Judaism is, indeed, the individual's current religious practice, but because of the multiple definitions as to what constitutes a "Jew". As you have often stated, a person born a Jew is a Jew. This is always true in the ethnic sense, and likely in the cultural sense. But no such permanence is present in the religious sense. For this reason, certain individuals may be considered 'Jews' by sources because of their outward appearance and a lack of 'active negation' of the faith, but the list (through the introductory elements) makes no guarantee that their ties to Judaism are any more than cultural (even adoptively so). --] 04:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

	:::Dylan was on the list from day one. That is to say the list was incorrect since January 17, 2006. In point of fact there was a "disclaimer" at that time. There have been a variety of disclaimers since, and you are now contemplating your next disclaimer. No disclaimer corrects the incorrect placement of the (Jewish) person Dylan on a list of Christians. It is a contradiction. (Not to mention the fact that the placement of a Jew on a list of Christians happens to be an affront to Jews.) The fact is that Dylan belongs on no list whatsoever. He is Jewish. That fact derives from his having been born Jewish, not from "returning" to Judaism. His "fling" with Christianity was over, and he resumed being Jewish. No conversion was involved or could be involved. What we really have to calculate are degrees of egregiousness. The most egregious assault on Dylan's identity takes place with his placement on this list. You really have to read the statement at the top of the list of converts to Judaism. It says that the page is a list of Jews. You, as an editor, have the right to challenge any name on that list on the sole basis of their not being a Jew. That is why you do not want the list of Christians saying that it is a ''page of Christians.'' Please stop pretending otherwise. Please stop trying to define for us the purpose for the Jewish list's explicit statement that ''"this page is a list of Jews."'' Just apply the same standards to the Christian list. Lists are very simple creatures. Please don't try to do too much with them. They are not great writing. Lists can convey a series of content with something in common. If the parameters don't make sense the result is something grotesque. There are only two ways of becoming a Christian (or a Jew). Those two ways are by birth and by conversion. Therefore you have two naturally arising groups of (notable) Christians -- those born Christian, and those who have converted to Christianity. ("Convert" means Christian. But Dylan is not a Christian.) This list is therefore, naturally, the list of those notable Christians who arrived at their faith by way of conversion. Please stop trying to pervert those parameters. ] 12:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

	::::Your assertion that the list was 'incorrect' in its parameters is simply your opinion, nothing more. There is no 'correctness' involved when consensus determines such a standard to be reasonable. As the standard for the article has been more or less preserved over this time, there is no issue of 'incorrectness'- that is, there was not until you decided to oppose the parameters by posting heaps of your personal opinions while ignoring the reasoning presented to you by other editors. Remember that anyone can 'think' that some element in any list is incorrect. Like I've repeatedly tried to tell you (and to which you commonly twist the argument by suggesting I specify "who I feel should be removed from that list"), an Orthodox Jew may consider the parameters used on the List of notable converts to Judaism as a 'perversion', or he may suggest that the article has been "incorrect since its inception" because of the inclusion of non-Orthodox conversions, which, as the sources presented during the discussion have shown, are considered invalid forms of conversion (they consider them gentiles). Of course, such an opinion should be entertained and respected, but as it is, it is still an opinion. There is no more value in such an argument than there is in your own- they are both the case of an individual who feels that his own opinion about "what belongs on Misplaced Pages" trumps the presentation of factual information and the consensus of editors which has preserved the article in its current standard since its inception.
	::::Once again, you set up straw men- this is not a list of Christians. It is a list of individuals who converted to Christianity. You are confusing the cooking of dinner with dinner itself. One is a process, and the other is a thing which more often than not results from it. However, one can just as easily burn the meal, and thus no dinner results from the cooking process- but such an instance does not negate the fact that one did, in fact, cook dinner. Understand the difference, and cease to apply your own opinion about what this list 'is'- I can assure you that as long as we're arguing apples and oranges, no one is going to settle for anything.
	::::Yet again, you place the same argument here for Dylan's Judaism that you do on the Bob Dylan talk page. As it is, I suppose I'll just paste a response I'd prepared for that page:
	:::::''If I, for some reason, converted to Islam, and I became private about personal issues later on, it would be fallacious to argue that I am a Christian because it was my birth religion, because it is inherently linked with my ethnicities, and because there was no 'active negation' of my belief in Christianity. No such interpretation is warranted- one is simply arguing (by assumption) as to what a lack of negation 'might imply'; to suggest any sort of proof in a situation like this would be jumping to conclusions. As I've said, the above assumption would be true, if he hadn't converted to Christianity. As this point, you assume that the lack of public negation of Judaism is proof of faith in the religion of Judaism (and not simply cultural and ethnic considerations, which can't exactly be negated). However, you have argued that no such negation of faith is necessary to assume that a person is no longer affiliated with Christianity. He hasn't negated either faith- which should be all the more reason for us to stop assuming his current religion, and leave it ambiguous, as he has. Dylan is ethnically Jewish, culturally Jewish, but religiously- well, we just don't really know. Nor do I believe that you or I have the right to dictate his current religion without reliable sources which can attest to it.''
	::::As it is, the above is not relevant in its entirety, considering that the preceding arguments are located on another page (and indeed, I had to trim more specific sentences which would make no sense outside of that argument). The point of including the above is that it reiterates what I've been saying. Dylan's post-conversion religious status is not a case of black-or-white. You consistently assume that if a person is not publicly displaying the religion of their conversion, and not publicly negating their birth religion, then one should make a clear conclusion that they returned to their birth religion. Never mind that, despite your opinion, it is entirely relevant in this case that Dylan is a private individual who makes no real 'public display' of anything- even in interviews, one could hardly call him an 'adherent' of any religion, as he presents statements which are too vague to be presented as any sort of evidence one way or the other. As you know, there are many more possibilities than "Christian or Jewish". As I've said, you should cease conflating the ethnic and cultural aspect of "Jewishness" with the religion of "Judaism".
	::::If you'd like me to cease 'defining' what the template means, then I would suggest you cease to misrepresent its purpose. Given your frequent conflation of the different aspects of Judaism, it is no surprise that the disclaimer is needed on the aforementioned article. As I'm sure you know, anyone could consider themselves a "Jew" in regards to their culture and their ethnicity, and an "Atheist" in regard to their religious affiliation. For this reason, it is difficult to determine from sources whether a person is considered a Jew because of current belief, because of a 'flirtation' with the religion or because of a necessity for marriage within tradition. Many of these latter examples could hardly be considered 'Jews' in the religious sense, and no source would be the wiser in noting the difference. Perhaps they do not belong on the list. Are they not actively negating their birth religion? Well, if no recent source for negation can be found, then we should remove them from the list. The previous thought process is very similar to what you are suggesting for this article, and it is a conclusion which does not follow. No proof is derived from such a consideration, so discontinue your suggestion that there is any merit to the suggestion of "no negation = birth religion". People don't operate in such a simple manner.
	::::''That is why you do not want the list of Christians saying that it is a ''page of Christians.'' Please stop pretending otherwise.''
	::::While it's nice that you may assume whether I 'want' something or not, as you may have noticed from what I have actually said, I don't feel the template is relevant or necessary. John Carter created it from the mists around a week ago, for reasons which are still not entirely clear to me. The only articles which need such a template are Jew-related listings. This is, as I will say again, because of the complicated definition as to what constitutes a Jew. There is no example where a person born a Spanish Catholic and becomes an atheist at some point is still considered a "Catholic"- although they are most certainly Spanish in culture and ethnicity. Judaism is actually slightly similar- with the main difference, of course, being that "Jew" is ethnic, cultural, and religious. The separation of these meanings is not as clear as the above instance concerning our Spanish friend, partly because of the identical terms used, and partly because of the three-fold bond which the identity of "Jew" possesses with the individual. Saying that "he's a Jew" is not a complete answer. In what sense is this person a "Jew"? Was he born into a Jewish family? Is he related by blood, but living in a culturally estranged home? Is he religiously devout? This is the purpose of the article ]. I suggest that you take this fact into consideration before you persist as using the template as a validation of your own argument. --] 15:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

	== Hypocrisy ==
	::''"Your assumption clearly demonstrates that you have not read any of the comments that have been made before, which directly address this matter. Maybe you can learn to read what others post? :) Or do you demand that everyone indulge in the same sort of unthinking repetition that has become your calling card? John Carter 17:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)"''

	], people do read your posts, including those made to other articles. Above, ] has stated: ''"And the person involved qualifies as a Christian on the basis of his qualifying under the criteria for inclusion on the list at the top of the article, which are if anything stricter than those employed on the page ]."'' I would like to bring the following contribution from the ] talk page made only 24 hours ago by ] to the community's attention:

	''"And they aren't being overlooked. However, there is no clear evidence that I have seen that he does currently, in any discernible way, "follow Christ", or see himself as being in any way a Christian. Without that evidence, and with the evidence supplied above, it can reasonably be stated that he is now a "practicing Jew", as that statement is itself neutral regarding his beliefs, whatever they may be. John Carter 19:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)"''

	Anyone who has read the above posts is aware that in the last 48 hours ] has placed the following tag on the article several times: {{Christian list}}.
	There has been some edit warring on the article during which John Carter has vehemently defended his position that Bob Dylan qualifies as a Christian. For those of you who couldn't be bothered to click on the link to Carter's definition of a Christian, it states the following: ''“A Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity, a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament Christians believe Jesus to be the Son of God and the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament.”''

	In light of his post to the ] talk page, it is apparent that Carter knows full well that Dylan is a Jew. Rather than removing a '''libelous''' statement from the article he has attempted to manipulate the parameters of the article in order to accommodate his point of view.

	Here are the facts:

	On April 22nd, ] made his first edit to this article.
	. At that time the article's introduction read: ''“The following is a list of people who have converted to Christianity from non-Christian religions.”'' That’s it. It also carried the Christianity project tag, that Carter is now edit warring to remove,in yet another act of blatant hypocrisy. Only after ] and another editor began removing names from the article were these new “article parameters”, which have been so vociferously defended by members of Misplaced Pages’s Christianity Project, placed on this article by ]. It should be noted that this user also openly proposed a conspiracy to get ] blocked.
	On April 27th, only '''five days''' after ] made his first edit to the article, ] posted a complaint on the Community Sanctions Noticeboard requesting that ] be permanantly blocked from editing this and two other articles. (one of which ] had never edited at all!) After a group effort to get ] and his dissenting opinion banned from the article, an RFC was made that resulted in mixed opinions and no consensus. With the new article parameters still in place, ] nominated the article for deletion. Although the AFD failed, Bus stop’s viewpoint gained more support. At that juncture, John Carter proposed that a complaint be filed against Bus stop with ArbCom. At that time, a new editor to the discussion advised Carter that ArbCom does not handle editorial disputes. I, too, discouraged John Carter from taking such action He has gone ahead and initiated an ArbCom complaint, which is likely to be declined.
	Now we have him playing more games, removing the long-standing Christianity tag from the article.

	This is not about ] as far as I’m concerned. It is about POV pushing. The introduction to this article should have never been altered simply to accommodate a point of view. I am restoring the article’s introduction to a format similar to that of all other Lists of Notable Converts on Misplaced Pages. Likewise, I will remove any names that do not fulfill the criteria prior to the start of this dispute. ] has repeatedly indicated that this whole dispute is all about getting ] on the list and anti-semitism. I doubt that is true. At this juncture it seems to be all about pushing ]'s buttons in the hopes he'll break 3RR. The evidence clearly shows that ] has been unrelenting in his attempts to get ] blocked or somehow "punished" for disagreeing with his POV. It seems that many more nuetral editors have successfully been "bullied" off the page at this juncture by Carter and his gang. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground, nor is it a vehicle for harassment. ] 00:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

	: I will also point out that ]'s IP address has recently been blocked in connection with a vandalism only account. ] 04:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

	::Is there something that you are trying to imply? --] 05:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::It should also be noted that it was unblocked almost immediately thereafter as a mistake. It is, unfortunately, a common address where I use my laptop. Are you trying to imply something else? If so, I request that you provide some substantiation of what seems to me to be at least implicitly a personal attack or retract it. Also, please note that the definition which is in the introduction that has been restored is, in effect, the most verifiable variation of the three variations of the definition of "Christian" according to the preexisting text in ], which seems to be to be the most objective and applicable to the greatest majority of Christians who ''define themselves as such''. Regarding the explicit personal attack of hypocrisy, I do not see how it can be objectively called hypocritical to say that someone can be identified as a Christian, or anything else, in a broad sense, that is to say, having been baptized and not formally explicitly renouncing it, and not say that they can be demonstrably categorized as a Christian at the particular moment based on their current activity, can be called hypocritical. That seems to me to be implying that no one can ever change opinions, which clearly is not the case.
	:::If anything, I think the statement by Cleo123 clearly shows a continuation of the rather unfortunate tendency of the above user to engage in unsubstantiated, non-specific personal attacks, as that user has yet to provide any substantial proof of their own position that I can remember. I also note by the way that that users basis for his/her claims, that the inclusion of someone who has been clearly identified as being a convert to Christianity (or anything else) in the media already might subject wikipedia to a libel action, has yet to be substantiated by any extant policy of wikipedia or with any such example from elsewhere. And yet that user criticizes anyone who thinks that his/her unsubstantiated position has to be taken as an absolute guideline simply on the basis of some nebulous, unsubstantiated threat of a potential libel case.
	:::I do not think that it is POV according to the rules of ] to use the most "basline" definition of a term as it is used by the individuals who describe themselves by that term. Regarding the explicit accusation that much of the discussion has been an attempt to cause an individual who has already repeatedly acted explicitly against the guidelines and policies of wikipedia several times to do something he has already demonstrated him/herself more than capable of doing, I personally will say nothing in response other than to say such a unsubstantiated attack on me and others requires some sort of real evidence, something Cleo123 has yet to provide for any of his/her contentions. And the use of the phrase "Carter and his gang" I personally see as being an explicit violation of the personal attack. And the evidence actually shows that I have been trying to get someone who actually has done nothing but seemingly repeat the same statement over and over to stop doing so. Such action is in fact a direct violation of the rules of "tendentious editing" as defined as per ]. I also note that the page is now protected and the non-neutral partisan "correction" made by Cleo has been reversed. If Cleo actually can propose something positive in this discussion, rather than continuing to unilaterally seek to change wikipedia to fit his/her own POV, such as maybe proposing an alternative phrasing on the talk page, I would be welcome it. ] 14:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

	:::: Your remarks are little more than a smoke screen lacking in substance. I have provided multiple citations above to substantiate the points I have made. You, by contrast, have continued to attempt to twist and distort facts. I also have provided multiple sources on this and other pages for ]'s return to Judaism, which based upon your recent edit to the ] page you apparently accept. Sorry, you can't seem to wrap your mind around the concept that your editorial contributions are hypocritical. Let me spell it out more clearly for you :
	:::::1)You have tagged the article with a tag that states "This IS a list of Christians"
	:::::2)You have provided a definition (which BTW does not stipulate anything about renounciation of baptism. This is original research on your part.). The link you provided states : ''“A Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity, a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament Christians believe Jesus to be the Son of God and the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament.”''
	:::::3) These statements are in the '''present tense'''.
	:::::4) Elsewhere on Misplaced Pages you have stated ''"Without that evidence, and with the evidence supplied above, it can reasonably be stated that he is now a "practicing Jew" ''
	:::::5) You have argued and argued on this page for the fact that Dylan be listed under the tag "This is a list of Christians." Seems pretty hypocritical to me.

	:::: This matter is very clear cut. The article's intro has long read: ''“The following is a list of people who have converted to Christianity from non-Christian religions.”'' ] attempted to remove the name of a practicing Jew from the list. Rather than following Misplaced Pages's policy ] and removing a '''libelous''' statement, you and others have attempted to change the article's parameters to suit your agenda. Rather than taking a conservative approach, where a living person is concerned, you have created a situation that could be misleading for readers. I have yet to hear one good reason why '''this''' list should be different from '''all other''' such lists on Misplaced Pages. The other lists of notable converts to religions are very straightforward and factual, with no special disclaimers for people who ''may'' have converted at some point, but ''may not'' be converts at present. This is yellow journalism, consistent with tabloid standards and unentirely unworthy of an encyclopedia.

	:::: You have repeatedly acknowleged that you are new to Misplaced Pages, rather than engaging in an open minded policy driven debate and working towards building consensus, you have caused significant disruption to the encyclopedia. Right from the beginning, rather than assuming good faith on ]'s part, you treated an established editor as if he were a vandal (when his edit was a legitimate ] issue) and openly campaigned to block him and his dissenting opinion. You have completely ignored the opinions of numerous other editors who have sided with ]'s view, choosing rather to abuse the system by filing bogus complaints at every venue you can find - thereby wasting administrators time. Rather than working towards a compromise, it seems that you have tried to rally other editors against ] and intimidate all those who share his view with implied threats. I have made no personal attacks against you. I have commented on your contributions, not on you personally. I am not a tendentious editor. LOL! Please! Check out how many contributions I've made to the article, then look at your own. I have responded on the talk page to your numerous requests for citations. Indeed, it is '''downright comical''' that after I post 13 citations chronicling your disruptive behavior and contradictory statements and actions, your response is to post : ''"...such a unsubstantiated attack on me and others requires some sort of real evidence, something Cleo123 has yet to provide for any of his/her contentions"''. There is a tendentious editor here, but it's not me. ] 21:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
	::Presumably, based on the above comments, that user thinks that repeatedly raising allegations and calling other people by at least demeaning and potentially abusive language, such as using the word "hypocrisy" as a headliner, is acceptable. Please read the policy on ], of which I believe the comment starting this thread is clearly and explicitly a violation. And creating the "smokescreen" about the number of "contributions" (at least one of which seems to have been a unilateraly change of the content, since reverted, which may have led directly to the current protected state) to the article, I note the above user still has yet to provide a single substantiation of their contention about how inclusion of verifiable information could be cause for a libel suit, despite having said elsewhere that such is your main reason for posting here. Interesting, isn't it, that that person's initial claim for posting here ''still'' hasn't in any way been substantiated? I would welcome any such evidence as has already been pointedly requested, by the way. I note that the only post that editor has ever made regarding ] was ], regarding the Mel Gibson DUI incident. This despite the fact that there is no text in that page which I can see which would seem to support their contention. I would think that the average user would at least seek to verify whether or not their claim is accurate before basing an entire serious of edits regularly insulting others on it. Are we then to assume that that editor thinks that their simply arguing a position makes it a policy or guideline? Regarding their allegations regarding my my own, admittedly ill-informed and inexperienced conduct, being improper, I would have no objections whatsoever to being subject to mediation or arbitration. In fact, as many of you already know, I have already requested it once. The only people I noticed who seemed to be opposed were the above user and Bus stop. Verification of this can be found on the ] page, where the above user even seems to encourage Bus stop to refuse to request arbitration. Interesting, isn't it? I wish to go on record saying I would welcome having any outside observer review the behavior of all parties involved, including the above editor, in this and any and all other related incidents. If a formal request for such comment, mediation, or arbritration is requested now by one of the parties who previously opposed it, or by any other party involved, I welcome it. Otherwise, I believe that such threats as seem to have been made above have absolutely no place in wikipedia anywhere. ] 16:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

	::: John, you diminish your editorial credibility when you make statements that can so easily be proven false. I would be most appreciative if you would refrain from continually misrepresenting the statements and actions of other editors.
	:::: 1) My use of the word “hypocrisy” refers directly to the overt contradictions in ]’s recent edits to this and the ] article. It is not a “personal attack” on Carter, but a discussion of the content he has contributed. If ] believes I have made personal attacks on him, I suggest he provide citations. I believe I have exercised remarkable restraint in response to his extreme lack of civility. Indeed, very shortly after I entered this debate, he referred to my contributions as and blatently accused me of . The fact that I have waited so long to voice my concerns about this editor's behavior demonstrates my patience and restraint in this matter.
	:::: 2) Unlike this user, I have not engaged in any name-calling or personal insults. As for personal attacks and the use of “demeaning and potentially abusive language”, I suggest ] take a look at his own contribution history. Some of the more blatant examples include referring to other users as : , , and .
	:::: 3) I did not “unilaterally change the introduction to the article”. I restored a version consistent with the parameters as they existed prior to the start of this ugly dispute. I explained my revision on this talk page and it was met with immediate approval from a seemingly neutral editor. . Interestingly, my edit was in response to Carter’s unilateral change to the article, adding his “This is a list of Christian’s” tag.
	:::: 4) I have made multiple comments on this and other related pages regarding ] and ], as ] is well aware. I have explained my position very clearly, even specifically quoting policy. I would suggest that ] take the time to re-read my contributions, instead of making false statements. My edit history also clearly demonstrates that the ] article is far from “the only post I’ve ever made regarding ].”

	:::: 5) I wouldn’t say I “discouraged” ] from participating in mediation. I presented both sides to him, also offering to assist him in preparing his case, if he decided to participate. In light of the manner that the deck was stacked against him, I think he was wise not to participate. Although the mediation request was framed as a content dispute, only editors supporting ] view were listed in his complaint. Carter’s ongoing stream of complaints and requests to have ] banned from editing ] material leads me to question the sincerity of his desire for an amicable resolution. Indeed, within days of Bus stop’s first edit to this article, Carter's first warning to ] was an administrator’s '''final''' warning template on Bus stop’s page.. He has repeatedly left threatening messages for ], along the lines of “if you keep editing, you’ll regret it .” :. He has followed those threats with a host of complaints: often ignoring other editors who have discouraged the misuse of Misplaced Pages’s dispute resolution process. Here’s an example, after being told , 20 minutes later he posts , then . Even now, after his Arbcom complaint has been rejected, he continues to explore new forums in which to file complaints.

	:::: 6) Having worked with Bus stop on another article, I have made some sincere attempts to diffuse this situation and facilitate better communication between the parties. Likewise, Bus stop has made some attempts to engage in more positive communication. Unfortunately, John Carter, however, appears to be more interested in fighting, as he has repeatedly left taunting messages for Bus stop. These are just a few examples. There are many more.

	:::: 7) I did not “previously oppose” the RFC. I participated in it. My comments can be read above. Like most of the involved parties, I chose not to post a comment in the Arbcom. It bothered me to see Misplaced Pages’s dispute resolution process being abused. Carter’s contribution history seems to indicate that he is not interested in reaching an amicable resolution. He seems to be using the system as a means of harrassing User:Bus stop.

	:::: 8) In defense of his actions, Carter has repeatedly contended that he is an “admittedly ill-informed and inexperienced”.new user. On the surface, Carter has contributed many articles in a very short time period and made an incredibly significant number of edits to Misplaced Pages. When one examines his contribution history more closely, a disturbing pattern emerges. Confrontations with and complaints against other users are frequently followed by 50 or more mindless edits, such as stubbing articles – making it more difficult to track his behavior. It leads me to wonder if this isn’t by design. As for the many articles he’s created, the vast majority are one sentence stubs. He would appear to be more interested in creating a volume of article titles to list on his user page, than actually working on the articles themselves. I am concerned that this user may have had a prior involvement with ], that pre-dates his account. From his , he would appear to possess an advanced knowledge of Misplaced Pages. Certainly, his propensity for Wiki-style legal action against other users is inconsistent with the behavior of most novices to this forum.

	::: I have sincerely attempted to assume good faith on User:John Carter’s part. I have very judiciously watched and noted his escalating behavior, which I consider to be very disruptive. His insistence on pursuing this matter is the only reason that I find it necessary to chronicle his editorial conduct for the community. Above and beyond the personal attacks, litigious complaints, and incivility that I have cited herein; he has also vandalized my own comments on this talk page.. Certainly, Bus stop has made some very inflamatory remarks. However, his commentary appears to be “article driven”. I have not seen him engage in the type of personal insults or retaliation that John Carter has trafficked in. There have been many points in this discussion, where an amicable resolution could have been reached. A clear example is when Bus stop backed away from his stance on the inclusion of Dylan’s conversion in the Bob Dylan article. Editors, such as John Carter are making a bad situation much worse by baiting, taunting and harassing Bus stop.

	::: I believe my suggestion of a separate page for “Notable Converts to Christianity Who Returned to their Former Religions” is a very fair and equitable compromise that could quickly put an end this entire dispute. ] 06:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

	:I note that ] has requested an e-mail discussion of this topic at ] after my last comment above, and has seemingly dropped the earlier request for arbitration. One can only wonder why. ] 17:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
	:: I have not "dropped an earlier request for arbitration." I have '''never''' made any overtures that would seem to indicate that I was seeking "arbitration." Please, provide a citation to support your statement or stop misrepresenting facts. On the contrary, I have criticized your abuse of Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution process. Any "private conversation" I may or may not have engaged in with Bus stop is between that user and myself. Wonder at will...] 06:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::Then bring the official complaint, or I will. I find your tone, particulary the tone of this entire thread, to be a clear and explicit violation of the policy regarding personal attacks. If you do not think that your complaints are sufficient to bring a formal complaint against me, I do think that I have grounds to bring one against you. However, in the spirit of good will, I will give you 24 hours from this posting to bring the complaint against me. At that time, I will file a comment regarding the, IMHO, clear violation of the ] policy which I believe this entire thread is a clear and explicit violation of. I also reserve the right to bring such complaints on my own in any event. ] 14:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

	::::] -- You've clearly transgressed ] many times in comments to and about me. In fact, abusive references to me, from you, is the norm, not the exception. I have not made so much of an issue of it because I am trying to stay on the topic of the specific dispute at hand concerning this article. But ] is 100% correct in pointing out your abrasive commentary on and about me, personally. I have not wanted to get into a petty exchange of insults and slights because I have not wanted to be diverted from what I see as the inherent rightness of my article-oriented argument. ] 15:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::::I welcome a review of my own behavior as well as of everyone else in this matter. In fact, as stated before, I will formally request it in 24 hours. I am however going to give the above parties a chance to raise their claim first. ] 15:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

	::::::] -- I'm not concerned with the petty bickering that you are trying to entice me into. I have articles to write, or to contribute to. Wouldn't we all be better off devoting our energies to that purpose? Wouldn't that be more in the spirit of what Misplaced Pages is about? Do you view Misplaced Pages as having the potential of being a viable encyclopedia? Or do you think Misplaced Pages's bureaucratic arteries need to be bogged down with adjudicating our petty bickering? ] 15:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::Yes, we would. And seeking outside review is the only way I can see stopping the two of you engaging in such explicit personal attacks as this thread. ] 15:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

	I haven't bothered to read or investigate everything being discussed here and just happened across the discussion by chance, but for all parties involved this might be relevant: . Cheers, good luck, and why not calm down for a while? Does a heart good. -- ] 16:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

	== Contrived parameters and antisemitism ==

	The article happens to be antisemitic in its present configuration. All one need do is compare this article to its sister article, the ], to see this quite clearly. The ] states very clearly at the top of the list that, '''This page is a list of Jews''', and it lives up to those parameters. If it were to fail to live up to those parameters, any entry on that list could be challenged on the basis of that entry not conforming with the parameters stated at the top of the list. Why shouldn't the ] have to uphold similarly high standards of admissibility to their list? The ] casts a much wider net. Why the discrepancy between two ostensibly similar lists? We do not contrive parameters in order to slander a Jew. That is antisemitic. ] 15:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
	::Please indicate specifically how inclusion of a name based on verified data is "antisemitic". Otherwise, the above comment is meaningless. It should also be noted that a comment substantively identical to the one above had already been removed from this page by another editor on the basis that it constituted a personal attack on the editors who disagree with the above user. ] 16:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

	] -- You have tried a variety of parameters for this article, have you not? Why is that? Why have you found it necessary to try more than one set of parameters? In one of your sets of parameters this list was described as only containing Christians. In another of your sets of parameters this list was described as including ''not'' just Christians, but anyone who has ''ever'' converted to Christianity. Why are you so unsure what you wish to have as parameters for this list? And why do the parameters as presently in place for this list differ from the parameters at the sister list to this article, the ]? Is there some reason why you have chosen to use parameters at variance with the parameters used at the ] list? The ] of course uses very straightforward parameters: The ] simply lists those Jews who have arrived at their Jewish identity by way of conversion. That is a straightforward and simple set of parameters. That is also a restrictive set of parameters. That set of parameters does ''not'' include anyone who ever dabbled with Judaism. Why does the ] have such far more unrestrictive parameters for its list? Why, in effect, is the list of converts to Christianity casting such a wider net? Can you explain to me why the ] is justified in casting a net large enough to capture Jews onto it, in addition to Christians? The ] does not engage in that sort of content enhancement. The ] does not engage in the parameter contriving that results in inflated contents for its list. Why does the ] get granted all these special privileges in relation to the ], in your opinion? ] 17:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
	::You did note that the parameters for the "Jewish" list, in fact all the Jewish lists (those parameters being ]) have themselves been challenged and NPOV and unreferenced, right? And, please note as stated above, that the terms used in the introduction are if anything more specific than those used on the ] page. We have been trying to decide the terms for inclusion in this list based on objectivity, verifiability, and rationality. Maybe the terms have changed because there is actually some ongoing thought, and, from at least some editors here, ongoing ''reasonable'' and ''informed'' discussion of the subject? :) That would seem the obvious answer to me. And, if you are going to continue to indulge in these snide innuendo, given that you already have a history of making clearly personal attacks, I doubt the differentiation will do much good. ] 17:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

	:::] -- Please feel free to cease obfuscating. Please feel free to cease obfuscating and address issues. If any person on the ] does not belong there you can challenge that. It is that simple. But you are apparently naming no names on the ] that you feel should not be there. Why are you not specifying any names on the ] that should not be there? Please stop obfuscating. ] 17:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
	::::] - Please feel free to directly answer any questions that have been directed toward you to date. As has been repeatedly noted, you have still largely refused to do so. And, for what it's worth, I have recently been creating additional articles on ]s, as there are still at least 7000 or more of them missing. If the book I was using included any Jews, I would have listed them as well. If you know of any such book which describes Jewish holy people who have officially been recognized as such, I would be more than grateful to add content relating to them as well. And maybe, directly answer some questions directed to you '''this time'''? By the way, if you bothered to check, those articles I added had also recently been created by me. You do actually check on the obvious answers to questions, don't you? It saves time and effort of everyone if you do so. I know you have no interest in anyone else's time, given the number of frankly meaningless and repetitive posts you make, but it would also save a little of your own as well. :) ] 17:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

	I consider the article antisemitic, as framed. You don't have an article about ''anyone who has ever converted to Christianity,'' unless you want to offend Jews. It is gossip-mongering about Jewish missteps in religious identity. It is overstepping the bounds of an article of this nature. The ''"List of notable converts to Judaism"'' does not do this. The ''"List of notable converts to Judaism"'' only makes note of those who have actually found a home for themselves in the Jewish religion. (I am speaking here of ''living'' people on these respective lists.) It is just a hoax to pretend that there is some serious intellectual purpose in gossip-mongering. Logical parameters are seen in the ''"List of notable converts to Judaism."'' In point of fact, the same parameters were the parameters for the ''"List of notable converts to Christianity"'' until Dylan's placement on the list was challenged. (Dylan is a Jew, for those of you who may not be aware of that.) It was only in response to challenges to Dylan's placement on this list that the parameters were altered to the gossip-mongering variety in place now. Gossip-mongering about Jews, especially in a ''list'' form, is antisemitic, and serves no serious intellectual purpose. ] 02:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

	:Again, I have to agree with ]. Anyone who attributes a faith other than ] to a member of a ] race is ''automatically'' an anti-semite. It is ''not possible'' for Dylan to ever have believed that Jesus was the messiah because he has Hebrew DNA. Anything he said that might have sounded Christian was just, as Bus Stop says, a "misstep". When will you people understand that Bus Stop is right and anyone who disagrees with him is just being racist!? Nick 03:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

	::Actually, antisemitism doesn't mean ''opposed to ].'' What it means is opposed to Jews, specifically. And by the way, I never said ''racist'' at all.
	::Under ] we find the following: "The term '']'' refers broadly to speakers of a language group which includes both ]s and ]s. However, the term ''antisemitism'' is specifically used in reference to attitudes held towards Jews." ] 04:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC) ] 04:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

	:::Truthfully I call what you say, ], as mudracking crap as you haven't yet proven that it only applies to Jews,
	::* If a Hindu converts to Christianity and then converts back are they excluded ?
	::* If a atheist has a brainstorm and professes lust for the deathcult that surrounds Jesus and then comes back to their senses and gets off that wagon are they excluded ?
	::* If a Jew tries out the cult of Christianity and then gives up are they excluded ?
	:::No,no,no. Your plucking the rules for one list and trying to apply them to all lists is nonsense. ] 14:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

	::::] -- Actually, I've never asserted that it ''only'' applies to Jews. I think it would be helpful to speak in specifics. Do you have a Hindu, or an Atheist, in mind, from the names included in the list? If so, then by all means, speak up about them. We already know that there is a Jewish person on this list. Should I refer to him as the person of ''unspecified religion?'' I feel that it is better to use specifics, unless there is clear reason to consider things in terms of generalities. Christianity and Judaism are two religions that happen to have very interesting relationships to one another. Jews and Christians have lived side by side for many centuries. Their respective religions have close similarities and distinct differences. These are not minor points. When we see that the "Jewish" list says, ''This page is a list of Jews'' and the Christian page does not say that ''This page is a page of Christians,'' we have to wonder why. And again, when the "Christian" list changes it's parameters several times in regard to this particular point, we also have to wonder why. ] 19:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

	:::::Personally, I do not believe that the purposes of wikipedia include trying to selectively edit reality in such a way that it doesn't offend anyone, which seems to be what ] is implying above. If that were the case, I doubt we would have a single article. The purpose is to prevent verifiable, accurate, information, whether specific people who might read it are offended by that information or not. If some people "spin" presenting verifiable information as being "antisemitism", then they are in effect saying that "semitism" (or whatever the word is) runs contrary to verifiable information. If that is the case, then I think that "semitism" has a problem, not reality. ] 15:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

	'''Enough.''' The antisemitism accusations are too much. This article is no more antisemitic than it is anti-Rastafarian or anti-Manichaeanist, and even the argument that it is still hinges on the ridiculous Bob Dylan debate. The AfD was mostly about the antisemitism accusation, and the result was '''Keep'''. I see an admin has already locked the page, but ], I think you are getting out of hand and should simply try to take the Dylan debate to the next step of administrative involvement rather than filling up the talk page and constantly editing the entry out. All the arguments have already been hashed out; at this point you're just causing more stress. Also, ], I understand where you are coming from, but I think you are helping egg him on, too. ] 18:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

	:] -- Do you see any Rastafarians or Manichaeanists on the list? If so, do you take issue with their placement on the list? Please be sure to voice your opinion if you find the placement of any Rastafarians or Manichaeanists on the list to be problematic. ] 19:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
	::You've already stated that you know little about religion, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but the word is ]. ] 19:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

	:::I was aware of that, ], but thanks for pointing it out, for everybody's edification. ] 19:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
	:: ], your complaints about antisemitism reside either on the fact that you do not think Jewish faith and Jewish ancestry can be separated, or your view that Dylan is of Jewish faith, or both. It seems either the majority disagrees with you or there is no consensus. Therefore, please take that specific dispute to the next step in Wiki-authority, or drop it entirely. You've said as much as is useful about the subject on the talk page; we don't need any more arguments. ], you're becoming uncivil, too. You're egging him on: there's no reason to make pointless attacks regarding misspellings of religions. Cut it out. ] 08:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::For what it's worth, that was not the intention. As Bus stop has stated before, he is I believe the quote was "not an expert about religion". I took that to mean less than extremely well-informed on the subject. And the only person included in that category, ], is mentioned no less than 9 times on the ] page, which, taken with the content of his own page, makes his status as a convert from that faith somewhat hard to argue. I do however offer my apologies for what was clearly poor phrasing. ] 19:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::This discussion is wearing everyone down. Where will it end? Once again, I'm eager to move away from this boring, repetitive and abysmal chain of arguments and, perhaps, communicate on a friendlier level with all the users involved. Although I've suggested this before, no one's willing to soften up and consider it. I believe that a shedding of the 'debate'-like atmosphere would make the discussion much more productive. It feels as if neither side is listening to one another, because there is a reciprocal suspicion of strong bias which is affecting each opponent's argument. No one's making any headway, because they don't want to make any headway- they'd rather just come out as the winner. Does anyone believe that such a solution might be fruitful? --] 09:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

	:::::<span id="new_section">Believe it or not</span>, I agree. We are no longer making any headway. I think I have an alternate solution, that may be acceptable to all parties. How about creating a breakaway article for "Notable Converts to Christianity Who Returned to their former faiths". Dylan's name could appear on such a list with other notable people who did not have a lasting conversion, such as Larry Flint. The original parameters could then be restored to this article, which would be consistent with all other "Notable Convert" lists on Misplaced Pages. I think that is a fair compromise, which will not be at all misleading to readers and might satisfy all parties. ] 23:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

	::::::That's a good line of thinking. However, as it is, there's only 3 or so potential candidates that we know of (Dylan, Flynt, and Duleep Singh). Even if more were to be found, it would seem that there would never really be enough information to warrant the split to a separate article. Additionally, the above title is very specific- a bit too specific to be a reasonably useful article on its own. Perhaps it would be better as a separate section within this article. I believe I've mentioned this before, but the discussion was too heavy for the suggestion to be noticed. Would a separate section within the current article work, with the those parameters in place? --] 23:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

	:::::::Yes, I could consider going along with something along the lines of ]'s suggestion. I would be amenable to a separate article entitled ''List of converts to Christianity who later returned to their religion.'' (I changed the word faith to religion.) Dylan and others who returned to a prior religion could be moved from this list to that list. I am in agreement in principle. ] 03:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

	::::::::Well, as I've said, this would work better as a section within the article (considering the relatively small amount of people who would fall into this category, and the fact that the criterion is a bit too specific for an article, but works fine for a section). Each conversion article could have such a section, if it is warranted (i.e. if individuals who would qualify are known), with a sub-heading which clarifies the criterion for the section. Either way, it's good to see us making some sort of progress with each other. --] 05:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

	:::::::::I think the best idea is to create a separate section, as suggested above. It could come at the end of the article, and be called "Notable Converts Who Later Changed Their Faith." If necessary, each of the entries under that heading could have their own notes with citations, indicating whether they "returned" to a prior religion, publicly denied or disavowed their Christian faith, converted to some other religion, or if the religion of their later life was publicly unknown/disputed. In any case it would be perfectly clear that we are making no claim that the people listed in this section remained Christian throughout their lives, but rather the opposite. It seems a very fair way to end this dispute. It also means there will be no need to let a few disputed entries undermine the entire article.] 13:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

	::::Perhaps the following would be acceptable. Allow one thread for the discussion of the article regarding the inclusion of Dylan, and the rest of the talk page for any other discussion of the remainder of the article? That way, the discussion of Dylan's inclusion can continue in one centralized location, while allowing for discussion of other topics relevant to the article to take place without off-topic interruptions about Dylan? ] 15:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

	== Paganism section ==

	It seems to me that this section could maybe be broken down further into grouping according to specific religious belief, if possible. So, for instance, it might be broken into traditional Egyptian religion (Isis-Osiris-et al), traditional Roman religion (Jupiter, ...), indiginous Amerind religion, and so on. Opinions? ] 14:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

	== Requested changes ==
	{{tl\|editprotected}}
	I would request that ] be added to the list of converts from Islam, with the text that he was an eighth century convert from ] who was later beheaded for his conversion. Also add Felix, one of the ] with ]. The source to be cited in both cases is ''The Penguin Dictionary of Saints'', 3rd edition, by Donald Attwater and Catherine Rachel John. New York:Penguin Books, 1993. ISBN 0-140-51312-4. Thank you. ] 15:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

	::I can only assume that the above is a joke in at best poor taste, until and unless some specific evidence from the page cited is included. I also note that Bus stop is continuing to make what are basically irrational and counterproductive edits to this page on a seemingly unrelenting basis. ] 15:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

	::::The question as stated makes no immediate sense to me, as I cannot be sure that I correctly understand it. I think perhaps it might help Bus stop to realize that the inclusion of the {{tl\|blp}} at the top of this page is there because some of the people referenced in the article are living, not that those standards also be applied to those who are demonstrably dead. I really think that user might better spend some time actually paying attention to some of the policies and guidelines referenced rather than continuing to ask these questions which would require only a minimum level of expenditure of effort on his/her part. Unless, of course, such things are beyond his understanding, in which case he might better post questions on the policy pages directly involved. ] 16:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

	::::::However, by trying to turn every discussion on this page into a discussion of a topic '''which has already been answered a number of times''' you are displaying the kind of problematic editing that you have unfortunately displayed before. Please allow people to suggest other changes to the article which are directly referenced and supported without facing the possibility of your trying to turn that discussion into yet another attempt on your part to continue your own self-described obsession with Bob Dylan. ] 16:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::It should be noted that after the request for modification of the page was placed, ] removed his/her own comments which were clearly off-topic and at least a little difficult to understand. His/her reasons for doing so, are, of course, his own, ''whatever'' they are. However, even that party seems to have agreed that those comments were irrelevant to the request at hand. ] 17:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

	::::::::] -- But you don't have to be offensive. ] is a vague, but real, thing. ] 17:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::From someone who regularly engages in unsubstantiated personal attacks on those who disagree with him, the comment above is more than a little amusing. ] 17:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

	==Request for New Section==
	{{tl\|editprotected}} Pursuant to the fair compromise proposed ], and the follow up suggestion that this be handled as a section within the article, I request the following edit. Please add the following section before "See Also":
	:I've disabled the editprotected request. This page will be unprotected in a couple of days, and then anyone will be able to edit it. The section below also doesn't list any people, it only talks about people vaguely. This page is very controversial, so editprotected should only be used here for things like typos and glaring errors. Otherwise, the protection will fade quickly enough. Also, this talk page should probably be archived soon; it's huge. Cheers. --] 03:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

	==Notable Converts Who Later Changed Their Faith==
	The people listed in this section made a conversion to Christianity which was notable and had a significant impact on their careers, public, or private lives. They, however, did not continue in the Christian faith for life. As noted under individual entries, some converted to another religion, returned to a prior religion, or renounced their faith. Some entries are also listed here because the faith of their later lives is sufficiently disputed, and it appears unlikely that they continued to practice a Christian religion. ] 14:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

	:This looks nice. Maybe one less sentence would work better, if the information could be condensed. Would there be any further subdivision by the faith returned/converted? Wait, scratch that, as I could see another debate brewing over whether Dylan became a Jew, or adopted a mixed or nonreligious perspective. I suppose just a bare listing of individuals would work, and the brevity of this section would allow for longer descriptions on each listing (which would be much more informative). --] 03:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
	:If they changed their faith again, they should be removed from this list.--] 03:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
	::I disagree. There are examples of lists which include individuals who formerly satisfy the criteria (with notes clarifying any change in status) because of the inherent notability of certain events in a person's life. For example, Joaquin Phoenix may no longer be a vegan, but his opting to choose that lifestyle is notable information and it's listing may prove useful to someone(perhaps not to you or I... but even articles like ] provide someone with useful information, and I can assure you that I'll likely never find such information useful). Likewise, Dylan's, Flynt's, Singh's, and any other individual's change in lifestyle is not negated by the individual's later decisions. I'm not the best at explaining things, but I hope you can pick up on this line of thinking.

	::As it is, there seems to be no clear place in which to list such individuals who have undergone multiple conversions. Although a separate article has been proposed, the criterion is too specific and the pool of individuals too small to warrant a seperate article. Additionally, certain individuals on this page have expressed that it would be 'insulting' to list Dylan on the 'converts to Judaism' list (as a Judaism-Christianity-Judaism revert).

	::I can only assume that the proposition of listing individuals who returned to their birth faith as 'converts' may insult some people in each religion. As it stands, the information would seem to occupy a more neutral position here. --] 03:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::Somebody who has undergone multiple conversions belongs on the list of their current religon. If they convert again, they should be removed from that list and moved to the lsit of their current belief. I have taken the liberty a while ago of removing all the converts to Islam who later became former muslims from that list. I think we need to be consistent with that. We also don't want to give people the wrong impression that somebody who is a former christian is actually still a christian. If people who converted to judaism, but are no longer Jews are on the list of converts to Judiasm list, they should be removed. If they reverted back to their origional faith, thay should be considered converts to that faith.--] 03:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

	::::Concerning the point of confusion about the individual's current beliefs- that's the essence of having a separate section to note such individuals. Additionally, I've suggested placing such individuals on their respective 'converts to x' list if they re-converted, but as I've said, certain individuals consider the notion 'insulting', especially in the case of Judaism. As it stands, I feel that if one were to make a change to another religion, and revert to their former faith, they would best be listed on the page of the converted religion (but specified as one who later reverted, in a separate section from the other entrants), and should also, of course, be listed on the 'List of x', with 'x' being their reverted faith. Even so, with examples such as Bob Dylan, we don't have any clear picture of what he even believes now. He could believe in Judaism; he could be an atheist or an agnostic; some sources have suggested that he is still Christian; others, including his own statements, are rather vague about the whole picture and suggest a possible ecumenical view on the validity of religious ideas. Placing such an individual would be a complex process, and there would doubtless be disagreements. One thing which can generally be agreed on is that the sources make it clear that he converted to Christianity, and that his faith waned or perhaps left entirely for something else. For this reason, the least controversial position would be on this article, in my opinion. --] 04:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::::I disagree. I think the best place for Dylan would be on no convert list. If the current religion cannot be determined, that individual does not belong on any converts list. Dylan would have a clear place on the former religion X list, but not on the converts list, so that individual shouldn't be on any list.--] 04:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

	::::::I understand what you mean, but nevertheless, the individual did convert to Christianity- this is a noteworthy fact which, I believe, deserves mention on a relevant list, along with other individuals with similar situations. The conversion has been verified by reliable, WP:BLP-compliant sources. I'm unsure as to why you believe that such an event does not deserve mention, specifically on the page to which it directly pertains. Dylan was born a Jew, so he retains a place on that list- at least because of his birthright into the culture and the ethnicity. Concerning religion, the only clear point has been that he had converted to Christianity in 1979. From that position, it can't be determined whether he reverted, remained (with cooled interest), or morphed again to another belief (or lack thereof) entirely. As I've said, there should be no ambiguity if such an individual like Dylan is listed here. A section for individuals who converted to the faith, but later left it to revert to their former faith or to an uncertain belief, would be established, and a summary of the individuals situation (which may also point to the complexities of listing it elsewhere, as in Dylan's case) would be provided to further clarify that the individual is being listed because of their proclamation of new faith, and not their current status. --] 04:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
	<br>
	(unindent)I would note that I was the first person to propose this idea of a separate section (or seperate page) almost a month ago . The idea met with no response then. I personally still think that the idea has merit. The questions that I think would have to be faced before such content would be separated out are as follows:
	*(1) How do we determine the current religious status of an individual? I would generally count only those individuals who have clearly and definitively, through whatever means are dictated by that faith, converted to a particular system of belief. I acknowledge up front that this proposal is and will be controversial; however, particularly given the rather nebulous and free-form status of several religions today, someone embracing one of the syncretic new religious movements could be seen by one group as still adhering to a prior faith and by another as having meaningfully converted. We should strive to avoid such situations wherever possible. If we could develop set parameters which would be accepted by all parties involved as what does and what does not constitute conversion, that would be helpful. It would probably however be all but impossible to get people to agree on.
	*(2) Would this be a separate section of each of the "List of converts" pages, or would it be an entirely separate page? Personally, I would favor the former, including in those cases of people who have over time embraced three or more religions. A list of people who have converted several times, with no indication of what faiths they have converted from or to, would in my eyes be all but completely worthless, except for titillation value. However, in cases like that, maybe phrasing to the effect of "converted from X to Y, later converted to Z" would probably be the best way to go, IMHO.
	*(3) There would be at least from me no objections to having a subsection of each section (if the layout remains the same) for "reverts."
	*(4) I once again question the existing format, however. To me, it makes more sense that the individual entries be organized more on the basis of time then on the basis of religion. Several of the religions included have had their "ups and downs" over the years, and in several cases may have had changed dramatically over the years. Having them organized by time would allow for perhaps some comments as to the beliefs of a given faith at that time, and also would give a better idea of the trends in religiousity over time.
	*I welcome any constructive comments to the above proposals. ] 14:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

	:Whilst we're talking about other Abrahamaic spin-offs the ] doesn't care ''when'' only ''if'' they have converted '''"sometime during their lives"'''. If they have gone apostate then they still get to stay on the list. Our benchmark for inclusion I feel is not the Jewish list criteria but the Islamic list criteria. This are identical to the Christianity criteria !; thus the Jewish list is in fact the odd one out. This difference may be a reflection of the sentiment to consider Jewishness to be both a race and a religion as opposed to Christianity and Islam of which neither are predicated on race. The problem really is highlighted if we have secular Jews (and there are many) thus we have Jews who are atheists. But what if they then revert back to theism ?. Would people complain if they were listed on a list of converts to atheism ? or is it simply that they object to listing just as a convert to Christianity ?.
	:In essence I'm happy for a flag or new section to list the apostates but not their removal and would support that change to this article (and the ] too) layout. ] 15:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

	::I believe that there is a conflict over the parameters for good reason. I understand Bus stop's argument, and where he may be coming from, but I feel that it's all a bit misplaced and misled.

	::He may feel that the purpose of conclusion is to 'proselytize', or to 'slander a Jew'- whatever it is, that simply is not the case. If anything, such a section would be a reasonable and useful compromise- it would separate such individuals from the rest so as to avoid confusion and any accusation of 'slander', and it would still present the relevant information- and I hope that it is something we can all finally agree on.

	::The fact is, the conversion of an individual deserves recognition on a list, as do most other considerable changes one makes in life that could belong in a 'list'- and the list to which the event of conversion directly pertains is the most appropriate place for such information.

	::As it stands, this page has three individuals which would clearly belong in such a section- and there could be several more, if one were to examine the others entrants on the list. I'm aware that there are individuals who would fit into such a section on the Islam convert list- for example, David/Daveed Gartenstein-Ross should be mentioned both there (as an individual who converted to Islam from Judaism and later left the faith) and here, as it is his second conversion. I understand there will be debates about this, but I feel that it's a very reasonable compromise which should satisfy the concerns of both sides of the argument.

	::So, essentially, I'm in agreement with Ttiotsw.--] 16:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

	:::Agreed. A problem with including people only by their "last" faith is that they may have made their most significant and notable activities as a member of one of (or maybe their only) "middle" faith. No examples spring to mind immediately, though. ] 16:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

	== Requested addition ==

	I request that the new ] and the currently single-entry ] be added to the "See also" section. ] 16:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
	:As long as we are requesting notable convert article, I request ].--] 06:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
	::Actually, the above two are already, if only barely, extant. I personally would have no objections to such a list as mentioned above, though. We do have a huge ], which is actually rather intimidating to try to page through to find anyone who claims to have had religious belief earlier. I note Richard Dawkins described ] as a convert to atheism on the latter's page, but I'm not sure if that is sufficient for inclusion. So far, I haven't found any others which explicitly state having had earlier beliefs before becoming atheists. I am assuming that, as atheism per se has no formal induction ceremonies, we would be using the subject's own statements as verification of their atheism? Anyway, I welcome such a page, and am leaving a message at ] requesting one. I think they're probably the ones best informed on the subject. ] 15:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::Please see ] for the discussion there. As most atheists are individual converts, it looks like they may be adding details of earlier faiths to the ] where such is practicable. When the page is unblocked, I hope to add that list to the "See also" section. ] 16:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

	== You do not put a Jew on a list of Christians ==

	You do not put a Jew on a list of Christians, which is what this list is, despite the attempts to contrive the list's parameters. You not put disclaimers in place to correct that error. The above discussion for a special "section" for Bob Dylan and a few other people is just one more in a series of ''disclaimers'' (your word, not mine) and disclaimers don't right wrongs. Writing a list correctly in the first place corrects inaccuracies best. Dylan belongs on no list of converts. He was born a Jew, experimented with Christianity briefly (a long time ago) and has been a Jew ever since. He does not have to convert back to Judaism. His status as a Jew is established for life by the virtue of having been born a Jew, and in the absence of active negation of that Jewish status. There is no evidence of active negation of Dylan's Judaism. He is therefore just an ordinary Jew, not different in any way from the majority of Jews. I think the Misplaced Pages Christianity project ought to get Christians for this list, not Jews. In point of fact there are 2 ''billion'' Christians in this world. There are only 15 ''million'' Jews in this world. Yet the Misplaced Pages Christianity project apparently needs a Jew to fill out this list. You don't put a Jew on a list of converts to Christianity, even with all of the disclaimers concocted because you don't want to give the impression that the Jew is a Christian. Or do you? The Pope, in recent years, has had to apologize to the Jews of the world for the injustices done against them over a period encompassing many centuries. Those injustices included forced conversion. Why is this list (these editors) forcing a Jew onto what is titled a ''List of converts to Christianity''? Is that not akin to forced conversion? Forced conversion, between Jews and Christians, has been a one-way street. Only Christians forced Jews to convert to Christianity. Not the other way around. Jews did not ever force Christians to convert to Judaism. The notion is laughable. Whose emotions are out of control? Whose insecurities lead them to brutalize another people? The Jews don't accept the New Testament. So what? Can Christians not be secure in their own beliefs without forcing a Jew to accept their beliefs? I think the Misplaced Pages Christianity project should act responsibly and confine their list to those who actually are Christians and not try to contrive the parameters for this list to include Jews. Dylan happens to be an ordinary American Jew, no different in any way from your average American Jew, or any Jew in the world for that matter. It is his rock star status that makes him irresistible to the editors demanding his presence on this list. It is his charisma. I think the Misplaced Pages Christianity project is displaying out of control emotionalism in gripping onto the Jew, Dylan, as if for dear life. ] 20:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
	:Then request comment, mediation, or arbitration. Otherwise, this discussion has been ongoing for some time, and, until and unless substantiation of some of the claims above is actually made, continuation of this seemingly concluded discussion would seem to serve no useful purpose. ] 20:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

	::Thank you for copying and pasting the same rant that you've been propagating for the past month or so. As you tend to ignore all responses directed to you and consistently feel the need to insert warped accusations about the motivations of other editors, it would seem that sites might be a more appropriate receptacle for your views. However, if you would cease making accusations and would actually begin discussing things productively, then I suppose the conversation is worth continuing. --] 20:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::Bus Stop you still actually have brought no evidence that Dylan has practiced Judaism or showed that he believes in any of the fundemental tenets of Judaism since after he stated he did have some Christian belief. Therefore not only is your request to remove him from the list groundless but also is the request to move him to a section of people that are no longer Christians. ] 20:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
	::::Gustav- that's the funny thing. Even considering that fact, we ''are'' moving him to such a section. It was essentially our idea, and Cleo proposed a similar one recently, which revived the proposal. We've already made it apparent that the new section will make it more than clear why the individuals within that section are listed, and what their current status is. They won't be intermixed with any other individuals. However, given the consistent opposition to even this motion, it seems that Bus stop is thoroughly opposed to any mention of Dylan's conversion, and finds it preferable to censor Misplaced Pages. --] 20:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::::: It should be noted that I proposed a seperate article for "Notable Converts to Christianity who returned to their former religions", not a seperate section. I also proposed that the parameters of this article be restored so that the scope of the list is consistent with all other such "convert lists" contained on Misplaced Pages. I see no reason for Misplaced Pages to make special concessions for Christianity as opposed to other religions. Doing so strikes me as inconsistent with ]. ] 04:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Well of course you can create the new section but we would need a reliable source to show that either Dylan has either renounced Christianity or that he practices or at least believes the main tenets of Judaism to put him in there. If one is not provided I will have to move him out of the section.] 21:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
	::::::I understand what you're saying. Considering Dylan's own statements which make an ambiguity of his religious beliefs (but tend toward non-religious or syncretic beliefs), in addition to some public involvement with Jewish causes (which is interpreted by some sites as a show of a return to Judaism, while other sources claim that the actions are cultural and non-religious- the sources given even claim that his contact with Jewish organizations was from a Christian perspective), I believe the most non-controversial position would be in such a section, with a clarification of the actual ambiguity of his beliefs post-Christianity (if it is indeed 'post' at all). Whew, that was quite a sentence. --] 21:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
	::Agreed. We have time to iron out the specific phrasing before the block is listed, if anyone wants to propose any. ] 21:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::No, come on you can't make special allowances for Dylan just because his inclusion here upsets some people here who have made a hell of a noise about it. If there is no reliable source that proves that Dylan has renounced Christianity or that he has reverted to practicing or at least believing in Judaism or he has changed to another religious or anti religious state then Dylan should stay on the from Judaism section until a reliable source can be found to indicate his current position. ] 21:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
	::::Point taken. However, as per the ] page, particularly the great body of evidence provided by ], for which I personally am quite grateful, there is substantial evidence that Dylan is now actively practicing Judaic religion in some form. I would assume some of the sources used in the recent comments on that page would be used as the evidence of his having taken up practice of Judaism again. However, as stated on that page, that evidence does not (partially as a lack of documentation of conversion in Judaism) necessarily show proof of conversion or absence of belief in some syncretic version of Christianity and Judaism or anything else. On that basis, I think adding a comment to the effect of "is currently a practicing Jew" might be the best phrasing, possibly with his separate comment that he does not follow any organized religion. Like I said earlier, the exact phrasing of the comment, and what should be included in it, is something we now have the opportunity to discuss and hopefully come to some sort of conclusion about. ] 22:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

	:::::What we see is a clear commitment to abuse. Dylan is a Jew. This is a ]. Obviously Dylan does not belong on this list. What you have is out of control emotionalism. What other explanation to the denial of rationality? What we see in the above comments is a clear commitment to continue using this article as a locus of abusive behavior towards Jews. I can only assume the editors see Dylan symbolic of all Jews, but I have no way of knowing that. What other explanation for the irrationality of placing a Jew on what is a list of Christians? This abuse is not at all of a minor nature. In the face of the abuse that I am referring to and the above comments indicating more of the same I seriously feel this article is irredeemable. The above editors are demonstrating a commitment to continuing and ongoing abuse of at least one Jew on this article. My personal feeling is that Bob Dylan is meant to be symbolic of all Jews. He (Bob Dylan) is clearly Jewish. There is no doubt about that. He was born to parents both of whom were Jewish. He was ''bar mitzvah.'' Of course the fact that he is a rock star, possessing enormous charisma, about as high profile a creative individual as is alive today in popular culture, is not irrelevant. The events of 27 years ago are almost entirely irrelevant today. I don't think there is really anyone who honestly doubts that. What we have is out of control emotionalism and a possessiveness that wants to possess even that which is not owned. I don't see any reason why any rational editor should tolerate this abuse. This list was created in the atmosphere of abuse. It was sleight of hand that created this abusive list on January 17 of 2006. The idea at that time was to create a list containing, at that time, only three names. One of those three names was Bob Dylan. And the idea was to put the note next to the name Bob Dylan reading, ''from Judaism, to which he later reconverted.'' Here is the first entry, in its entirety: ''], from ] to which he later reconverted.'' That wording has changed form and been removed entirely numerous times in the history of this article. I contend that the abuse does not go away no matter what wording you use. You simply do not put a Jew on a list of Christians. "Convert" to Christianity (as used in the title) means "Christian." Convert is a noun in the title of this article. What does that noun refer to? That noun refers to a Christian. This article has removed additional wording, the counterpart of which can be found on the ]. The ] carries the tag at the top of it which reads, ''This page is a list of Jews.'' Why has the ] removed the corresponding tag for that list? The ] used to have on it the tag reading, ''This page is a list of Christians.'' Why has that tag been removed? Dylan does not happen to be a Christian. Why the contradiction between the title and the fact that Dylan is in point of fact not a Christian? ] 14:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
	::::::What we have above is someone who is continuing to make statements based on unsupported claims who refuses to take the actions which are called for to resolve disputes such as this as per the ] page. As long as he continues to make these unsupported allegations, without providing any evidence of his claims or showing any interest in taking the steps outlined on the page referenced, he has no reason to believe that continuing to complain in the manner above will produce any results. ] 14:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::I imagine it is clear to anyone that is not Cleo123 or BusStop that they have been carrying out a campaign of bullying and harrassment on this page in order to try and get their own way in removing Bob Dylan on the list. They have invented conspiracies that his inclusion on this list is meant to insult Jews or swell the pride of Christians or whatever and then used these imagined conspiracies to claim that they are being attacked and belittled merely by Dylan's inclusion on the list. They clearly do not intend to be reasonable but instead to bully. ] 15:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::: Wow! What a shocking misrepresentation of facts. In the first place, multiple editors have voiced concerns about the contrived parameters that have been added to this article during the course of this dispute. Likewise, several editors, apart from ] and myself have objected to Dylan's inclusion on this list. Editors on your side of the argument have chosen to ignore other dissenting opinions, in favor of a focused assault on ]. Apparently, my defense of this user has made me an additional target of abuse. ], I would suggest that you review my contributions to this and other "Dylan" related discussions. You will find that I have not made any allusions to prostelytizing, nor have I referred to the article as "an insult to Jews". Indeed, I have actively discouraged ] from speculating as to the motivations of others. I have stated very clearly that although Dylan is an interesting case in point, my primary focus is the article's recently broadened and potentially misleading parameters that could adversely affect any number of celebrities in the future. ] 03:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

	] -- How do you explain ]'s comments, in the section above, entitled "Notable Converts Who Later Changed Their Faith"? If I read ]'s comments correctly, that editor is arguing too that Bob Dylan does not belong on this list. Correct me if I am wrong, but that is what I read ] as saying. ] 15:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
	::What ] said was that people who have abandoned a faith should be added to a List of former (X)'s, like the specifically mentioned ]. I note that there is a very short ], which has all of 5 entries referenced. I can certainly see having appropriate content moved to such lists, if there is sufficient content and/or sufficient cause to justify maintaining as a separate entity. The question then arises whether certain parties would accept Dylan's inclusion on that list. I'm not sure I can answer that question. Also, I wonder (and request input from others) what the specific qualifications for inclusion on a list of "former" anythings would be, particularly in the rather free-form religious environment we are now in. Also, should someone who specifically qualifies for inclusion on both lists (on the basis of conversion to and form Christianity, in this case) be on both lists or not? Like I said, I welcome and request reasonable responses, preferably those indicating some specific aspect of some extant policy or guideline as their justification. ] 18:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

	== References ==

	The article was kept in the last AfD on the basis: "KEEP but remove all uncited entries to living people per WP:BLP". I plan to remove all unsourced entries in 24 hours or so, and so if anyone was planning to add any references now would be a good time. Of course under ] there is no need to give notice like this, I am merely doing it as a courtesy to those who have built the list, and anyone may remove unsourced info at any time. --] 18:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
	:While I apologize for the lack of work, one should note that the continuing conversation is, unfortunately, overly distracting. The unresolved state of the discussion itself is why the article is protected from editing in the first place. How are we supposed to add anything to the article in this situation- with the bickering on the talk page and the un-editable article on hold until the discussion has ended? --] 19:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
	::As noted above, the page is currently being protected, thus preventing any references being added. For what it's worth, below is a list of all the names on the list that are currently unreferenced. I will try to '''bold''' those which are of living people. Also, at least some of the names below, including the ] (not blp), ], ], and ] are individuals I know to be converts. I hadn't added references yet because the reference I have lists them as converts to Christianity, but doesn't indicate what they converted from. Anyway, these are the names, in order of appearance on page. I will shortly start '''bolding''' those names of living people. I am also putting them in a separate section to preclude any edit conflicts. ] 19:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::Many of those names are easy to find sources for. I'll admit I've been a little lazy, but I feel it's likely more important to find sources for contentious or not-well-known conversions first- people like C.S.Lewis are generally known to have converted, and should take secondary priority to listings that have no certain place on the list. --] 19:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
	::::I agree with this, and I'm sorry if my first message came across as waspish. I hadn't noticed the article was protected. Thanks to John Carter's list (below), it will be easy enough to re-add names as they are sourced, but please consider the 24-hour part of my message above to be moot until the protection issue is resolved. Meantime there would be no harm at all in starting to add references here. --] 19:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
	===List of unreferenced names===
	I have debolded referenced names of living people to make the search for sources easier. Note:Red links are bolded because I'm not sure if they are alive or not.
	:(John- perhaps we should strike-out each name from the block list that is sourced below- or remove them, although I think it would be good to keep the block list in tact. If you don't mind, I'll strike-out referenced names now.)--] 23:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

	''']''', ], ], ], ''']''', ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ''']''', ], ], ''']''', ], ], ], ], ], ''']''', ''']''', ], ''']''', ], ''']''', ], ], '''] (?)''' , ''']''', ], '''] (?)''', '''] (?)''', ], ''']''', '''] (?)''', ''']''', ], ], ''']''', ], ], '''] (?)''', ''']''', ''']''', ], ], ''']''', ], ], ''']''', ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ''']''', ''']''', ], ], ], ], ''']''', ], ], ''']''', ''']''', ''']''', ], ], ''']''', ], ''']''', ], ], ''']''', ], ], ], ], ], ], ''']''', ], ''']''', ], ''']''', ''']''', ''']''', <s>]</s>, ], ''']''', ], ], ], ], ], The ], ''']''', ], ], ], ''']''', ], ''']''', ]. ] (not bolded - died 200 years - us vampires are '''really''' hard to get rid of) 19:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

	====From Paganism====
	I've gone through and re-added most of the listings under Paganism with sources (and I've added a few new ones, as well). I've removed the sourced names from the above text. The following are names which I was not able to find sources for.
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]

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

	==Obama==
	Obama needs to be removed from the list of former atheists. The source says he was raised secular, but it never says he was an atheist. In fact it implies that he was always Christian.--] 03:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
	:It was my impression that he was included not as an "atheist", but as an "agnostic", believing that there was some sort of divinity, but not necessarily knowing the details. I acknowledge the source (which was the best one I could find on the external links section of that article) says he was taken to Christian churches as a child, but also says he was similarly taken to other sites of worship. To my eyes, at least, that seems to fit with the definition of an "agnostic". However, I acknowledge that I spent less time perusing the entire article than I might like. If you can point toward anything which clearly indicates I am wrong in the assumptions and conclusions above, though, I will willingly agree to the immediate removal. ] 14:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
	::I disagree. An ] is defined in the dictionary as "''One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.''" The sources you mentioned above at no point say that Obama at any time "doubted" the existance of god. If I am wrong, please show me where. Thus he cannot be considered to have been an agnostic. The closest thing it says is that he was ]. Secular alone does not mean disbelief in god. It only seems in the article that he gained more faith in Christianity with time, but I fail to see where the source says he was not a Christian.--] 00:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::Points taken. However, I'm not sure if we can count the absence of evidence (no statement that he was not a Christian), as evidence that he in fact was a Christian, particularly with the references to non-Christian books and visits to non-Christian services during his childhood. That might be clarified in some of the other sources, though, which I haven't yet gotten to. And I'm not sure what other heading could be created which would make it clear that he had what might be called a non-sectarian belief in a divinity. If anyone can think of one, though, I would love to hear it. ] 00:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
	::::Actually, we need evidence not that he was non-christian at some time. Putting a bunch of different sources and comming up with our own conclusion is origional research, similarly, so is the claim that Obama was at some point in his life non-christian at this time.--] 00:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::::I'm not sure whether the evidence from his book qualifies him as one or not. I'm sorry that I haven't been keeping up with the furor over his beliefs in the press lately, so I wasn't aware of how hot an issue this is. I can see removing him based on what we now have, unless someone can come up with something which provides good evidence of his having ever said or apparently espoused non-Christian beliefs. ] 01:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
	::::::Since I would prefer that we refrain from disagreements here, I'll take it upon myself to try and find some sources for this. Unfortunately, most of the search returns are from right wing, paranoid blogs who turn Obama into a jihadist in Christian clothing. Obviously, no real clues from the clueless. As far as I'd call it, he grew up in a non-religious home (I can identify). From my own experience, I would say that he made a clear choice in conversion. He appears to have had just as much a Muslim influence as a Christian one in his secular upbringing, considering that he did go to schools for both. In my case, I was predisposed to the faith I used to sing carols for in elementary school, but I can honestly say I made a willful choice to change from my non-religious mindset. Just a personal opinion (so no suggestions to take my words with weight, of course); I'll be looking for sources when I have the time. --] 05:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::Well, here's a quick one. --] 05:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::It looks to me, having not read Obama's book, that he at least strongly implied that he was raised in a household which did not specifically espouse any particular religion. I guess the standard to be used would be whether in that book he ever used the word "converted" or a similar word to describe his formal entry into Christianity. If he did, then I think he can reasonably be included, preferably using the words he himself used. Certainly, based on the reference above, it seems to be a reasonable conclusion from the book, and that source If not, then a competent, non-partisan review by an editor of what he did say seems called for. If he is removed from the list, though, it would make sense to me to take the article on him out of the ] as well. ] 13:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::As it's been brought up before, I find it relevant to note here and now that we should make a classification for formerly 'non-religious' individuals (i.e. those with no religious beliefs, and with no strong 'atheist' or 'agnostic' beliefs- that is, not enough to claim either of the latter titles).It would appear that anyone who is not 'atheist' or strictly (that is, in the proper meaning of the term) 'agnostic' is included in the agnostic/atheist' category. It should be noted that while 'non-religious' as a category might become an excuse for lackadaisical source-seeking, 'non-religious' is a genuine stance from which to convert. Although some sites like to claim that Obama 'converted to Christianity from Islam', it seems clear that his early religious involvements had largely disappeared by adolescence. I think the absence of the 'non-religious' category is a problem, but I'm unsure if it should be grouped with Agn/Ath or should be separated entirely. Either way, it would seem for lack of a more specific 'title' concerning his pre-Christian beliefs, Obama should be included in such a category. --] 07:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::I disagree. It seems more accurately that he simply was a secular Christian as a child. As being born a secular Christian, he could not have converted to Christianity. Thus he does not belong on this list. No non-religous category is necessary.--] 02:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::::''"Barack initially followed his Muslim father's religion, but later became a Christian."''
	:::::::::::
	:::::::::::''"Upon graduation, he worked for a year at newsletter publisher Business International (now part of The Economist Group), and then moved to Chicago, where he took up community organizing in the Altgeld Gardens housing project on the city's South Side. It was during his time spent here that Obama became a Christian and joined the Trinity United Church of Christ."''--] 02:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::::and this seems to contradict this source, which never says his father was atheist. The problem is the sources contradict each other. One says he was secular, another muslim, another atheist. As we cannot know for sure, we can't make a decision. This is too disputed. --] 02:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::If you were unaware, Obama's birth father, Barack Sr., was an ex-Muslim atheist who left the household when Barack Jr. was 2 years old. His mother married another man, who was a secularized Muslim, Lolo Soetoro. It was under this father that Obama attended Muslim and Catholic religious schools- though whether he really held a belief in either faith at that time is debatable (and you'll find just as many sources on both sides). I doubt that he practiced any religion in childhood, but it's likely that 'Netglimse' is considering what many readily available sources seem to argue (and being an internet celebrity/general trivia site, it may not be the most discriminating judge of source material).
	:::::::::::::And I think it's hardly an issue of making decisions over the sources- the article you provided is "My Spiritual Journey", by Barack Obama. One should, of course, take his word above others, as the article was written with the specific intention of detailing the events leading to his religious state and the consequences of living the Christian faith in the political realm. Concerning Obama's own words, it seems clear that he grew up in a household of secular religious pluralism- no particular faith, but a cultural study and healthy respect of them all. His mother taught him of various religions for cultural value, and did not endorse any particular faith to him. It seems that Obama did indeed move from a secular, non-religious outlook to one of Christian faith, baptism and all- as he himself states.
	:::::::::::::Additionally, whether or not Obama is present, I believe a non-religious category is quite necessary. Not everyone who professes no religion is an agnostic or an atheist. I'm actually concerned that some individuals in the agn/ath category might actually be neither, but were placed for lack of a better place. Perhaps it should be a bit more forgiving of the non-specificity of sources; perhaps "Nonreligious/Undetermined former religion" would be a better category to save the mis-filings of such individuals (which should be given just as much attention as an ex-Muslim listed as an ex-Sikh). --] 04:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::he'd be better off in an "undetermined if he really is born christian or a convert to Christianity" section, as he is too disputable. Therefore, he should not be placed on the list, because he is disputed.--] 04:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

	Sefringle, one can hardly read Obama's personal testimony to his 'Spiritual Journey' and argue that he was "raised Christian". I've reproduced the text here to make this fact clear to the reader:

	:''I was not raised in a religious household. My maternal grandparents, who hailed from Kansas, had been steeped in Baptist and Methodist teachings as children, but religious faith never really took root in their hearts. My mother's own experiences as a bookish, sensitive child growing up in small towns in Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas only reinforced this inherited skepticism. Her memories of the Christians who populated her youth were not fond ones. Occasionally, for my benefit, she would recall the sanctimonious preachers who would dismiss three-quarters of the world's people as ignorant heathens doomed to spend the afterlife in eternal damnation--and who in the same breath would insist that the earth and the heavens had been created in seven days, all geologic and astrophysical evidence to the contrary. She remembered the respectable church ladies who were always so quick to shun those unable to meet their standards of propriety, even as they desperately concealed their own dirty little secrets; the church fathers who uttered racial epithets and chiseled their workers out of any nickel that they could.''
	:''For my mother, organized religion too often dressed up closed-mindedness in the garb of piety, cruelty and oppression in the cloak of righteousness.''

	:''This isn't to say that she provided me with no religious instruction. In her mind, a working knowledge of the world's great religions was a necessary part of any well-rounded education. In our household the Bible, the Koran, and the Bhagavad Gita sat on the shelf alongside books of Greek and Norse and African mythology. On Easter or Christmas Day my mother might drag me to church, just as she dragged me to the Buddhist temple, the Chinese New Year celebration, the Shinto shrine, and ancient Hawaiian burial sites. But I was made to understand that such religious samplings required no sustained commitment on my part--no introspective exertion or self-flagellation. Religion was an expression of human culture, she would explain, not its wellspring, just one of the many ways--and not necessarily the best way--that man attempted to control the unknowable and understand the deeper truths about our lives.''

	:''In sum, my mother viewed religion through the eyes of the anthropologist that she would become; it was a phenomenon to be treated with a suitable respect, but with a suitable detachment as well. Moreover, as a child I rarely came in contact with those who might offer a substantially different view of faith. My father was almost entirely absent from my childhood, having been divorced from my mother when I was 2 years old; in any event, although my father had been raised a Muslim, by the time he met my mother he was a confirmed atheist, thinking religion to be so much superstition.''

	:''''

	:''In such a life I, too, might have contented myself had it not been for the particular attributes of the historically black church, attributes that helped me shed some of my skepticism and embrace the Christian faith.''

	:''''

	:''It was because of these newfound understandings--that religious commitment did not require me to suspend critical thinking, disengage from the battle for economic and social justice, or otherwise retreat from the world that I knew and loved--that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ one day and be baptized. It came about as a choice and not an epiphany; the questions I had did not magically disappear. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side of Chicago, I felt God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.''

	Feel free to study the source further (I'll take a look at his books when I next get a chance). These are not tenuous assertions strung together from interview excerpts or song lyrics; they are a man's own testimony about his upbringing an his faith, and they are quite clear about the circumstances of his upbringing- a secular one which did not adhere to any particular religion, but studied them all as 'human expressions', from an anthropological viewpoint which was espoused by a non-religious mother. An assertion that he was 'raised Christian' holds as much weight as asserting that he was 'raised Hindu' or 'raised Hellenist' because of his study of such religions in youth and adolescence.--] 04:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

	:He was raised ]. Secular means no religion. It does not mean without any faith. There are tons of secular Christians, muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. but they are still religous. His mother was a secular Christian, but still a Christian. He was raised secular, but one could easily argue that he was still a Christian; only a secular Christian. He simply gained more faith in Christianity with time. As we are not Obama, nor do we have him here to tell us if he is a Christian, this is going to be pretty hard to verify.--] 05:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

	:Very well, more to clarify:
	::''Many assume, Wallis said, that Obama was raised in a black church and just "gets" the cadences and vocabulary of religious rhetoric. In fact, Obama was raised by an ] Kenyan father, an Indonesian Muslim stepfather and a white American mother whom he has described as "a lonely witness for ]." It wasn't until he was 37 that Obama heard an altar call and became a member of the United Church of Christ.''-

	::''Later, rejecting the agnosticism of his parents and his own skeptical instincts, he became a Christian and joined a church. “I came to realize,” he wrote in his second book, “The Audacity of Hope,” that “without an unequivocal commitment to a particular community of faith, I would be consigned at some level to always remain apart, free in the way that my mother was free, but also alone in the same ways that she was ultimately alone.”''-
	:It's good to see that we are uncovering useful sources in the process.--] 05:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

	He needs to be removed from that category.--] 06:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

	== Bob Marley ==

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

	== Qualifications for inclusion of "List of former (x)s" ==

	I can see the rationality of having separate lists of people who were at one point members of one faith only to leave it later. As this page seems to be the page with most active current discussion, I thought it reasonable to include this question here first. What do we think the standards for inclusion on a list of former believers should be? My own proposal, and I would be grateful for any reasonable feedback, positive or negative, would be the following.<br>
	We are basically dealing with two separate groups of people here. Those who are currently living, or who have only recently died, and those who are basically historical figures. I'm not trying to insult anyone by spelling out the obvious, simply pointing out that different circumstances and rules apply to different parties.<br>
	For people who more or less qualify as "historical" figures, which I would roughly define as having died twenty or thirty years ago or more, I think the most reasonable and useful definition to use would be that to qualify for inclusion in that list a person should have converted from the religion in the "List of former x's" title before or during the period of their life for which they are most notable. Thus, their period of greatest notablity would at least include some of the period when they could be or were contemporaneously known as "former adherents of Faith X". My particular specialty is ]s, and most if not all of those people by definition converted from whatever to Christianity before their period of greatest notability, particularly those who are canonized on the basis of being martyrs for Christianity. <br>
	The guidelines for people still living or only recently died would I think be understandably more contentious, given the difficulties in determining when a living person's period of greatest notability is. Here I acknowledge my own comparative lack of experience, and particularly welcome any responses. I think the same basic rules could still apply, with the proviso that people who have clearly retired from "public life" or however you want to phrase it and converted to some faith during this private, post-notability period would probably not be included in that list, or at least have indications of the fact that the conversion took place after they retired from the public eye. However, in some cases which have already been mentioned elsewhere, such as ], who seemingly recently publicly converted to Christianity, would qualify, as this person is still considered notable enough that recent reports regarding his behavior are being published. Another example, ], would I think reasonably be included in the list of former Christians, as the majority of his time in the public eye has included a period when he is noted for being a Scientology practicioner.<br>
	Like I said earlier, I would welcome any reasonable responses, so that we can try to standardize the qualifications for these lists and thus reduce the possibility of contentious discussion in the future. ] 14:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

	:I think people who converted after their notable period would fit if there are enough sources and their conversion was significant to their final years in some way. ]'s conversion to Catholicism ten years before her death is kind of notable considering the Church's view of homosexuality and certain other factors; ]'s conversion to the ] occurred after most of his best-known books were written but is significant as he was a scholar of Christianity. Also I'm not sure "most" saints were converts. In particular I'd think most saints born from about 1000-1450 AD were people who'd always been at least baptized Christian.--] 02:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
	::I would agree to the inclusion of the parties mentioned above, as they were I think both during their time of greatest notability, which is to say, after their primary works were published. I guess what I was poorly trying to indicate was that someone who, for instance, wasn't involved in issues relating to religion who converted well after they disappeared completely from the limelight might not qualify for inclusion, as their behavior then might be less notable and considerably much less publicized. And, if I was less than specific in clearly refering to those saints who specifically and clearly converted to Christianity from some other faith, my apologies. That was the group I was trying to "target", as such a conversion is the necessary requirement for inclusion in this list. And please note that those canonized figures I have added to date all were clearly converts from a non-Christian faith. ] 14:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	You do not put the Jewish person named Bob Dylan on the ] because in doing so you contradict yourself. You do not contrive parameters in order to relieve that contradiction because doing so constitutes a form of "forcing." If he doesn't fit, then he doesn't fit. One does not force him onto that list if he doesn't fit. He happens to be Jewish. It is a list of Christians. Therefore he doesn't fit the parameters of that list. We don't present contradictions on Misplaced Pages. We don't say that black is white. And we don't say that white is black.

	We don't blur distinctions. We respect differences. And yes, it is an offense to put a Jew on a list of Christians. As enthusiastic as the Christian philosophy of the salvation available through Jesus Christ may be, Jews do not accept that. Jews consider that incorrect. Jews do not accept that Jesus was the Son of God. Jews do not accept that there is salvation in accepting Jesus as one's Savior. Jews do not accept the New Testament. You respect a Jew by not forcing him onto a list of Christians. Equally important Misplaced Pages has no allowance for contradiction that I am aware of. ] 12:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

	:... --] 13:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
	:If the above user honestly believes the statements he makes regarding the inclusion of that individual being inappropriate, then the appropriate course of action to take is, as he has been told before, to seek ]. Otherwise, such repetitious, unfounded statements as the one above are, ultimately, useless. ] 14:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

	:For us to differentiate by race for inclusion or exclusion from Misplaced Pages articles unrelated to the subject of race I feel '''is''' racism. This cannot really be tolerated; we all know of what the last lot did as well as historical use of "Jewishness" as a filter and I do not see why we too should exclude people in this same way today. Dylan is here as a person not a race and he made a decision for whatever reason so it is a reflection on him not the race. If we have a reliable source it stays. I too feel that if ] wants to pursue desire to tag a race of ''Jew'' on people then he take that up on ]. ps: I am not a Christian and I doubt ] ever really existed as it is written anyway. ] 14:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

	I think should be enough. I found several notable sites mentioning Dylan's conversion to Christianity and then reconversion to Judaism. This, however, was the most notable. Can't this little debacle be resolved just by placing the following blurb after his name: "converted to Christianity in 1979 and reconverted back to Judaism in xxxx"? The article is clear -- it is a list of notable Christian converts who converted to Christianity at one point and time, irrespective of their current religious faith. ] 18:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

	:I made a minor edit and included one online biography I could find about Dylan's reconversion to Judaism. Those who are more expert at this subject can fill in more references (and possibly remove mine if it isn't notable enough). I believe I have equally addressed both sides of the issue and hope this can cease the edit warring. Because I believe this satisfies the efforts for neutrality, I have likewise removed the "NPOV dispute" tag and one other related tag. In the future, it might be wiser to state when one left Christianity than to just remove names one doesn't agree with. ] 19:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

	::Well, I find your edits to be in good faith and generally in good form, but the focus on the argument by those who oppose his inclusion has not been addressed. We've tried in various stages to make Dylan's status clear (and indeed, even the creation of the page features Dylan with a notice similar to your own), and we've offered to fully represent any information provided by sources (although that offer is largely ignored). Bus stop believes it is slanderous to include such information, even when clarifying text should dispel any misunderstanding, even to the simplest reader.

	::As far as I'm concerned, comparing the title of a list with its listings without considering the clarifying or descriptive text is a bit like judging a book by it's cover. Titles can only convey so much information- the gaps must be filled in by introductory information and descriptions on the individual listings.

	::While I find your edit to be productive, I doubt any resolution will occur until the information is relocated to a separate section on the article (as it would seem, as far as Bus stop has implied, that readers are competent enough to browse Misplaced Pages and read a list of names, but are not competent enough to understand the situation presented by descriptive text, even only a few words' worth). --] 19:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

	''If'' there is no source for Dylan being a Christian in 2007 (or any year remotely close to 2007) then what justification is there for putting a non-Christian on a list of Christians? (Point of view pushing does not constitute a valid reason.) We don't promote untrue information on Misplaced Pages. Therefore we stick to what is known. We don't venture into areas unsupported by sources, however much we may wish to make particular assertions. In point of fact Misplaced Pages frowns upon (or ''should'' frown upon) the assertion that any ''religion'' is superior to any other religion. That, by the way, includes the religion of Christianity. If you have no source that Dylan is a Christian in 2007, then leave him off this list. Bear in mind that there are only two ways that ''notable'' people can become Christians (or Jews, for that matter). That is by birth or by conversion. Therefore you have two naturally arising ''lists.'' You have your ''list'' of ''notable'' Christians who were ''born'' Christian, and you have your ''list'' of ''notable'' Christians who ''converted'' to Christianity. In either case the lists contain only Christians, not anyone who ever dabbled in Christianity. Please stop pretending that you can pull the wool over everybody's eyes and assert that your particular list is the list of anyone who has '''ever''' converted to Christianity. I find that particularly far reaching. That is just a contrivance. Why doesn't the Jewish list, the ] adopt such a tactic? Because it is illogical? In point of fact the ] list clearly states in a tag at the top of the article that ''This page is a list of Jews.'' (By the way, the ] used to contain that tag, until it was strategically removed.) With that tag in place, any name can be challenged and potentially removed solely on the basis of the entry's ''not'' being Jewish. Why doesn't the ] list uphold similarly high standards of inclusion? Because it has a point of view to push? Because proselytization is an important component of Christianity? (In contradistinction Judaism does not proselytize at all.) Why is an incalculably wider net being cast for the ]? Has there not been a long enough history of ''']''' (at the hands of Christians) of Jews to Christianity? The Pope himself has had to apologize to Jewry in recent years for the brutality of this. I think Christians should create their ''list'' based on sound parameters and should refrain from the slander inherent in ''forcing'' an apparent Jew onto what is ostensibly a list that should contain only Christians, that is, Christians who have arrived at their Christian identity by way of ''conversion.'' Obviously what I am saying particularly concerns living people, as embodied in ]. We are to be especially careful as concerns incorrect information concerning living people. Dylan clearly isn't a Christian. How do you reconcile that with placing him on a list of Christians? Enhanced parameters and proselytization are one and the same in this instance. If there exists no source for Dylan being a Christian in 2007, or any year near 2007, then there exists no justification for Dylan being on a ]. ] 20:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
	:Why do the lists have to be the same ?. That the Jewish list tries to discriminate need not apply to all lists in Misplaced Pages e.g. List of Christian, List of Muslims, List of Buddhists , List of Atheists etc. By your argument once someone dies then they should be removed from the list as there would be not record of them being an 'x' in any future year. That's nonsense.
	:The list records them claiming to be Christian at any time in their life not that they are still Christian. If you want to remove this entry you're going to have to show references that refute the claim that he converted sometime in his life. The references listed though seem reliable. Your ''trolling'' of what religion 'x' did to religion 'y' is irrelevant to Misplaced Pages: cites, sources, reliable, references and consensus...that is what is relevant.
	:Where are the references unreliable ? Simply answer that question then you'll get a consensus to your view. ] 21:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

	We need to stop pushing points of view. If you have valid parameters for a list (not contrived) and an individual conforms to those parameters, then they clearly belong on that list. Dylan doesn't happen to be Christian and the parameters articulated by some of the editors here happen to be contrived.

	It is only of secondary importance that Dylan's religion happens to be Judaism (rather than any one of a number of other religions). But this is significant, because Christians have for centuries forced Jews to convert to Christianity. Many Jews have been willing to give their lives rather than accept the religion of Christianity. Jews do not accept that Jesus was the Messiah. Jews do not accept that Jesus was the Son of God. In point of fact the Jewish view is that Jesus was an ordinary man of flesh and blood, just like anyone else. Jews do not accept the concept of the Immaculate Conception of Jesus. In point of fact the Jewish religion happens to reject all of that. The Pope has even in recent years apologized to the Jewish people for the long history of brutality directed at Jews in particular, and this brutality has included forced conversion to Christianity. My point is, why would Misplaced Pages want to create a list that slanders a Jew by labeling him a Christian? Clearly he is not a Christian. That slander is totally out of place on Misplaced Pages.

	Furthermore, Misplaced Pages requires sources. Sources exist for the use of the word ''conversion'' in 1979. But those sources only allow for the use of the word in relation to Dylan in 1979 or thereabouts. The use of the word ''convert'' in 1979 does not in any way establish the fact of being Christian in 2007. In fact such a far fetched concept is ludicrous. Dylan, in point of fact, has had nothing to do with Christianity in 27 years. And in case anyone hasn't been paying attention, Dylan has been involved in Jewish religious practices during those 27 years. No one is arguing that Dylan is a pious Jew. That is not the standard that has to be established for basic Jewish identity. But the normal Jewish involvement in the holidays of the Jewish calendar, for instance, are sufficient to establish the sort of Jewishness that characterizes of your average American Jew. In point of fact few American Jews could be characterized as being pious.

	Certainly no one has come forward with a source indicating Christian identity for Dylan in 2007. The very title of this list uses the word ''convert.'' The title, in point of fact, uses the word ''convert'' as a ''noun.'' That noun refers ineluctably to the word ''Christian.'' Since Dylan is not a Christian it should be obvious to anyone that Dylan does not belong on this list. ] 21:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

	::'''''We need to stop pushing points of view.''' If you have valid parameters for a list (not contrived) and an individual conforms to those parameters, then they clearly belong on that list. Dylan doesn't happen to be Christian and the parameters articulated by some of the editors here happen to be contrived.''
	:::What you decide to be "valid" or "contrived is ultimately based upon your opinion; your point of view. It's apparent that all the editors who regularly oppose your suggestions and accusations find these parameters "valid", myself included. The above paragraph is merely 3 sentences' worth of opinion.

	::''It is only of secondary importance that Dylan's religion happens to be Judaism (rather than any one of a number of other religions). But this is significant, because Christians have for centuries forced Jews to convert to Christianity. Many Jews have been willing to give their lives rather than accept the religion of Christianity. Jews do not accept that Jesus was the Messiah. Jews do not accept that Jesus was the Son of God. In point of fact the Jewish view is that Jesus was an ordinary man of flesh and blood, just like anyone else. Jews do not accept the concept of the Immaculate Conception of Jesus. In point of fact the Jewish religion happens to reject all of that. The Pope has even in recent years apologized to the Jewish people for the long history of brutality directed at Jews in particular, and this brutality has included forced conversion to Christianity. My point is, why would Misplaced Pages want to create a list that slanders a Jew by labeling him a Christian? Clearly he is not a Christian. That slander is totally out of place on Misplaced Pages.''
	:::How does any of the above have relevance in this argument? Have you been reading any of the arguing points of editors who disagree with you? Historical factors play no part in any of them, and the fact that you consistently rely on these history lessons for your argument makes your position questionable. However, concerning the above, a few things need to be said. For one, Misplaced Pages is not censored. The fact that an individual converted from one religion to another may upset some people is not a problem to the individual reporting the information, but of the individual who needs to cope with the reality of life. Additionally, and quite interestingly, anything you said above can be similarly applied to any other religion:
	::::''"Many Christians have been willing to give their lives rather than accept the religion of Islam. Christians do not accept that Jesus was merely a prophet. Christians do not accept that Muhammad was a prophet of God. In point of fact the Christian view is that Jesus was God incarnate."''
	:::It would be almost laughable to use such an argument on the ]. The statement is factual, yes- but how does it pertain to the article, or this case, at all? Should facts be hidden because of unfortunate historical situations? Should one apply a bias in determining a person's religion "in lack of current evidence" because of the historical relationship between two religions?
	:::Furthermore, you should consider that any accusation of "slander" made by an individual (who intentionally or unintentionally neglects to consider the descriptions and clarifications given) will be laughed off by any neutral party who actually takes the time to read the text. It's a bit like suing an ice skating rink for slipping on the ice when a disclaimer at the entrance alleviates them from liability- you ''could'' make such and argument, but it only points out your own recklessness.
	:::Oh, and one final thing: 'Immaculate Conception' is not the same thing as the 'Virgin Birth'. The former only applies to Mary, and only really in Roman Catholicism. I'm sure it was a simple conflation, but I'm clarifying just for future reference.

	::'''''Furthermore, Misplaced Pages requires sources.''' Sources exist for the use of the word ''conversion'' in 1979. But those sources only allow for the use of the word in relation to Dylan in 1979 or thereabouts. The use of the word ''convert'' in 1979 does not in any way establish the fact of being Christian in 2007. In fact such a far fetched concept is ludicrous. Dylan, in point of fact, has had nothing to do with Christianity in 27 years. And in case anyone hasn't been paying attention, Dylan has been involved in Jewish religious practices during those 27 years. No one is arguing that Dylan is a pious Jew. That is not the standard that has to be established for basic Jewish identity. But the normal Jewish involvement in the holidays of the Jewish calendar, for instance, are sufficient to establish the sort of Jewishness that characterizes of your average American Jew. In point of fact few American Jews could be characterized as being pious.''
	:::First and foremost, I'd like to commend you for the above statement in bold. It's glad to see that you've finally come around to realizing this, and hopefully, you'll begin to provide your own.
	:::Now, I'm puzzled as to why you continuously ignore statements directed to you. You, again, set up a straw man by applying your own standard to the list, and then arguing with statements that no one else really cares to argue about, because it doesn't pertain to the argument those who are opposed to you are actually making. And by the standard set forth in your latter half, Jewish Christians and Messianic Jews (and similar syncretic denominations) should be considered "Jews" because they participate in many, if not all, of the Jewish holidays. Their own belief regarding Jesus as the Messiah is unimportant in determining their faith, so you seem to imply. The simple fact that these individuals celebrate the holidays is enough to stamp them as "Jews", as you say.

	::''Certainly no one has come forward with a source indicating Christian identity for Dylan in 2007. The very title of this list uses the word ''convert.'' The title, in point of fact, uses the word ''convert'' as a ''noun.'' That noun refers ineluctably to the word ''Christian.'' Since Dylan is not a Christian it should be obvious to anyone that Dylan does not belong on this list.''
	:::Let's say, hypothetically, that Dylan hasn't been publicly involved with music in ten years. He hasn't released any albums, and neither he or anyone else has made it clear that he even still plays music. Should we then remove him from a list of musicians, because this too is a noun, and because no clear sources show his involvement with music for the past ten years? Additionally, assuming that it can not be determined if he has written anything poetic/lyrical in the past ten years, should he be removed from the ]? You seem to again be judging a book by it's cover, and confining a sense of the word to one particular sense of usage. --] 22:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

	] -- Actually, contrived is very easy to understand. But those enthusiastic about contrivance tend to also be enthusiastic about obfuscation. Lists need to have simple parameters. If lists don't have simple parameters they are immediately vulnerable to being contrived by those wishing to contrive them. The only parameters that are "bulletproof" against charges of contrivance are the simplest of parameters. A list is not like a prose article. A list can never rise to the level of great writing. A list is a simple creature. When the parameters of a list cannot be made any simpler then we know we have a list that can't be said to have contrived parameters. Actually, the difference between contrived parameters and uncontrived parameters is only one step, in this instance. Once you say that it is a list of anyone who has '''ever''' converted to Christianity you are complicating the parameters by one step. The bare minimal parameters are "those Christians who have arrived at Christian identity by way of conversion." The reason why those parameters constitute bare minimum parameters is because the only other way of arriving at Christian (or Jewish) identity is by means of being born Christian. Therefore the bare bones parameters are those who arrived at Christian identity by way of birth, and those who arrived at Christian identity by way of conversion. In either case we are talking about Christians. We are not talking about ''lapsed'' Christians. It is only by an additional added complexity that we arrive at the parameters that you are saying are not contrived. It is only by saying that it is a list of all those who have '''ever''' converted to Christianity that you gain the incalculably larger group of people that includes Bob Dylan. It is a contrivance that was there from the start. On January 17, 2006 you (or another editor) had to add a note next to Bob Dylan's name because he ''did not quite fit onto this list.'' Every disclaimer exclaims loud and clear: ''contrived parameters.'' When you suggest putting Dylan and 2 or 3 other people in a separate section of this article, that act exclaims loud and clear, ''contrived parameters.'' The ] uses the simplest parameters. They are not only the simplest of parameters, but they are the most '''restrictive''' of parameters. The ] does not cast nearly as wide a net in searching about for contents for that list. That greater restriction results in a smaller list, but in a list with greater meaning. The ] list states exactly what it means from the outset and it sticks to it's parameters. It's parameters are not contrived so it does not require one sort of disclaimer or another. The ] should have to live up to the standards of the ]. The ] should not have to lower it's standards to the level of the ]. Parameters should be simple because lists are simple. Parameters should also be simple because when they are at their simplest they cannot possibly be contrived parameters. You've argued that the parameters for the ] are simple enough. You've argued that anyone can read the disclaimers at the top of the article and next to the individual names that require disclaimers. I say that you are arguing for low standards and contrivances. That is about pulling the wool over people's eyes. I am against that. ] 23:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

	:Bus stop, the editors here have already explained several times why the parameters, which have clearly been in practice since the creation of the article, are being upheld in contrast to your own opinion of their validity (or lack thereof). Since I'm trying to add sources to restore individuals who were removed (which you can help with, if you'd like), I'm not going to go into great detail- in fact, as we've both been through this argument several times, I'll be brief:
	::''On January 17, 2006 you (or another editor) had to add a note next to Bob Dylan's name because he ''did not quite fit onto this list.'' Every disclaimer exclaims loud and clear: ''contrived parameters.''''
	:::Please keep in mind that the 'note' has been present since the date of the article's creation. Every individual should have a note which explains who they are and what they are known for, as well as other events in life (of course, all this being present with brevity in mind).
	:::Additionally, the latter statement is rather unusual. Did you not notice the disclaimer which is presented at the beginning of the ]? Considering the above, I suppose that article too has 'contrived parameters'.
	::''When you suggest putting Dylan and 2 or 3 other people in a separate section of this article, that act exclaims loud and clear, ''contrived parameters.''''
	:::No, it exclaims loud and clear, "We editors are willing to compromise with an editor of a minority opinion who feels that individuals reading this page lack the comprehension skills to understand the relationship between the heading, the title, the person listed, and their description. We are, in effect, dividing the page in a compromise: the majority for the stricter parameters, and a minor section for individuals who would be included under the long-standing parameters". The fact that you have such a problem with the above compromise is baffling to me. It considers the arguments presented on both sides, even as the agitating party is in the minority, and largely satisfies the demands of both sides of the argument.
	::''The ] uses the simplest parameters. They are not only the simplest of parameters, but they are the most '''restrictive''' of parameters.''
	:::Actually, the description in the heading makes it clear that the article is not employing the most "restrictive" of parameters. If that were the case, only those considered Orthodox Jews (and converted under the strictest of their rules) would be listed. Of course, anyone could make such an argument, but this would prevent the presentation of relevant and useful information. Such specificity would harm the article, as it would become less useful. The same consideration is given to this article. The separate section should be a satisfaction for both sides of the argument. The information is presented, improving the usefulness of the article as a source of information, and it is also separated, so that no there will be no confusion over the individuals' status. Why then, do you still disagree with this resolution?
	::''The ] does not cast nearly as wide a net in searching about for contents for that list. That greater restriction results in a smaller list, but in a list with greater meaning.''
	:::Again, "greater meaning" is an opinion. How is it even relevant to this issue? We're not writing songs here- we're presenting verifiable information. We should be more concerned with presenting relevant information in the most efficient way possible, than with "meaning". The verifiability of a claim can be tested. The reliability of the sources can be tested. The meaning? I'm sorry, but that doesn't fit in to the equation.
	:::Additionally, concerning the "casting of wider nets"- you yourself asserted that the observance of Jewish holidays was a sufficient qualifier in determining who is and who is not religiously "Jewish". Again, this is a wide net to cast- Messianic Jews and Jewish Christians would be inclined to disagree. --] 00:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

	::::] -- We are not creating a billboard here to advertise Christianity. That is not what this is about. The mission of Misplaced Pages is not to create a billboard for advertising Christianity. The mission of Misplaced Pages is to create an encyclopedia. That requires focus. That requires ''objective'' focus. That is a focus which eschews distortion. Contrived parameters is precisely about distortion. Please use logical parameters for the ].

	::::If you have a name on the ] that you think does not belong there then say it with a degree of specificity that others can understand. Please don't beat around the bush with vague insinuations. State the name or names or stop obfuscating.

	::::No one but you has brought up any consideration that the ] might only contain Orthodox Jewish names. Stop obfuscating.

	::::Do you have a source for Dylan being a ''Messianic Jew?'' If not, it is more obfuscation. ] 02:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


	:::::''We are not creating a billboard here to advertise Christianity. That is not what this is about.''
	::::::That's what I've been trying to explain to you, but apparently, you believe that the editors who disagree with you are doing just that. It seems that no amount of reiteration can draw your attention from your own suspicions regarding the motivation of other editors.

	:::::''The mission of Misplaced Pages is not to create a billboard for advertising Christianity. The mission of Misplaced Pages is to create an encyclopedia. That requires focus. That requires ''objective'' focus. That is a focus which eschews distortion. Contrived parameters is precisely about distortion. Please use logical parameters for the ].''

	::::::As you yourself have said, presenting information is what an encyclopedia is "all about". As I've explained, abandoning the old parameters and adopting the stricter ones you argue for would remove information which has no other proper place on Misplaced Pages. There have been no attempts to "confuse" readers into believing Dylan was still a Christian- I myself have consistently made edits to reflect that fact.
	::::::Other editors, in lack of sources which you should have provided, have removed the description from time-to-time in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy. As better sources seem to be emerging (and none of these, it seems, have been provided by you), it's fair to include the description. As it is, I feel that entrants in line with Dylan's should be moved to a separate section. And once again, it would seem that by "logical", you mean "in line with Bus stop's opinion".

	:::::''If you have a name on the ] that you think does not belong there then say it with a degree of specificity that others can understand. Please don't beat around the bush with vague insinuations. State the name or names or stop obfuscating.''

	::::::Did you actually read what I said? In what way did I make vague insinuations? The article which you present (with adoration) says, quite clearly:

	:::::::''Also, most of these conversions (apart from the Biblical ones) are not recognized by Orthodox Judaism because the converted did not convert under Orthodox auspices, or by Orthodox and Conservative authorities because the conversions were not done in accord with halakha. In 2005, five present and former Chief Rabbis of Israel declared: Any such conversion, under its various names such as `Reform' or `Conservative,' has no validity, and anyone who undergoes such conversion is still a gentile in every respect."''

	::::::I have said (several times) in reference to the above that many Orthodox Jews would not consider many of the converts listed as 'valid conversions'. It should be noted that in almost every instance where I have mentioned this, you accuse me of obfuscating because I don't present names. Please cease to misdirect the argument in this manner. I find it puzzling that you consistently ask for 'names' in an example which is self-explanatory.

	::::::My purpose in mentioning the example in this instance is to demonstrate that a) the parameters used in that article are not the most restrictive, as you say, and b) using more restrictive parameters can harm the usefulness of an article, as in the case of that article, and as I believe, in the case of this article as well.

	:::::''No one but you has brought up any consideration that the ] might only contain Orthodox Jewish names. Stop obfuscating.''

	::::::Again, missing the point entirely. Please try to grasp what I'm saying.

	:::::''Do you have a source for Dylan being a ''Messianic Jew?'' If not, it is more obfuscation.''

	::::::The example I presented was to demonstrate the clear error in your assertion that Dylan's practice of Jewish holidays, or even any individuals participation in these holidays, is sufficient to consider someone a Jew. As you should know, these religious groups are considered Christians, and yet under your standard, they would be considered Jews (religiously).

	::::::Once again, cease misdirecting the argument. I didn't even mention Dylan in the paragraph in which you're referring to- the point is that your assertion is fallacious and rather hypocritical, as it is rendered false by these "Christian" groups which would qualify under your standards, and because it is, in fact, an example of you "casting too wide of a net" in determining who 'is' and who 'is not' Jewish. --] 03:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


	:As ] states in the above section, titled, ]:

	:''If they changed their faith again, they should be removed from this list.--] 03:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)'''

	:and:

	:''Somebody who has undergone multiple conversions belongs on the list of their current religon. If they convert again, they should be removed from that list and moved to the lsit of their current belief. I have taken the liberty a while ago of removing all the converts to Islam who later became former muslims from that list. I think we need to be consistent with that. We also don't want to give people the wrong impression that somebody who is a former christian is actually still a christian. If people who converted to judaism, but are no longer Jews are on the list of converts to Judiasm list, they should be removed. If they reverted back to their origional faith, thay should be considered converts to that faith.--] 03:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

	:and:

	:''I disagree. I think the best place for Dylan would be on no convert list. If the current religion cannot be determined, that individual does not belong on any converts list. Dylan would have a clear place on the former religion X list, but not on the converts list, so that individual shouldn't be on any list.--] 04:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

	:The above three quotes are quoted in their entirety from ] in the above section of this Talk page titled ]. ] 21:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

	::Sefringle, being a reasonable individual, and can actually contribute reasonable arguments to a discussion. As he is reasonable, if a good argument can be made in opposition, he will not persist by ignoring opposing statements, applying irrelevant historical issues and copying-and-pasting arguments until anyone who disagrees goes completely mad. Because of this, I respect his opinion, and even if he still disagrees about Dylan's place, I will be happy to discuss with him why many editors, myself included, feel that this list is a completely relevant place in which to include the information.

	::Additionally, quoting someone's past statements can be misleading. Sefringle may still disagree, or he may be somewhat or even largely in agreement with my own and the other editor's argument. User Ttiotsw, for example, once strongly disagreed with the inclusion of Dylan and with the parameters that have been in place. I don't want to speak for Ttiotsw, but it seems like he's moved from that position, as evidenced from his more recent edits and comments. --] 22:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

	I still stand by my origional statement. Bob Dylan should be removed from this article.--] 22:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

	:Oh my. I take a nap and wake up to this. :P Oh the drama I've caused.

	:This is ridiculous, ]. I was first introduced to this page from the ] page. Let me get a few things out:

	:Let me state, for the record, that Misplaced Pages could give one flying fig about the rules and creeds of Judaism (or Christianity, Buddhism, etc.) when it comes to editing and creating articles. Again, the keyword is ]. I don't have much the same time as you (or maybe other editors) on this article to contribute the sources I do, however, I did find one Orthodox Jewish site <b><i>itself</i></b> that mentions Dylan's conversion to Christianity and later reconversion to Judaism. I know there are several others, as I had to dig through Google to find notable ones (including the BeliefNet one on this talk page above). I believe from the nature of your arguments that you have one purpose and that is to promote ]. ]. Promoting the rules and creeds of Judaism and then expecting them to be binding on this and other related Misplaced Pages articles is, I believe, in violation of this policy.

	:I had thought my edit to the article fairly represented both sides of view. Like it or not, at one time, Dylan was a Christian. I mentioned he was a Christian and then left. That wasn't good enough for you. On the flip side, consider this: because of the "Christian" period of his life, many people may think he still <b>IS</b> a Christian. Thus by putting his name on this list and then mentioning his reconversion to Judaism, this would dispel this notion and could actually be interpreted as an argument <b><i>in favour</b></i> of Judaism.

	:I don't want you to think I have any personal claim or stake in this thing. I am neither Jewish nor Christian. I'm not even religious and in fact, I'm a former Christian. I have no reason to promote any side. However, instead of writing "Jesus sucks" or anything of that nature, I stick to Misplaced Pages's rules of verifiability because it insures fairness and accuracy. I believe your edits are anything but fair and accurate. They only promote a one-sided view of things. The rules of ] apply specifically to this article (this means you cannot bring rules from outside articles). ] is a key word and unless I'm misreading it, I believe you are in the minority. It is for this reason I'm readding the section I originally wrote and asking others to vote to see who agrees or disagrees. I qualify as "vote one". ] 01:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

	::] -- You don't get it -- contrived parameters can never be acceptable. The use of contrived parameters (in this case) is in violation of ]. This list is not a list of all those who have '''ever''' converted to Christianity. That is merely a contrivance. You are using Misplaced Pages as a ] when you employ contrived parameters in the compilation of a list. This is not Wiki-Christianity. This is Wiki-Objectivity. The list is of ''all those notable people who have arrived at Christian identity by way of conversion.'' That distinguishes this group from the group of Christians that arrived at Christian identity by the only other means available, namely ''those who have arrived at Christian identity by way of being born Christian.'' We do not, or we should not, contrive parameters to achieve the results that we desire. ] 03:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

	:::How can I be using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox to promote Christianity, Bus, when I already said <b>I'm not a Christian</b>? Dylan's Christianity was a significant part in his life. Even the ] article (which you so fondly contribute to) mentions this. The edit was objective. It said he converted to Christianity and then reconverted to Judaism. I'm not going to go into an A-B-A-B-etc. argument with you. We'll let consensus settle this. If you want to continue to argue about this, make it your personal pet project (as you clearly state on your ), go ahead. In the end, I could care less. What I do hate, however, are the actions of editors who think they are above protocol (you've made plenty of edits in plenty of articles, so I think you should probably know better). I think your own religious views in this regard are "contrived parameters" which you believe you can force on the rest of Misplaced Pages. Well, let me tell you something, it does not work that way -- not on Misplaced Pages and not in real life. ] 04:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

	] -- Parameters arise from subject matter. The subject matter (at hand in these articles) involves ways of arriving at religious identity besides birth. There is only one other way of arriving at religious identity (as concerns Judaism and Christianity) besides birth, and that way is by means of conversion. It is based on the subject matter that we find the parameters. We can have a list of notable people who were born Christian. The natural, logical cousin to that list is the list of notable people who converted to Christianity. But in both cases we are talking about Christians. We are not talking about people who at one time were Christians. If you want to put them on a list (if that is your burning desire) then they belong a list with natural parameters. The parameters have to arise from the subject matter. If the subject matter involves past experience with a religion, then everyone on that list has to meet those criteria. But you do not compile a list of people meeting different parameters on the same list, and then differentiate between them with little disclaimers next to their names, and big disclaimers at the top of the list. Disclaimers are not necessary on a list that is not contrived. We do not contrive parameters. That is a form of illusionism. If Dylan is not a Christian, which he is not, then he does not belong on a list of Christians. This is a list of Christians. This is a list of Christians who have arrived at Christian identity by means of ''conversion.'' They were not ''born'' Christian. Dylan is not a Christian by either means. Therefore he would belong neither on a list of notable people who were born Christian nor on a list of notable people who converted to Christianity. ] 11:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

	:I think the current edit resolves this entire issue by putting former converts on a separate list. ] 12:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

	;Votes (Bob Dylan's name should be on this list so long as there's mention he reconverted to Judaism):
	* <b>Agree</b> for reasons outlined in the paragraphs immediately above. ] 01:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
	* <b>Agree</b> for reasons which have been presented and reiterated consistently for the past month. --] 02:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
	*<b>Disagree</b> People who are former Christians should not be on the Converts to Christianity page. --] 04:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
	*<b>Agree</b>, with the provisos that their conversion must be notable in and of itself to be included, and that criteria for inclusion on the ] and other such articles be more clearly delineated, so that persons who more explicitly qualify there be included in the appropriate section, and/or that such individuals be placed in the sections for those who later converted should consensus support the inclusion of such sections. We do however, need to establish whether the "then converted to X" pages and sections have consensus support to exist and clearaly defined parameters before making such decisions. ] 15:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
	* '''Agree''' that Dylan obviously belongs on the list because this is a list of converts. However, I would dispute the use of the phrase "reconverted to Judaism". There is no conclusive evidence that Dylan has returned to Judaism at present, nor has he ever renounced his previous conversion. --] 01:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
	The above question is the wrong question. If you define the parameters correctly then the question doesn't arise. It is only by removing the tag which said that ''This page is a list of Christians'' that the above question gains relevance. The ] contains a tag at the top of the list stating that, ''This page is a list of Jews.'' That leaves no ambiguity. That leaves no wiggle room for contrived parameters. If anyone should come along and feel that a name on the ] is not in fact Jewish then they have clear reason to remove that name from that list on that basis alone. The ] introduces ambiguity from the start by refusing to abide by clear guidelines. This is clearly seen in the removal of the tag ''This page is a list of Christians'' from the top of the ]. Avoid contrivance and the above question does not arise. It is only in order to cast a wide net that the ] refuses to adhere to naturally arising parameters. The ] casts a much smaller net. It only includes on it those converts who are presently Jewish. And it provides the tools necessary for the removal of anyone on that list that any editor deems ''not'' Jewish, by explicitly stating at the outset that ''This page is a list of Jews.'' Why are some editors at the ] apparently unwilling to accept such restrictive guidelines as the editors at the ] readily accept? This argument has never taken place at the ]. Only editors (some) at ] think that enhanced criteria should be provided for that list. We do not see any counterpart to this dispute being played out at the article ]. Judaism is of course a religion that does not proselytize. Judaism is a religion that does not try to win converts. Christianity, on the other hand, has an important plank in its policy that encourages the active seeking of converts to its religion. This has often resulted in the ] of Jews to Christianity. The Pope himself has had to apologize to world Jewry for this offense, committed over centuries, against Jews. Please apply naturally arising parameters to the above list, and there is no question as to whether or not Dylan should be on this list. Doing so makes it obvious that Dylan does not belong on this list because he is not Christian. Thus there is an incorrect question being asked above. The parameters of the list are wrong. Correct the parameters and the question disappears. ] 12:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

	::Why do you attempt to portray the ] template as some sort of long-standing element which was removed from the article for insidious reasons?
	::That template, as anyone actually paying attention would realize, was created on May 15th, by John Carter. In Carter's statements regarding the template, he created it with the belief that it in no way counteracted Dylan's listing (nor the listings of others). As he was rather vague about his reasons for such an argument, the template was soon after removed by other editors. Nevertheless, John made it clear that he believed that Dylan and the tag belonged in the same article.
	::Please, don't hijack John's template for use in your argument, when it was created in contrast to it. --] 18:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

	:I'm not even going to bother reading this, ], as I doubt its much different from what you've said before. You've overstepped your bound plenty of times and have ignored Wiki protocol on several fronts. Several people have tried to compromise with your <i><b>minority</i></b> opinion. If it does not stop, I will file a report for abuse and I'm sure several of the editors on this forum will support me in my decision. ] 13:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

	::] -- Please refrain from edit warring, as you have been doing. This Talk page is for (among other purposes) intellectually resolving disagreements. Edit warring is using brute force to do the same. I don't think the use of brute force is consistent with the purposes of an encyclopedia. ] 13:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

	:]. I'm not in violation of 3RR either (although one more edit and I will be. :)) ] 13:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

	Is anyone neutral on this whole Dylan thing? I mean when it comes to including "reverts" is Dylan the only issue you care about or is their other names that concern you? Or does anyone find the whole question unimportant?--] 05:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

	==Please stop edit warring==
	Bus stop, you've made your case in great detail. No one has any doubt where you stand. A few are convinced by your argument. Many are not. ''Please'' do not continue to revert war over this. I have not involved myself in the editing of this article, but am concerned because revert wars reflect extremely poorly on the individual editors and on the community as a whole. Edit warring is the least acceptable of all methods of ]. Continue to work it out and continue to push for mediation/arbitration--or discuss it further if you think they're anything you haven't said already--but please stop reverting each other--it's gone on way too long, and I find it embarrassing.--] 21:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

	:] -- Contrivance and point of view pushing reflect poorly on this enterprise. Feel free to come down on the side of writing an objective article, in this case a list. Unfortunately the ] does not have Bob Dylan on it. Articulate why the ] does not have Bob Dylan on it. That is the task before you. That is what I have been trying to do. Put it into your own words. Note ]'s edit above, in the section entitled ]:

	:''I still stand by my original statement. Bob Dylan should be removed from this article.--] 22:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)''

	:I do not presume to speak for ], but I don't think it is so hard to see that the parameters for the ] have been contrived. They were contrived from day one. This article was founded on a contrivance. And Bob Dylan was there from the start. The article is unfortunately flawed. But there are several editors who want an article of this sort with Bob Dylan on it, despite the fact that it is flawed. I do not. I am opposed to such point of view pushing. Nothing ameliorates the falsehood that is the foundation of this article. That is my opinion. I of course do not speak for ]. ] 04:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
	::You're as guilty as pushing your POV in this matter as the next person; I'm not opposed to your attempts to convert others to this POV, however repetitious these attempts have become. What bothers me is the way you and several other editors have carried on this bickering and reverting for weeks without a discernable compromise, resolution or beginning of consensus in sight. I know we're all amateurs and volunteers here, but it all seems so.... unprofessional. It's distasteful.--] 05:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

	== Why was this tag removed from this article? ==

	Why was this tag removed from this article?

	{{Christian list}}

	It exists on the ] article. This is the exact tag that presently hangs on the ] article:

	{{Jew list}}

	Why is the article ''']''' casting an ''incalculably wider net'' for names that will qualify for inclusion on it? ] 21:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

	:The above question has already been answered by those who have removed the tag, and by me, who has explained to you several times why, exactly, the Judaism article needs such a tag, while the Christianity, Islam and other conversion articles do not. And as you already know, but neglect to mention, the tag was created by user John Carter (who, as you know, argues for the inclusion of Dylan), and applied to the article only a week or two ago. The tag was introduced, and removed, as consensus was against its inclusion.

	:Additionally, let me say once again that your are applying your own ''opinion'' as to what the span of this article 'should be' and setting up your arguments using that suggesting while ignoring what the article's parameters actually are (or rather, dismissing them because of your own ''opinion'' about their validity). --] 22:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

	::] -- The article's parameters are invalid because they are contrived. You need look no further than the ] to see what should be an identical article, except that it utilizes uncontrived parameters. Uncontrived parameters list people in an article who have arrived at their religious identity by way of conversion (as opposed to being born into the religion). It does not attempt to include "anyone who has '''ever''' converted to a religion." That is a contrivance. The ] does not engage in that contrivance. It's parameters are straightforward, and they are spelled out in the tag that hangs on the ], which states, ''"This page is a list of Jews."'' The ] cannot hang the similar tag, ''"This page is a list of Christians,"'' because it would not be true. The ] attempts, by contrivance, to contain on it both Christians and those who don't happen to be Christian. Why does the ] cast a wider net for its contents than does the ]? ] 16:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

	:::Christianity is closer to Islam than to Judaism as the issue of "race" is not considered in the same way thus the article ] is a better comparison. Both Christianity and Islam claim a universal appeal to all people irrespective of race. As you have pointed out the issue of race is very pertinent to claiming a Jewish identity. The Islam list says "This is a list of notable people who have converted to Islam sometime during their lives.". It isn't tagged "This is a list of Muslims" and it doesn't care if they are still Muslim or not. Why are you trying to compare two lists without explaining why they are comparable ? ] 07:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

	] -- We are not talking about religion. We are talking about parameters for lists, and we are talking about contrivances in parameters used for point of view pushing, and we are talking about low standards applied to the creation of parameters, which allows for ''some'' editors on Misplaced Pages to create lists that promote the religion of their choice. The notion that the ] has parameters that include "all those who have '''ever''' converted to Christianity" is just a cynical misuse of Misplaced Pages, and a contrivance. ''No one'' believes that those parameters are naturally arising. ''Everyone'' understands that proselytization is the sole reason for those particularly chosen and weird parameters. ''Any'' objective person would see that choice of parameters as artifice and farce.

	In point of fact there are two ways of arriving at Christian identity: by way of birth, and by way of conversion. Simple parameters call for this list to be those notable people who have arrived at that identity by ''conversion.'' No logic exists, or has been articulated, for it to be the list of "all those who have '''ever''' converted to Christianity." A living person who briefly flirted with Christian identity a couple of decades ago only ends up on a list ostensibly composed of Christians because of point of view pushing. Stop pretending that there is sound logic behind putting a Jew on a list of Christians. The fact that there is a special section on this list for Dylan titled '''"Notable converts who later changed their faith"''' indicates that the editors of this list ''know'' that Dylan does not belong on this list. Contrived parameters and special sections for exceptions to the natural parameters for this list are only point of view pushing and proselytization, something Misplaced Pages should be ashamed of. ] 12:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

	::], well then listen to your own council and stop talking about religion !. So far all you have done is repeat the same track of "Jew", "proselytization", "converted", "Christians", "pov pushing" mixed in various ways.
	::If a person murders someone then they are a murderer - they stay tagged as a murderer even though they have finished murdering people. At best we tag them as "former" murderer to show that the crime is spent or if a person was a member of the Nazi party then they are considered to be a Nazi even after the last war (extreme examples I know but they are clearer-cut cases). What you are proposing is that we forget what someone did.
	::That Dylan "converted" to Christianity sometime in his life is, on the surface to me, as encyclopaedic as the entries for Atheists are (where I personally doubt many were truly Atheists before they said they converted but I see no need to remove the entries).
	::Convince us that Dylan conversion is not encyclopaedic but trivial or unreliably reported. Given the effort you have spent so far it doesn't appear to be trivial and the cites seem reliable. Arguing about your opinion as to what the list description should say I feel is evidence of your lack of creditable reasons to doubt the references. Prove me wrong. ] 13:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::As has been stated above, the parameters for inclusion in this list are, if anything, more restrictive than those for the ], which bears a similarity to Christianity that Judaism does not, in that it is strictly a religious faith, and the word "Christian" is generally not also used to describe a purely ethnic group as well. On that basis, the parameters here are no more contrived than those for the similar Islam list. And I agree that the best way, and probably the only reasonable way, to continue this discussion, if it ''must'' be continued, as at least one person seemingly insists on, is for that person to review the relevant policies and guidelines of wikipedia and point out specifically how both of these lists violate one or the other. Should that party continue to choose not to do so, I once again suggest that that party seek ], as the tactics currently being employed are unlikely to produce any results beyond those already produced. ] 14:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

	] -- I am saying that you create logical lists following logical parameters. I am saying that you don't create illogical lists that follow illogical parameters in order to promote religion on Misplaced Pages.

	My contention is that this list is a farce. It was created as a farce in 2006 to put Dylan on a list of Christians. That is why in this article's initial iteration, on January 17, 2006, it was necessary to post next to Bob Dylan's name the note that he is, ''"from Judaism to which he later reconverted."'' It was necessary from the first day of this article's existence to point out that the placement of Dylan on this list did not conform with ''expected parameters'' for this list. This list is not expected to be the list of "all those notable people who '''ever''' converted to Christianity." It is expected to be the list of ''all those notable people who found their way to Christian identity by way of conversion.'' The contrived parameters are just a farce, designed to promote religion.

	There are only two ways to arrive at Christian identity. That is by way of birth and by way of conversion. As soon as you add parameters to that you are performing some type of contrivance on parameters. All contrived parameters are not necessarily improper. It is conceivable that there could be parameters that are more complex than expected. In that case an explanation would be in order. But no editor here has articulated anything approximating an explanation for the contrivance that this is the list of "all those who have '''ever''' converted to Christianity." Does there exist an explanation for the parameters that are more complex than is expected? How come no editor is able to explain why it is the list of "all those who have '''ever''' converted to Christianity," rather than the more simple, "all those who have found their way to Christian identity by means of conversion"? Why are the editors contriving the parameters in unnatural ways? If they can't explain it, then we are left with the only possible explanation: proselytization. ] 14:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


	:'''''No one''' believes that those parameters are naturally arising. '''Everyone''' understands that proselytization is the sole reason for those particularly chosen and weird parameters. '''Any''' objective person would see that choice of parameters as artifice and farce.''
	::The above statements make the warped outlook of the individual making them all the more clear. Only a delusional or deceptive individual would make such statements when he is, in fact, in the minority. The last sentence is especially telling, as several objective editors (i.e., atheists who could care less) have already opposed his arguments. In contrast, Bus stop himself is far from "objective", as his past, present, and (presumably) future statements will betray.
	:''No logic exists, or has been articulated, for it to be the list of "all those who have '''ever''' converted to Christianity."''
	::It most certainly has, many times- and yet you continually choose to ignore these statements. This may explain why this discussion has gone on for nearly 40 days(?).
	:''Stop pretending that there is sound logic behind putting a Jew on a list of Christians.''
	::You can argue against the parameters all you like- but stop calling this a 'list of Christians', when the article has had no such standard of inclusion since its inception. The standard is, as has been articulated, that this is a 'list of individuals who converted to Christianity'.
	::Of course, feel free to argue against those parameters- but keep in mind that this list is as much a list of current Christians as the ] is merely a list of 'white men'. The correlation is there, but it is not guaranteed by the parameters.
	:''The fact that there is a special section on this list for Dylan titled '''"Notable converts who later changed their faith"''' indicates that the editors of this list '''know''' that Dylan does not belong on this list.''
	::Actually, it means that the editors of this list know what the meaning of ''compromise'' is- and this, in fact, will likely be the only thing which brings this discussion to a close. However, it comes as no surprise that you are vehemently opposed to any form of compromise of your own position- after all, if you truly believe in the fallacious assertions presented in the quote at the beginning of this comment, then why would you even feel the need to concede an inch of ground to anyone- you seem to honestly, whole-heartedly believe that your opinion is the 'righteous majority', and the only option.--] 02:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

	] -- That is correct, no logic has ever been articulated for the list to be of of "all those who have '''ever''' converted to Christianity," and, tellingly, you once again fail to articulate any such logic. Please understand what contrived parameters are. You are not to be allowed to make up whatever parameters you choose to convey whatever point you may wish to convey. In this instance doing so constitutes proselytization. Parameters are either simple or vulnerable to the charges of having been contrived. If you want parameters that cannot be challenged on the basis of having been contrived then the parameters have to be of the simplest sort. The basic, and simplest parameters for a list of this sort are: ''all those notable people who have arrived at their identity as Christians by means of having converted to Christianity.'' Why are those the simplest and most basic parameters for a list of this sort? Because the only other way to become a Christian is to be born a Christian. The mirror image of being a Christian as a result of having been born a Christian is being a Christian as a result of having converted to Christianity. Note that in both cases all individuals are Christians. Once you say it is the list of all those notable people who have '''ever''' converted to Christianity you are contriving the parameters. Once you say it is the list of all those notable people who have '''ever''' converted to Christianity you are introducing non-Christians to the list. That is a contrivance, and that constitutes proselytizing in this case. This is not to say that all contrived parameters are improper. But these contrived parameters are improper. Once you contrive parameters it is incumbent on you to explain why the special parameters are called for. I am here to tell you that the slightly more complicated parameters are only to serve the purpose of enhancing the contents of the list, and doing so constitutes proselytizing. Without enhanced contents, you don't have Dylan on the list. Those contrived parameters make this article a sham. Contriving to put Dylan on a list makes the list a sham. If you want to make a list of those notable people who have found Christian identity by way of conversion -- fine. But don't foist upon us that this is the list of all those notable people who have '''ever''' converted to Christianity. Misplaced Pages is not the place for sham articles masquerading as legitimate articles for the sole purpose of promoting a religion. ] 08:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

	:I'm torn between reiterating my argument for the 38th time to an individual who apparently has no desire to listen to anyone's opinions but his own, or simply taking a hint from John Carter and ignoring the needlessly large block of text above, which marks the 52nd example of Bus stop presenting his same simplistic, procedural argument- one which never fails in making at least one accusation that the other editors are warping an article to 'promote a religion'.
	:The above numbers are arbitrary, of course, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were on the mark. I believe that today marks the 40th day of the discussion (and that's not an arbitrary number), and yet we are all still involved in a discussion with an individual more content to see his same argument pasted repeatedly all over the page than to actually discuss the issue even-handedly and, God forbid, reach a compromise of some sort.
	:Bus stop, the thought that you may have missed the arguments of logic for the upholding of the parameters in question, points which have been brought up again and again throughout the course of the discussion by various editors, is bone-chilling. I suggest that you take a long read over the archives and catch up on things you may have missed or forgotten. --] 08:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

	] -- We should not be contriving the parameters of a list to accommodate ''any'' point of view reasons. It wouldn't matter if the reasons were other than for pushing the point of view of a particular religion. As soon as you make an adjustment to basic parameters you leave yourself open to being questioned concerning the wisdom, as well as the validity, of the change you have made. That is in the nature of a list. Lists have parameters. The parameters of a list are far more stark than the parameters of an article written in prose form. The parameters of a list, to a far greater extent than the parameters of an article written in prose, ''define'' the list. The parameters of a list, to a far greater extent than the parameters of an article, define the ''very nature and character of that list.'' One can debate, with a degree of flexibility, whether something properly belongs in a prose article. But a list is not like that. A list is black and white. Something either meets the parameters for inclusion on a list or it does not meet the parameters for inclusion on that list. Thus when you manipulate the parameters of a list you ''entirely'' change the nature and character of its contents. In point of fact the ] casts an ''incalculably'' wider net for contents than does the ]. It is apparently a difficult concept for you to grasp, but you are not permitted to make that change to parameters without offering an explanation. In the case of both Judaism and Christianity there are only two methods by which one acquires identity. Those two methods: are by birth, or by conversion. Thus two logical categories immediately arise -- those individuals who arrived at religious identity by way of birth, and those individuals who arrived at religious identity by way of conversion. Please take careful note that, concerning living people, neither of those categories include individuals who are ''not even of that religious identity.'' Thus the ] as presently configured does not abide by basic parameters. The additional parameters that some editors have proposed are a ''contrivance.'' I am questioning that contrivance. It has been suggested that the ] has parameters that include "anyone who has '''ever''' converted to Christianity." I am questioning the wisdom of that. I am claiming that those parameters constitute point of view pushing. I am asserting that the contrived parameters constitute ''content enhancement.'' I am asserting that that content enhancement amounts to proselytization for Christianity. Without contrived parameters Dylan does not fit on this list.

	Furthermore -- nowhere in the title of this list is there reference to non-Christians. The article (list) is a contradiction. It is a self-contradiction when the title proclaims that it is a list of Christians and the contents contain non-Christians. The title claims that it is the ]. The word "converts" in that title is a noun. Does that noun refer to non-Christians? No, it does not. The noun "converts" in the title refers to Christians. Why is the list taking the liberty of including non-Christians on it? Dylan is clearly not a Christian. Can we please stop the point of view pushing? The ] does not engage in any such point of view pushing or content enhancement at all. The ] states at the outset that, ''"This page is a list of Jews."'' Therefore any name on that list that any editor feels is not a Jew can be challenged and removed ''on that basis only.'' Not so with the ]. The ] is contriving to claim that both Christians and non-Christians belong on that list. That is an abuse of Misplaced Pages. Those editors who are perverting the simple meaning of this article have to respond to these criticisms, made by me as well as by others. In point of fact this issue goes back more than a month to the Talk page of the ] article. Several editors argued on the ] Talk page essentially the same argument I am arguing now. Yes, this issue has been going on for a long time. The editors defending this improperly configured list need to respond to these criticisms.

	The ] once stated at the top of it that ''"This page is a list of Christians."'' That statement was removed. What was the reason that statement was removed? Could it possibly have been removed because it stood in contradiction to the contents of the list? ] 14:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
	:Please note that the parameters for inclusion in this list are substantially identical to those in the most directly comparable list, ]. Is the above editor implying that those parameters are similarly contrived?

	::No, ], the above editor is not implying anything of the sort, and you did not to sign your name. ] 21:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::My apologies for having not signed my name. I can't see how the autobot which pointedly includes forgotten signatures forgot this one. However, I cannot see how you can question the terms of inclusion in one article while at the same time saying, as you did above, that the virtually identical terms used elsewhere are not equally flawed. Please inform me on what basis you make this distinction. ] 22:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

	] -- ] is the locus of abuse to Misplaced Pages's ] policy. It is on that basis that I make a distinction. You are forgetting which comes first. First we have abuses to Misplaced Pages, then we have editors complaining about it. This began on the ] Talk page. Editors complained that since Dylan was no longer a Christian, that he should be removed from the category of "Converts to Christianity." To which came the response, that that was the category of "all those who '''ever''' converted to Christianity." The same abuse was found, by me, on the article ]. What you fail to understand is that the egregious assault on Misplaced Pages's ] policy only takes place on, and is found in, the article entitled ]. ] 01:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
	* Give it a rest. You really shouldn't cite policy that you completely misunderstand. Particularly since almost none of your endless messages on this talk page adhere to NPOV. --] 01:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	:*] -- Shouldn't you stick to reporting people for technical infractions, since you rarely if ever participate in actual give and take discussion? When was the last time that you engaged in a conversation with an editor with a differing opinion from your own, with the aim of finding resolution to the problems that beset us? What I think I more often see (correct me if am wrong) is you reporting people to Misplaced Pages for a transgression of ]. I am citing Misplaced Pages's ] policy because that is what I feel is applicable. Please try to articulate your reasoning in the taking of a position in opposition to my citing of Misplaced Pages's ] policy. If you are not doing that, then I don't see the point to your above post. ] 02:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
	::* Most of your comment is completely irrelevant to this article or talk page (not that I'm surprised). Since you are interested in discussing edits, when was the last time you added a name to this list? Or a reference? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the answer is never. Regarding reporting "technical infractions", I have reported you three times for 3RR violations, for which you have been blocked twice and warned once. If you violate 3RR again here, or on any other article, you will be reported again. That is the naturally arising outcome of your edit warring. 3RR is a wikipedia policy that you need to believe in. I must say I also find your comment regarding "give and take discussion" both disengenuous and laughable - since you have persistently ignored comments from almost every editor of this page. As for your citing of NPOV policy, you have not explained why you believe this article is POV. NPOV states: ''All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias.'' This article accurately and without bias reflects Dylan's conversion to Christianity. It is fully documented by numerous sources that adhere to WP:RS. What you can not document, but insist on arguing as fact (thus in violation of NPOV) is any renunciation of this conversion by Dylan or reconversion to Judaism. --] 02:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	:::*] -- Would you consider contradiction to constitute point of view? Dylan is not a Christian. Why is he being put on a list of Christians? I would consider that beyond point of view. That constitutes point of view in the extreme. That constitutes creating reality out of whole cloth. Do you have a source for Dylan being a Christian in 2007? Obviously you do not. Sources have limited areas of applicability. Conversion is founded on a flimsy reference by a priest who did not know where or when a supposed Baptism took place. He said ''over a period of a few days.'' He said it ''probably'' took place in the ocean. Obviously he was not there. (Do you think he forgot if it was the Pacific Ocean or a swimming pool?) Dylan has had nothing to do with Christianity in 27 years. Even during 1979 and 1980 there is no evidence of a Christian life lived. Please stop pretending that album lyrics and stage performance constitutes conversion, or Christian identity. Do you forget that Dylan was born Jewish? Have you overlooked Dylan's involvement with the Orthodox Jewish community in Brooklyn, New York, in the intervening 27 years? Please stop pretending that a glancing contact with Christianity 27 years ago constitutes Christian identity in 2007. Dylan has been reported attending ritualistic observances of holidays on the Jewish calendar such as the Passover holiday. Is that of no significance? Dylan has been reported observing by means of participating in the Jewish ritual of the Jewish Sabbath. How do you construe that as the identity of a Christian? ] 04:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::"''Nothing to do with Christianity in 27 years''". Right. He played for the Pope at the World Eucharistic Conference in 1997. When you have actually read the sources let us know. I suggest you start with the four part Bob Dylan's Unshakeable Monotheism by Marshall. That requires a certain commitment on your part. It's long. In the interim, I would ask you, once again, to stop filling up this talk page with your unreferenced POV opinions. If you are going to make assertions here, as per policy, provide sources --] 04:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	] -- Playing ''"for the Pope at the World Eucharistic Conference in 1997"'' implies being Christian? It implies being a performer. You really need to stop pretending. Do you have a source for Dylan being a Christian past the year 1980? ] 08:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	::::I can't help but see a glimpse of the inner Bus stop trying to break out through his comments. Let's see if I can decipher what he really wants to say, based on the history of his commentary. Remember that this is my own personal interpretation, and if any other were to gaze into the cloudy crystal ball that is Bus stop, he or she may discover something entirely different!

	::::''"Would you consider contradiction to constitute point of view? Dylan is not a Christian. Why is he being put on a list of Christians? I would consider that beyond point of view. That constitutes point of view in the extreme. That constitutes creating reality out of whole cloth. Do you have a source for Dylan being a Christian in 2007? Obviously you do not. Sources have limited areas of applicability. Conversion is founded on a flimsy reference by a priest who did not know where or when a supposed Baptism took place. He said ''over a period of a few days.'' He said it ''probably'' took place in the ocean. Please stop pretending that album lyrics and stage performance constitutes conversion, or Christian identity."''

	:::::<u>What he ''really'' means</u>: "I don't need to present sources for what I say, and I think I should point out that no source which disagrees in any way with my assertions shall pass my judgment. I consider that any public expressions of Christianity were simply part of a 'persona' and had no real validity; in contrast his public expressions of Judaism (which I have never presented sources for) are not merely the workings of a 'persona', but are honest-to-God sincere religious actions and can not be doubted; in no way is his participation in these rituals 'cultural' rather than 'religious' (despite the fact that the 'WP:BLP compliant, reliable sources' which have been presented claim that these expressions are cultural rather than religious- or even that his involvement with any Jewish organizations or rituals if from a Christian perspective)."

	::::''"Obviously he was not there. (Do you think he forgot if it was the Pacific Ocean or a swimming pool?)"''

	:::::<u>What he ''really'' means</u>: "All the historians in practice should resign immediately, because I, Bus stop, decree that an individual can not know that a factual event has occurred without being physically present at the event itself. No individual can relay such information with any merit if he/she was not physically present, preferably with a camcorder. It is also impossible that the leader of an organization might send his employees to do field labor rather than performing the labors himself. In addition, his testimony to the occurrence of a baptism is only valid if his very own hands plunged Dylan beneath the water. Additionally, let us not forget that an individual can not be considered to have converted to Christianity if he/she has not been baptized, preferably with copies of baptism records available."

	::::''"Dylan has had nothing to do with Christianity in 27 years. Even during 1979 and 1980 there is no evidence of a Christian life lived."''

	:::::<u>What he ''really'' means</u>: "I, Bus stop, decree that a council shall be created for the specific purposes of determining how an individual lived his life in respect to his religious affiliation. If my mighty council determines, for example, that a "Christian life has not been lived", then the individual can no longer be considered a Christian (and any affiliation with such a religion should be erased from the annals of history). This council will function excellently because I know with certainty that every individual can be measured by the same standards in any given scenario."

	::::''"Do you forget that Dylan was born Jewish?"''

	:::::<u>What he ''really'' means</u>: "It is certain that an individual must be unflinchingly loyal to his birth religion especially if it is Judaism. If an individual is not overtly violating his birth religion, then he must be considered an adherent of that religion. No other possibilities can even be considered."

	::::''"Have you overlooked Dylan's involvement with the Orthodox Jewish community in Brooklyn, New York, in the intervening 27 years? Please stop pretending that a glancing contact with Christianity 27 years ago constitutes Christian identity in 2007."''

	:::::<u>What he ''really'' means</u>: "I shall reiterate that I, Bus stop, do not ever need to provide sources for my assertions. You should learn to accept my word as the honest truth. Additionally, if a source does happen to arise for my statements, and it is from a website affiliated with Judaism in any way, then the source must be considered instantly valid and received without a hint of doubt, even though I have previously made it clear that any source affiliated with Christianity cannot be trusted under any circumstance."

	::::''"Dylan has been reported attending ritualistic observances of holidays on the Jewish calendar such as the Passover holiday. Is that of no significance? Dylan has been reported observing by means of participating in the Jewish ritual of the Jewish Sabbath. How do you construe that as the identity of a Christian?"''

	:::::<u>What he ''really'' means</u>: "I do not need to consider how reliable biographies treat the involvement of Dylan with these religious rites. I do not need to consider that one can participate in Jewish rituals from a cultural perspective, and not necessarily from a religious one. I also (and this one is the most important one to note) do not need to consider that there are thousands upon thousands of Christians (Messianic Jews and Jewish Christians, so I'm told) that participate in these rituals without considering it to be an antithesis of Christianity. By the way, as you know, I do not believe that any assertion made by me could possibly be weak or fallacious. If an individual were to use the latter consideration against me, I will surely ask for sources, as any assertion made by me is the guiding standard for all operations on Misplaced Pages. Any argument which is in opposition to mine must be thoroughly sourced and attested, and signed by a notary public before it is even considered."

	::::Ah, well, what a wild ride that was. I feel that I may have actually brought out a few of the underlying currents of meaning which flow beneath Bus stop's beautiful bed-rock of an argument. --] 05:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	] -- What is your source for Dylan being a "Messianic Jew"? ] 08:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	:I guess you didn't catch that last part. Nor did you the last time I attempted to explain this. I suppose I'll reiterate, and be clearer. You continuously present black and white divisions concerning beliefs and behaviors, but it isn't that simple.
	:The 'test' you present (indirectly) to determine whether or not Dylan is religiously Jewish is a badly flawed one- and as I've said, several times now, it is because certain individuals who are Christians also celebrate these same holidays and perform many of these same rituals (these being Messianic Jews or Jewish Christians). This simple fact essentially nullifies the last quote from your comment, as none of the statements within necessarily compromise the potential 'Christian element' of Dylan's belief, considering that it does no such thing for the above individuals.

	:The purpose of my last sentence was this: when an individual points out a flaw in your argument by offering an example which disproves your test (i.e. rituals/holidays = Jewish, so you say), you ask for "sources" regarding the claim- as you have regarding this particular subject 2-3 times- when that isn't even the point. The point is that you are making an assertion based on insufficient, circumstantial evidence. As such, the argument regarding Messianic Jews is not intended to prove that he is indeed a Messianic Jew, but it is to dismantle the unwarranted certainty of your assertion; that is, you are arguing that there is black and white, and as Dylan has shown some glimpse of white, then he must be white. I'm trying to explain to you that gray is also a possibility, so your certainty based on slim evidence is shaky and half-baked.--] 09:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	::] -- Dylan is Jewish because he was born Jewish and he isn't actively negating his Jewishness. He has not actively negated his Jewishness since 1980. He is an average American male Jew. He does nothing different than any average Jew. You don't have a representative of Christianity in Dylan at all. If you think you do, provide a source. ] 10:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::I would note that the second through fourth sentences by Bus stop above, despite how often they have been repeated by him, also have no sources. Yet he persists in making them. As has been noted, Dylan has been very silent on the exact nature of his beliefs in recent years. On that basis, as he has never publicly renounced Christianity, it can be reasonably argued that there is no evidence that he is not in some way still a Christian. Certainly, I am unaware of any specific statements he has made with indicate otherwise. On that basis, any statement we would make that he is no longer a Christian, without a specific source stating the same identified, would be a violation of the blp guidelines above, which specifically state that unsourced statements can and should be immediately removed from content relating to living people. ] 15:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	:::'''A.)''' Who's looking for a "representative of Christianity"? We've already explained why he's listed along with other individuals in similar situations. How many times are you going to pull out this same unsupported assertion? How are we trying to find a "representative to Christianity" by detailing his re-conversion to Judaism? Have you not been paying attention for the past month and a half? With respect to your assertions (which are about 98% unwarranted), we've even compromised the article with the hopes of resolution to this 40-something-day dispute. You apparently find no pleasure in progress, but are rather overly stubborn, unwilling to concede any point of your argument and especially unwilling to assume good intentions on the part of your fellow editors and listen to anything they have to say.

	:::'''B.)''' Like I've said, you go about trying to 'prove' something with vague, circumstantial evidence from Dylan's life- which is laughable, because no one is asking you to prove anything. In fact, we've already had a (tendentious) source on the page for his apparent return to Judaism. Why do you persist in 'arguing' an argument that has already been settled some time before?

	:::The reason I find it necessary to pick apart your argument (as I've tried to do above) is that I feel your logic regarding how one might 'determine' an individual's religion (something you should refrain from doing, anyway) is so flawed that it would be a service to point out the problems with it. Namely, your conclusions are unwarranted based on the evidence, specifically considering that we do not have enough access to his personal life to make any assertions more reliable than a tabloid would, and the fact that another group of individuals (who are quite clearly considered Christian) exhibit the same 'evidence' you outline in your test, and yet contradict your promised end-result.

	:::You argue (indirectly) for exclusivity in practice when there are in fact two possible scenarios. Luckily, the source given slightly cools the furnace (although if we were to use the same discriminating attitude which you had in response to Christian sources, this source would most certainly not be in use- that, I think, is worth noting). The stark contrast between the quality of the conversion sources (3 ] compliant, reliable biographies) and the reversion source (from a borderline geocities-quality personal site with a Jewish intent) raises a few questions as to the reliability of the latter source; while the first 3 attempt objectivity, the latter functions through "decidedly Jewish spectacles". --] 15:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	==Former Christian converts to Christianity again==
	Former Christian converts do not belong on this list, because they are not Christians. For consistency with other "converts to religion X" articles, we cannot and should not include any former Christians on this list.--] 02:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

	:I might agree, but this seems to be allowed in other conversion lists. ] includes ] who "came to reject formalized, ritualized religion" and was rejected as a heretic and I'm uncertain if ] remained in Judaism after divorcing ]. (Yeah I know Jewish rules might say you may still be Jewish even if you switch after, but regardless) Likewise ] includes people like ] who became Anti-Catholic. So we'd have to set-up a standard for what you propose. I'm not opposed to doing so, but I will say that it's good this list at least makes it clear who converted and then left as some don't.--] 11:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

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

	:And as a side note, why don't these certain editors take a week or two break from this article? I took a break. It worked wonders. :) ] 08:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

	::That's good advice for any editor involved. Perhap's I'll take it. --] 09:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

	:::Keeping it out of your "watch" list also helps. :) ] 09:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
	::::I do note that the other lists of notable converts do not specifically refer to any individuals who have since converted to something else. I assume that is because they have all stayed as members of the faith on whose list they are included. However, there are only two extant lists that I can find, ] and ], for individuals who have converted to some other faith from those two. I guess that maybe the best way to go would be to possibly make a formal request for opinions in the matter. The questions which might be asked include (1) whether these lists of converts should exist in the first place, (2) whether the lists of existing and former "Foos" should be maintained separately for all faiths, (3) whether people who theoretically qualify for inclusion on both the lists of converts to and converts from faith Foo should be included in both lists, and (4) if the lists are to be made more limited, what the specific criteria for inclusion on each list should be. Does that sound reasonable, and are there any potential questions which I may have missed? ] 13:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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

	== Request for Comment? ==

	Do the other editors involved in this discussion believe that requesting outside comment on either issues or editors would be appropriate? If yes, which issues or editors? As the argument seems to have little chance of not continuing indefinitely without such outsider involvement, I personally do favor some such external comment. ] 16:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

	:It might be wise. However, it would seem the biggest issue is with ] and ]'s reversions. I thought the rest of us already decided the former convert list is okay? Maybe some arbitration instead? ] 23:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

	::I reckon it couldn't hurt. Note, I only got involved here as a result of an earlier request for outside comment. I wasn't aware of this page until it's problems spilled out to the larger community. I also see this as a case of a few aggressive editors refusing to acknowledge when a consensus exists, and not appreciating when many compromises have already been made to accomodate their point of view. ] 00:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	::If everyone's agreed, I'll make a request. ] 00:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	Why is it acceptable to have biased and inaccurate statistics/figures of ex-muslim converts to christianity in this page, but every time statistics from unbiased sources of converts to Islam from different countures and religions is added to the ] it always get deleted? I suggest those figures should be deleted, because they seem to be biased and exaggerated.] 03:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Wraith12

	:You may want to ask the users on that page who have continuously opposed your re-addition of those statistics, rather than bringing your question to a page of users who are entirely unfamiliar with the situation (and your edit history) on ].
	:Additionally, the fact that you consider a ] report as being an "unbiased source" is troubling. CAIR is, after all, a scandalous organization, widely criticized for its strongly biased portrayals of world events, in addition to silly little things ( such as into a picture which featured bare-haired women at an Islamic rally). Of course, this is just my personal observation. --] 04:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
	::Listing arguments from bigoted, biased and intolerant sources such as Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch has no basis, these sites have a tendency to make false accusations of CAIR, Islam, and other peaceful Islamic Organizations in order to demonize them and create a level of Anti-Islam hysteria in the U.S to fulfill their xenophobic Right Wing agenda.] 04:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Wraith12
	:::And the relevance to this article is ...--] 04:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
	::::Newsflash, Wraith- I included the link so that other readers may enjoy a laugh at the expense of a questionably valid organization. Anyway, it's good to know your perspective on the magical world of online politics.--] 05:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
	::::Given the above comments, it occurs to me that we might also want to perhaps include in the request some questions about the terms for inclusion in any lists of converts, specifically including the List of converts to Islam, and maybe addressing both questions simultaneously. I would also add that I personally would include a question as to whether Bus stop's repeated comments do qualify as ] and should be discontinued, or at least that if he does continue, he more directly respond to points made against him and provide some references for his comments. ] 13:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	] -- the very first sentence of ] describes the problem with the article ]. This is the very first sentence:

	''] editing is editing which is partisan, biased, skewed -- in other words, it does not conform to the ].''

	That is precisely the problem with ]. There is no justification for putting people who are not Christian on a ]. There is nothing conforming to a ] about putting Bob Dylan on a list that is expected to contain Christians. That is '']'' to Christianity, Internet style. Doing so certainly very strongly hints of partisan, biased, and skewed editing. Shouldn't you be taking your own advice? We know perfectly well that the Christian religion encourages proselytization. While it would be ] of me to point a finger of accusation at any particular editor, I think it is safe to say that the article ] smacks very strongly of proselytization. There was a tag that used to hang on this article, at the very beginning, that used to say, ''"This page is a list of Christians."'' Why was that tag removed? Was it removed because it contradicted the contents? You are not permitted to contrive parameters to suit your needs. You may want Bob Dylan on a ] but he doesn't happen to be Christian. Proselytization is the problem with this article. You can't have an article whose title is ] and have on it people who are ''not'' converts to Christianity. And please don't try to foist the unlikely notion that it is the "list of all those who have '''ever''' converted to Christianity," because that is a contrivance. The ] ''only'' contains Jews on it. It does not attempt to cast the ludicrously wider net that the ] attempts to cast. The ] is all about ]. Proselytization on this article is synonymous with ]. What justification is there for the ] to cast an ''incalculably'' larger net than does the ]? ] is casting a ridiculously wider net (than does the ]) that includes Jews in it. This article is clearly a locus of abuse. This article is being used to proselytize for Christianity by putting the high profile and charismatic Dylan on it. Dylan is arguably the sole reason for this article. This article was created in January of 2006 with only Dylan and two other individuals on it. And even then the editor who created this article had to put a note next to Dylan's name saying that he was not in fact a Christian but was a Jew. That problem has never been resolved, and can never be resolved. Now a special section in this article has been created for those who are not really Christian. When are you going to realize that if they are not Christian then they do not properly belong on this list? Judaism and Christianity are two different religions. Dylan wears a ''yarmulke.'' Does that sound like a Christian to you? Dylan attends Passover meals with the Lubovitch of Brooklyn, New York. Do you think that the Lubovitch are Christians? Please stop pretending that a source referring to Dylan's ''conversion'' in 1979 makes him a Christian in 2007, because it does not. The ] is the placing of someone that you know ''not'' to be a Christian on a list that is properly only of Christians. That is the simple meaning of the word convert. That is the simple guideline that the ] follows. The religion of Judaism does not proselytize. But proselytization is improper on Misplaced Pages. Proselytization is totally contrary to Misplaced Pages's ]. ] 16:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
	::There is no pro-Christian bias on Misplaced Pages and I don't see how a reasonable argument could me that there is one. I leave in a huff quite often because there's a decidedly anti-Christian bias if anything. Saints and theologians are claimed to be pederasts based on slim evidence, conservative Christians are gay-hating harridans, etc. Atheists are way overrepresented on WP and the place is led by a quasi-follower of an atheistic cult group. (I'm not putting that in an article, and would not, but as my opinion I can call it a cult) It can be argued that placing people who converted and then left is actually a not-to-subtle insult to Christians. A kind of way to say "your religion is so stupid that even on a conversion list we'll be sure to point out that even converts dump it." No other list does that. ] and ] has people who left later on, but neither points that out in a big way. This one makes sure to. Now I'm not saying it is insulting to Christianity, but I don't see how it's prosyletizing either. Unless all these lists are proselytizing and in that case they should all be deleted or you should object to them all equally.--] 21:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	] -- Who is the individual on ] who "left later on?" If that is so, then remove that person. The ] says at its outset that ''"This page is a list of Jews."'' If you feel someone on that list is not a Jew then remove that name. ] 01:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

	: Da Costa, maybe Monroe although I'd need more information. The funny thing is I think you might actually have the right position, but the way you're going about is counterproductive. You're making it about some oddball Christian conspiracy or hurt feelings of the Jewish community. It looks like "special pleading." It'd be more logical to say that converts who left should not be allowed on any of these lists, not just this one, because it's irrelevant and weakens utility. Even in terms of comparative religion it's not necessarily useful as some people become a Christian, or Buddhist or Scientologist, for a short period or for marriage. Does Dylan or ] really have something meaningful to say about Christian relationship to other faiths? Is it something that you can't find from the non-disputed names? Or does allowing them in open the floodgates for any pop star or actor who got baptized because they married a Christian? To me that should be the real question if you wish to question the practice.--] 19:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
	:::These are really good questions. I wish I had really good answers to them. For what it's worth, these are the answers I do have.
	:::Could Flynt, or some other parties, potentially have anything meaningful to say? Based on what little I know of the man, which isn't much, I would have to say that, at least potentially, he might. Certainly, he has made a number of public statements over the years, and, for all I know, might even have a regular column in his publications. It is certainly at least possible that he might have made the best ] on a specific point of religious observance or belief. I don't know the man's work enough to say anything one way or another, but I can't rule it out out of hand.
	:::Unfortunately, I can think of no way to clearly and explicitly change the parameters for inclusion in such a way that we can say that "only those who have contributed to the furtherance of inter-religious dialogue will be included", as there are no uniform definitions of the terms themselves. When Flynt was proposed for inclusion in the list ], I agreed to his inclusion based on the existing parameters. But, I personally have no intention of myself listing all those individuals who I might find in the course of creating articles about ]s to this list, particularly those who only achieved notability on the basis of their being martyrs, as such martyrdom doesn't really tell us much. I guess the best we can hope for, unless we can come up with a clear and definite set of parameters which would exclude "redundancies", is that the people who propose names for inclusion on the list show some good sense in not wanting to include the "redundancies". I can't be sure whether that'll happen, and if it doesn't I might propose either restructuring or even deleting the article myself. But, until and unless someone can contrive better parameters, that's what I have to hope will happen. ] 16:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
	:: That said if the article were renamed "List of notable conversions to Christianity" the section would be useful and be worth keeping. In some cases insincere or temporary conversions did become historically notable. It'd also maybe open up to certain cases where a nation or group converted as that's already done in ].--] 19:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

	:::This is actually a similar to the reasoning behind the inclusion of Dylan and these other individuals. Additionally, the nation conversions would be a good bit of info- Armenia comes to mind immediately. --] 19:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

	: You have again cited a wikipedia policy/guideline/essay that you do not understand. ] relates to problem editors. Its second line reads: ''the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors''. This perfectly describes your involvement with this article, including the endless repetition of your POV-filled talk page musings. You should closely read the section entitled ] since you have violated nearly every item in the list. ] 15:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	] -- You need to take note of the more basic fact that proselytization is not permitted on Misplaced Pages. Proselytization is in direct conflict with Misplaced Pages's principle of neutral point of view. We don't endorse a religion on Misplaced Pages. That should be obvious to you. ] 16:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
	:What is obvious to me is that you have been repeatedly pushing the same POV here for far too long. What should be obvious to you is that you have made these absurd "proselytization" accusations for weeks and months without any proof and without convincing the vast majority of users here. Dylan's conversion is documented. You need to start coming to grips with that. To get you started, here are some quotes from notable Christian "proselytizers":
	:* ''In late 1978 Dylan himself was busy being born again. His widely-publicized conversion to Christianity made him perhaps the most famous Jewish apostate in American history'' Yudelson, Larry. ''Dylan: Tangled Up in Jews''. Washington Jewish Week, 1991
	:* ''Dylan has, if only from the ironic sideline, taken part in --and sung at-- the deepest spiritual crises of his generation of American Jews: the drama of the civil rights struggle, the comforts and exoticism of the Jewish homeland, and the spiritual excitements of Lubavitch. He also became a Christian--the one leader he followed--and never really looked back and renounced it'' Yudelson, Larry. ''Dylan: Tangled Up in Jews''. Washington Jewish Week, 1991
	:*Elie Wiesel wrote to me he had considered Dylan's conversion a tragedy and hoped that efforts to reach him would succeed. Marshall- ''Bob Dylan's Unshakeable Monotheism -- Part IV: The 1990s'',Jewsweek, 2004
	:* "During the conversion thing, I went where I was told. I was aware that it mattered to him. He's never done anything half-assed. If he does anything, he goes fully underwater" Jakob Dylan, ''JAKOB'S LADDER Part 2'', Rolling Stone, 1997
	* ETC, ETC, ETC, ETC.
	] 16:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	:Let's keep in mind that this whole response is based upon Bus stop's own unsupported assumption about the motivations of other editors. What responses and arguments are presented to Bus stop seem to make little difference to him; he prefers to remain within his constructed view of the discussion. --] 16:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	:::I assume the second from last comment above is from ], given it's tone, although I note that he for whatever reason did not sign it. I also note once again charges, in this case proselytization, are being raised against the majority of editors who have agreed to keep the article in his recent nomination of it for deletion and in the comments of the majority of those editors who have already responded to the existing request for comment. On that basis, I believe it would be reasonable to ask whether his own comments, which clearly reflect a viewpoint not held by the majority of other editors who have commented on this article, particularly considering his own refusal to offer substantiation of his comments in any neutral and verifiable sources, could be seen as qualifying as tendentious editing by the terms he himself cited. I personally would be more than willing to seek other matters, such as mediation. However, the above user has already refused to accept such mediation as per ]. So, on the basis of his seeming to refuse to seek any means of resolving this conflict, and his repeated statement of positions which have already been apparently rejected in the deletion discussion ], I believe that there is more than sufficient cause to believe that the way in which that editor is continuing to conduct himself may well be problematic and clearly and explicitly conforms to his own point of view, which the majority of editors in this discussion to date seem to have indicated they believe to be far from neutral. ] 15:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	] -- We are not permitted to contradict ourselves on Misplaced Pages. The title of the article is ]. How can Dylan be on it if he isn't even a Christian? The word "converts" in the title is a noun. The noun "converts" refers to Christians. But Dylan isn't a Christian. You therefore contradict yourself by putting Dylan on a list whose title indicates it's a list of Christians. Please remove the contradiction from this article. ] 16:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
	::Please point out specifically where the contradiction to which you are pointing exists. The title of the article indicates that those included must have been converts to Christianity. The introductory text specifically goes on to state that inclusion is not in any way, shape, or form a reflection of the subject's current religious beliefs. Frankly, I see no contradiction. Please specificy exactly where the contradiction you refer to exists, and exactly how it is a contradiction. I would welcome a direct response to the questions posted here. Otherwise, until and unless the inherent contradiction in the terms of the article itself is specified, as opposed to a contradiction only '''perceived''' by editors who seek to impose their own POV on the article, there can be no reasonable discussion of the subject. As already pointed out, there can be no discussion without all parties involved having a clear idea as to the subject. Also, please note that we are not here to discuss anyone's opinions on what the content of the article '''should be''' are, but rather what the content of the article '''is'''. If you believe that the terms for inclusion should be changed, then I once again urge you to accept mediation of the matter involving an outside party, or perhaps take note of the comments which have already come in on the extant request for comment, which seem to generally support the existence of the article in its current state. But as stated above by myself and others, your own conduct to date, at least in the eyes of those who have spoken on it, clearly does qualify as tendentious editing. ] 16:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	:The ] is actually "converts to Christianity", a descriptor which most certainly applies to Mr. Dylan. It seems that you are now attempting to split hairs in regard to the grammar of the title to take ground for your argument. This isn't the sort of "gotcha" situation where you can alter the content of the article by using grammar tricks with the title- the intention of the list has been clear since it's inception to list "converts to Christianity", not "Christians".--] 16:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	The creator of this article was cognizant of the problematic nature of this article at its inception. That's why the initial iteration of this article, which only contains on it Dylan and two other people, felt the necessity to point out next to Dylan's name that he was not in fact a Christian, but that he was a Jew. It is surprising that this improper listing has persisted as long as it has. It is known that Wikipedians hail primarily from industrialized and nominally Christian countries and this article only reinforces the fact of that. What this article has become is a locus of abuse. Proselytization is embodied in the placement of non-Christians on this list. That is a manifestation of the bias that is known to exist on Misplaced Pages. I don't enjoy engaging in this dispute, by the way. But I am indignant about the abuse of Misplaced Pages and the offense of forcing a person who is not even a Christian onto a list that clearly should only be of Christians. I think the insistence displayed by the handful of editors I primarily communicate with in this dispute is only indicative of the privileged status that those editors think the systemic bias of Misplaced Pages bestows upon them. Contrivance such as is seen here should never be tolerated. Dylan is not a Christian. That indicates he doesn't belong on a list of converts. He is not a convert to anything. He is a person who was born a Jew and had an encounter with Christian identity that was over almost as soon as it began. That was a long time ago. Association with the Orthodox of Brooklyn, New York does not even sway the determination of the small handful of editors here that he is not a Christian. We have a small group of editors determined to turn Misplaced Pages to do their promotion of Christianity. The contrast is too great. One cannot overlook that the person that they want to place on a list of converts to Christianity has in point of fact in recent years taken up association with actually pious and highly observant Jews. Dylan need not be pious. He need only be Jewish by birth. That he is. But that he takes up associating with the austere lifestyle of highly religious Jews is clear enough indication of his religious mindset. I for one cannot possibly overlook the point of view pushing going on on this article. This article should have been corrected on the day of its inception. It is really only the systemic bias on Misplaced Pages that has overridden Misplaced Pages's neutrality policy in this article. I think this article has been the locus of abuse for a long time. ] 18:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
	:What is obvious to me is that you have been repeatedly pushing the same POV here for far too long. What should be obvious to you is that you have made these absurd "proselytization" accusations for weeks and months without any proof and without convincing the vast majority of users here. Dylan's conversion is documented. You need to start coming to grips with that. To get you started, here are some quotes from notable Christian "proselytizers":
	:* ''In late 1978 Dylan himself was busy being born again. His widely-publicized conversion to Christianity made him perhaps the most famous Jewish apostate in American history'' Yudelson, Larry. ''Dylan: Tangled Up in Jews''. Washington Jewish Week, 1991
	:* ''Dylan has, if only from the ironic sideline, taken part in --and sung at-- the deepest spiritual crises of his generation of American Jews: the drama of the civil rights struggle, the comforts and exoticism of the Jewish homeland, and the spiritual excitements of Lubavitch. He also became a Christian--the one leader he followed--and never really looked back and renounced it'' Yudelson, Larry. ''Dylan: Tangled Up in Jews''. Washington Jewish Week, 1991
	:*Elie Wiesel wrote to me he had considered Dylan's conversion a tragedy and hoped that efforts to reach him would succeed. Marshall- ''Bob Dylan's Unshakeable Monotheism -- Part IV: The 1990s'',Jewsweek, 2004
	:* "During the conversion thing, I went where I was told. I was aware that it mattered to him. He's never done anything half-assed. If he does anything, he goes fully underwater" Jakob Dylan, ''JAKOB'S LADDER Part 2'', Rolling Stone, 1997
	:* ETC, ETC, ETC, ETC.
	:] 16:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	:Good God, Bus stop- how many times must the same points be explained to you before you drop your baseless preconceived notions about the other editors involved?

	:I suppose this is a hellish thing: being involved with an individual who doesn't listen, doesn't provide sources, jumps to conclusions based on tenuously-linked occurrences, and then accuses editors who have already presented their cases reasonably (several times, one should note) of 'proselytizing'. It's the same tired argument from you, over and over again.

	:As I've said, Bus stop, you can take your unsupported opinions to or some similar site, where you can rant and rave all you'd like about the 'injustice' of placing an 'individual who converted to Christianity' on a 'list of individuals who converted to Christianity'.

	:It's exasperating to see you persistently accuse other editors of warping Misplaced Pages to 'proselytize' or 'promote' their religion, and then only offer up the same b.s. argument (as if it's going to convince anyone that your accusations are the product of any more than a personal issue over a factual occurrence with which you still refuse to come to terms). You are defaming the other editors involved with your frequent implications, and it's getting extremely tiresome when your 'evidence' for such accusations is nothing but your own personal opinion.--] 19:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	::Bob Dylan is still alive. Has anyone thought to communicate with him on this subject? Would he take offense at being included on this list? Would he take offense at his conversion, however brief, being equated to a historical fact like (in ]'s words) being a "murderer"?

	::The idea of "conversion" would seem to be that, after some life as an adult, the "notable person" decides that some (other) religion is preferable, makes a change, and retains the new conviction, at least while remaining in the public eye. In the case of Bob Dylan that would seem to not be the case. Quoting from the ] article, Dylan has since ''participated in many Jewish rituals'', and, ''In a September 28, 1997, interview appearing in The New York Times, journalist Jon Pareles reported that "Dylan says he now subscribes to no organized religion."''

	::Religion is, or should be, '''a private matter'''. If a person doesn't want to talk about it, where do Misplaced Pages list-compilers get off insisting he or she is, or even was, ''this'' or ''that''? I hate to say it, but in my opinion ] is right. --] 19:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	:::No, I don't believe that Bob Dylan would take offense at being included on a list of individuals who converted to Christianity when he did, indeed, convert to Christianity. Additionally, Ttiotsw statement is not to be a comparison between the two sorts of acts themselves, but of the historical relevance of the occurrences which take place in an individuals life. That an individual changes the course of his lifestyle later in life no more erases the noteworthy factuality of his conversion to another religion (and one, might I add, which has been widely publicized and discussed during the course of his career) than it erases other dramatic events in ones life (even considering, as Ttiotsw said, murder).

	:::A conversion is essentially a change from one idea to another (in the most general sense), and further great changes in life do not negate the previous occurrences. Additionally, other editors and I are fully awart of the complicated religious scenario in which Dylan seems to find himself (or rather, place himself). I've argued continuously with Bus stop, who, despite quotations like the above, believes that if an individual is not actively negating his birth religion, then he should be considered an adherent of it. I don't believe I need to point out the gap in logic here, which is made even wider by the fact that Dylan has made the whole of his private business unavailable to the public eye in recent years.

	:::And in regard to your last point, I note WP:BLP: ''In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Misplaced Pages biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.''

	:::We are not motivated to censor widely-reported happenings merely because the individual has taken a private stance on such matters recently. And fact, we make no big issue about his current beliefs; we are reporting the occurrence of an event which is widely attested and was made by Dylan during a very public stage of his life. I've seen sources which claim several different possibilities for his current religious scenario. As such, I've always argued that we should make his apparent disinterest in Christianity clear, but should not make a clear statement about his current faith (until a stronger source for such information can be obtained.

	:::In contrast, Bus stop puts fragments of evidence together to assert that Dylan must be a Jew, although the criterion by which he comes to his conclusions would also consider several denominations of Christians as 'Jews', which is a fact I feel is worth mentioning when we're talking about an individual whom sources reveal to be a syncreticist in regard to his religious ideas.--] 19:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	::::It is largely because the subject in question has never actually said anything definitive one way or another that the argument for inclusion of the subject has been based. As he has, to the best of anyone's knowledge, never specifically renounced his Christianity, it can be said that there is no good reason to not include him on this list. The fact that Dylan has refused to speak publicly about the subject in any clear way puts us in a "damned if we do, damned if we don't" spot. On that basis, I, and I think the others who disagree with Bus stop, think that Dylan's extremely public and documented conversion may well be enough for his inclusion in the list, particularly as he has never said anything definitive himself. While it is a compromise, which by definition doesn't necessarily please everyone, it also seems to be the most directly verifiable way of dealing with the subject. In a sense, we might be just as likely to be, at this point, sued for not including him where he does belong as including him where he doesn't belong. This way, including him but qualifying that inclusion with statements which might seem to clarify the situation, seems at least to me the best way to go, as it clarifies the verifiable data. The fact that he has recently permitted a book of his Christian addresses from stage to be published can be cited as being sufficient cause to say that he has wanted to talk about it, and that would probably be considered sufficient cause, with his two "Christian" records, to say that this subject is at the very least notable in regards to the subject. It would also presumably be enough to indicate that it is not a specifically "private" matter, as those statements have been both made and reprinted publicly. And, as we all know, such notability is the real basis for most everything we do here. It would be very problematic to try to contact Dylan himself, as we couldn't even necessarily verify the source of a comment even if it was from him. Unfortunately. I hope this clarifies part of the position of those seeking inclusion a little. ] 19:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	:::::I have no objection to any or all of this information being included in Dylan's ''biography''. I guess what I'm objecting to is including it in a ''list'' that by its nature is POV-pushing. The two great universal proselytizing religions, Christianity and Islam, are going to get a lot of converts one way or another. Even Atheists love to brag about how many scientists are not religious. This Misplaced Pages list seems to be saying, "Hey, look how many we've bagged!" --] 21:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	::::::Actually, that really isn't as I see it the primary cause for these lists. As I've stated before, lists of this type allow people who are interested in comparing and contrasting belief systems to hopefully be able to find individuals who are directly familiar with both their old and new belief systems. Such people might well be the best able to make reasonable, informed statements on how those belief systems differ. Right now, wikipedia has a real lack of such information, and lists like this, until further information comes along, are probably the closest thing we have to content relevant to inter-religious affairs and comparative religion. ] 21:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	:::::::OK, so here's at least one small positive suggestion: We have articles on ] and ]. At least add to this page, '''Category:Religious conversion''' and '''Category:Religious comparison''' (hmmm, can't wikilink categories here). It already has the category '''Category:Converts to Christianity''', which doesn't seem to be connected to anything at a higher level. In fact this whole business of categories vs. lists needs a rethink, and not only in this area. --] 22:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::Actually, the ] is a second-level subcat of ] already. The newly created (still formative, though) ] uses that categories parent cat, ], as its category. Like I said, though, the new subproject is still in only the beginning stages, so a lot of things have still to be worked out. We would welcome any parties interested in it who think they could contribute, though. ] 22:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::I guess the categories are in a separate namespace or something since the "What links here" toolbox thingie didn't list any parent (sigh). --] 23:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	] -- What you need to come to terms with is that you are citing sources that relate to the time period of 1980. By 2007 you have a Jew associating with the very observant Jews known as the Lubovitch of Brooklyn, New York. That is important. He was born a Jew and in the 27 years between 1980 and the present day you have a Jew choosing to seek out a highly pious sect of Jews. That is indicative of his Jewish orientation. Why would you think otherwise? There is no indication he has had anything to do with Christianity since 1980. Does that indicate ongoing Christian interest? He need not be pious himself. But what we see is the gravitation to pious Jews. There is a picture on the Internet of him wearing the highly arcane religious adornment known as "phylacteries." I hope you are aware that phylacteries are associated with Judaism, not Christianity. He is also in that same picture wearing the traditional Jewish scull cap, known as a "yarmulke." Your sources that allow you to use the word conversion in relation to him in 1980 lose all significance and applicability by 2007. In 2007 Dylan is not a convert to anything. In 2007 he is of the same religion he was born with. I think you are overlooking the obvious. And if you don't know why I am using the word proselytization in relation to this article, then try to explain in other terms how it comes to be that someone who is Jewish gets labeled a Christian on this article. That's proselytization. That's clearly a misrepresentation of a living person and that is a twisting of Misplaced Pages to serve a Christian purpose. ] 19:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
	:Unfortunately, absence of data does not itself necessarily qualify as presence of denying data. And please try to post your comments directly below those of the parties you are responding to, as doing otherwise gives the false impression that you are actually responding to comments directly above your own, which is clearly and explicitly not the case in this instance. ] 19:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	::For the hundredth(?) time, the biographies and articles such as the Jewsweek piece clearly explain away these 'arguments'. For example, the phylacteries image was taken at his son's bar mitzvah, in which, as the sources explain, he was involved from a Christian perspective (a similar explanation is given for his involvement with the Lubavitchers). The Jewsweek article offers the following analysis:

	:::''The most recent Dylan biographer, Howard Sounes, covered the 1983 event in this fashion: "In fact, Jesse was on vacation in Israel with his grandmother, Beatty, when they discovered a bar mitzvah could be conducted quickly and easily at the Wailing Wall and Bob simply flew in to play his part. He still believed Jesus Christ was the Messiah, and kept a broadly Christian outlook, although he had not maintained regular contact with the Vineyard Fellowship since the early flush of his conversion."''

	:::''''

	:::''"I don't think he ever left his Jewish roots," said Paul Emond, when asked about Dylan's attending his sons' bar mitzvahs and studying with the Lubavitchers. Emond was one of the two Vineyard pastors who visited Dylan in 1979, and said that the 1983 meetings took place at the request of the Lubavitchers. "I think he is one of those fortunate ones who realized that Judaism and Christianity can work very well together because Christ is just Yeshua ha' Meshiah ... They can't take the fact that he was able to come to the discovering of his Messiah as being Jesus. Jews always look at their own people as traitors when they come to that kind of faith ... when one of their important figures is 'led astray,' they're going to do everything they can to get him back again."''

	:::''''

	:::''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."''

	:::''''

	:::''"His support for Chabad is not at all disturbing because a lot of us support Jewish causes. It's not like we became Christians and all of a sudden we're no longer Jews," remarked Mitch Glaser. "We're very much Jews ... but it wouldn't matter to Chabad , that would not keep them from inviting him. They're not like that. They would be very confident that doing anything with Chabad would be a mitzvah. Mitzvah means a commandment. You know, that Dylan would be fulfilling a commandment to God and that God would only bless him for doing that, and it would be a way to get him back into Judaism."''

	:::''Dylan also videotaped a public service announcement for Chabad, lending his support for their drug rehabilitation and education programs. However maddening it might be for many a fan, Dylan's belief in Jesus and his Jewish heritage didn't pose a problem (if this is not the case, it seems many would be more than willing to diagnose Dylan with a case of spiritual schizophrenia).''

	::Once again, this is all derived from "Jewsweek", a Jewish newsletter that really has no reason to offer apologetics for Dylan's conversion, but seem to do so anyway. As these are the commonly cited 'reasons' behind your half-baked assertions, I felt that it should be noted that the sources contradicted your presentation of these events quite some time ago.--] 20:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	:::Not that this is relevant to anything, but Don Feder, conservative columnist and president of ''Jews Against Anti-Christian Defamation'', once wrote a column in which he quipped that the group calling itself ''Jews for Jesus'', made about as much sense as having one called ''Catholics for Buddha''. :) --] 23:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	* No, I'm citing souces by Jews from Jewish publications that call Dylan a convert to Christianity and an apostate. That may be shocking to your obsessive POV, but those are all ] by Jews and for Jews that confirm that Dylan converted - something you refuse to accept. Of course, I could also cite all the mainstream bios and articles that confirm the same thing. And no matter how much you pompously babble on about "phylacteries" and "yarmulkes", no matter how many long-winded opinion opuses you share with us, you have not cited any reputable sources to confirm that Dylan renounced his conversion. All you are doing is trying to throw up a smokescreen built of logical falacies, unproven assertions and internet pictures - but doesn't make you a jew. --] 20:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	:Here's an idea. If everyone ignores ], maybe, just maybe, he'll stop reposting the same things he has repeated over and over again. Then maybe he'll move on to other things, as obviously he believes he is above ]. ] 00:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

	:How come is it that just about every debate involving who's a Jew and who isn't, ] is brought up? I thought being a "Jew" was about "race", not about religion? Wouldn't it be more correct to say that they don't hold to the tenets and teachings of ]? Are ] even Jews?

	:I know, unrelated, but I'm responding to an equally unrelated comment above. ] 01:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

	There is no more time for this charade to go on. This charade has gone on long enough. It has gone on since January of 2006. If the individual is not Christian, they don't belong on this list. There are good reasons why that is so. But committed editors who want that perversion will argue endlessly against a rational use of this list. This list is probably best deleted. The same small group of committed editors will probably always abuse this list as long as it is in existence. I feel this article should be deleted because the contradiction that is central to it is unsupportable by any rational reasoning or any rational people. The out of control emotions of proselytizers for Christianity has to be reigned in by one means or another. If this list ultimately is deleted so be it. Promotion of religion on Misplaced Pages is totally unconscionable and that's what this baloney is totally about. ] 01:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

	:Another block of opinionated statements passed as rational arguments. Once again, the only individual who considers proselytization as an essential element in this discussion is you- and this is a claim you base upon... well, ''absolutely nothing'' save for your own 'intuition' (if you will).
	:Editors in opposition to you have repeatedly outlined the reasoning behind their arguments, they have gone out of their way to provide reliable sources for the information, and they have repeatedly warned you about your consistent personal attacks- and I can assure you, accusing individuals of functioning in a deceitful manner without evidence to support your claims is an 'attack'. You are defaming productive editors by portraying them as dishonest ones; individuals who are willing to 'warp rules' to win 'prize converts' for their religion. This is insulting.
	:In the mean time, while other editors base their arguments on policies and general reason, ''you'' are the one editor who has consistently involved historical/racial/theological issues which are entirely irrelevant to the argument and the editors at hand. Essentially, with such comparisons, you've attempted to equate the editors who disagree with you with every monstrous individual in Christian history. I'm glad, at least, that I'm not on the side of the discussion making such b.s. arguments/accusations.
	:Please, get a clue. Read the responses presented to you, as it is uncertain if you've devoted the most of your attention to this discussion. You refuse to 'get' what we're trying to say because it seems you have already condemned us and our arguments based upon your preconceptions.--] 02:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

	::Yes, it is a foregone conclusion by anyone with a rational mindset that the ] is a locus of proselytizing Christian sentiment. Misplaced Pages is not about serving the needs of Christian proselytization. I should "get a clue?" I would say the same to you. ] 03:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

	:::The problem arises when you prejudicially apply your theories to individuals with whom you have no prior experience. Christians as well as atheists have disagreed with your argument. Are the latter also attempting to promote Christianity?

	:::The fact that such groups are in agreement over this issue should cause you to rethink your assumption that the opposing argument is based on 'serving the needs of Christian proselytization'. Of course, it seems that the only circumstance in which your unsourced, unsupported argument could have any measure of merit is one which portrays the argument as a case of "Bus stop vs. The Christian proselytizers"- a portrayal which has no basis in fact.

	:::Your characterization of the Christian editors involved is only a signification of your warped view of the discussion. The only situation in which one could find any substance in your ''"opposing editors = acting in the interest of proselytizing"'' argument is if the reader were to completely ignore all the responses and arguments made by these same 'opposing editors'.--] 04:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

	:::Well yes, as the person who equated a former conversion to Christianity with being a former murderer I consider the implementations of Christianity to be quite simply political insidious, irreversibly corrupted by money and lust for power, ] and ] so I agree that Misplaced Pages is not about serving the needs of Christian proselytization. ] we agree on something but I can't see how your answer relates to ''me'' as a person. The basis of my edits are Misplaced Pages my interpretations of the policies and guidelines not my supposed ''faith''. ]
	:::Unless its about editing spelling mistakes, grammar or bringing in new material on new entries or existing entries (excluding Dylan) can we wait for Mediation to kick off ? These circular arguments are making me dizzy. ] 07:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

	::::I'm tired of being labled an anti-semite and Christian proselytizer. There are some editors who hold conflicting views from mine, but who are reasonable, civil, and open to discussion and possible compromise. There are some who hold similar views to mine, who have occassionally over-personalized the matter. But then, the mud slinging and gross mischaractarization, the ceaseless harping on insupportable assertions, the dull and senseless repetitions, the slander, and stubborn refusal to listen, all in evidence in Bus Stop's postings, are getting maddening. Bus Stop, we get it... you're passionate about the subject. But it's time to come to terms with the fact that even athiests like me who have no interest in religion, and no racial biases, but are only concerned with fair and accurate reporting of facts, can sometimes disagree with you. Your rants are simply an obstacle to discussion between reasonable people seeking a reasonable solution. It's quite reasonable to report on the fact that Dylan (and others) converted to Christianity. The objection that they should not be listed as "converts," is fairly addressed by the compromise that sections them out and makes explicit the fact that they later changed their faith (or that their later faith is indeterminate). The minority point of view (''your'' point of view, Bus Stop) ''has'' been represented here by this compromise, and the explanatory notes. This does not in any way serve a Christian cause... how could it benefit Christians to highlight the fact that several notable converts may have abandoned Christianity? Well, everything you've meant to say has been beaten to death and then beaten to dust. If you want to try a new tactic, call me a Communist. It's equally inaccurate to your other accusations, but at least it's novel. ] 17:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

	This is not a comment about any individual editor.

	No list of converts to Christianity should have as its primary focus a Jew. I think the raison d'être of this list is Bob Dylan. I think there is an obsession here with Bob Dylan. Bob Dylan is a Jew possessing great charisma. ] and ] are related. Both involve obsession with Jews. ], as historically practiced, clearly involved an ] with Jews. In ], Christians could not be content merely to be Christians. They had to convert Jews to Christianity. That is a historical fact.

	Bob Dylan is of extreme importance to this list. Bob Dylan shouldn't be central to this list. Bob Dylan shouldn't even be peripheral to this list. Bob Dylan shouldn't be on this list at all. This list should only consist of Christians. The Misplaced Pages Christianity project should put people who converted to Christianity and are Christians on this list. It is a wrong; it is an injustice; it falls outside of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines to put any person not of a given religion on a list of converts to that religion. The contrivances used to effectuate this illogical use of a list merely circumvent Misplaced Pages's neutrality principle. That is objectionable to me and I don't think that is supportable by a variety of general Misplaced Pages guidelines. ] 04:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

	:With all due respect you, and maybe the list's creator, seem to be more obsessed with Bob Dylan than any other editor here. I've checked this article off and of for about a year without thinking much about whether Dylan was on it or not. I don't really care for Dylan's music, his voice grates on me, or his personality. I think the question about including reverts is valid and should be brought up on other conversion lists. The obsession with Dylan, not only by you but primarily by you, is the kind of petty waste of time that makes Misplaced Pages somewhat ludicrous on matters of religion.--] 05:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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

	== Mediator ==

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

	==Poll==
	Several statements/questions will be presented, and there will be no discussion; that is appropriate in the discussion section. Say either Agree or Disagree, and give a concise explanation for your decision.

	===This is an article about a list of converts to Christianity, ''regardless'' of what has occured afterward===
	*'''Disagree''' This is a list of people who converted to Christisnity and are Christians today, or when they died. This is necessary for consistency and to not confuse our readers into thinking someone who isn't a Christian is.--] 08:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Disagree''' I think the "disagree" camp is largely doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, but I think it is the right thing regardless.--] 09:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Agree''' ] 14:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Agree''' - While I could potentially agree that the list could be limited to only those active in Christianity at present or at or near the times of their deaths if consensus were to establish that, to the best of my knowledge there has been no attempt to determine consensus in that matter yet. And, while I note similar parties have been removed from the ] already, I believe that we might best proceed if we first created a consensus opinion for what should be included in such articles before using a standard which might not be found to be the consensus opinion. ] 15:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Agree''' - This type of conversion-reversion does not find an easy placement among the different lists, so we should duplicate the listings on the relevant lists (e.g. Dylan should be on ] ], and probably ]). I don't see how any reader could be 'confused' about the listing when the description makes each individual's personal situation clear: Dylan converted to Christianity, and later fell away from it (and it should be noted that there have been a dearth of sources which confirm his current beliefs, though Bus stop is eager to make assumptions, hence the most current argument); any 'confusion' caused is not our problem, but the reader's (compare judging a book by its cover- any individual who does not take care in analyzing data needs to learn to do so; we do not need to dumb down Misplaced Pages's articles for these individuals), and considering the current format (with a different section, and more detailed descriptions), I doubt how anyone could still be 'confused' over the matter- and the data has its place on the page (which is the most appropriate page for listing an individual who converted to Christianity).--] 17:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Disagree''' the article’s scope was only broadened during the course of this dispute so that Bob Dylan’s name did not have to be removed from the list. This is inconsistent with the more strictly defined, clear-cut criteria connected to the convert lists of all other religious denominations. I see no valid editorial reason why the Christianity list should receive special treatment not afforded to all other religions on Misplaced Pages. ] 01:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Agree'''. In relation to Dylan, his Christianity had an obvious influence on his life. This article should cover notable converts to Christianity regardless of whether they reconverted because of the influence it had on their lives and careers. However, a disclaimer should be added stating the reason why the left (this has already been largely accomplished by the "former converts" list). ] 08:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Agree'''. The main reason is because it's impossible to make any claim about the ''current'' religious beliefs of living people, and for the majority of dead people it's impossible to know what their faith was at the end of their lives, because such matters are often of a personal nature. But the fact that a person publicly professed a faith at some time in their life is easy to document and verify. It's the only reasonably verifiable standard. Another compelling reason is that conversions that have a significant impact on the life of notable figures is worthy of note and documentation, and as long as the terms are clear, there's no harm, no distortion, and no abuse involved in simply noting this pivotal moment in a person's life. Thirdly, it should be considered that "this article addresses only past voluntary professions of faith by the individuals listed" is an accurate description of the list we have, while "this is a list of Christians" is an entirely unsupportable assertion which does not reflect the actual contents of the list. Many of those who have argued to define this as a "list of Christians" are fully aware that it's an inaccurate description, and they want to use it as a lever to force radical changes to the entire contents of the list... perhaps without thinking that it makes the entire list untenable.] 14:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
	* '''Agree'''. I agree with everything ] says above. This is a list of notable conversions, just like every other list of this type. We have no way of verifying day-to-day religious practice/beliefs on a continuing, ongoing basis. But a conversion is ] and historically important. And for additional information, well, that's why god invented footnotes.--] 15:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

	===], at one point in time, was converted to Christianity===
	*'''Agree''' - ] 14:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Agree''' - ] 15:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Agree''' - ] 16:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Agree''' - ] 17:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC) In fact there is really no need to debate/poll on this per ]. See http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9031669/Bob-Dylan among many other sources.
	*'''Agree''' - --] 21:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC) (Although I think either answer to this question should be irrelevant and the discussion has revolved too much on Dylan)
	*'''Disagree''' - Dylan appears to dispute a formal conversion to Born Again Christianity. See comment below. ] 01:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Agree''' --] 03:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Agree''' ] 08:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Agree''' This is well documented, and has had a significant impact on his career and public image. ] 14:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
	* '''Agree'''. Confirmed by Encyclopedias, press reports, leading biographies, Jewish sources, Dylan interviews, etc. etc. --and Dylan has never renounced that conversion. --] 15:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

	None of the above statements have any significance because no one (of the above people) know the answer to the posed question. Agreeing or disagreeing is just guesswork. ] 01:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
	:Sigh...--] 01:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

	==Discussion==
	Comments, questions, and statements may be placed here. All claims made here must be cited with a reliable source; any claims that are not may be removed '''without notice'''.

	:I disagree with the above statement of fact. As I pointed out during the AFD discussion, there is no question that Dylan explored Christianity during the early 70’s, whether or not he formally converted is another question. Yes, there are reliable secondary sources available that claim Dylan converted to Born Again Christianity. However, this has been disputed by Dylan himself who has indicated that his conversion is a fabrication of the media. Dylan has stated, in part :
	::''“I went to Bible school at an extension of this church out in the Valley in Reseda, California. It was affiliated with the church, but I'm not a believer in that born-again type thing…. The media make up a lot of these words for the definition of people. I mean, who's a person anymore? Everything's done for the media. If the media don't know about it, it's not happening. They'll take the littlest thing and make it spectacular. They're in the business of doing that… Spirituality is not a business, so it's going to go against the grain of people who are trying to exploit other people."''
	:As a formal conversion seems to be disputed by Dylan himself, Misplaced Pages should heir on the side of caution in accordance with ]. ] 01:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
	::He's said mixed things. In a ] ] interview he says

	*"I would never call it that. I've never said I'm born again. That's just a media term." but then later he adds
	*"I believe in the ]. The leaders of this world are eventually going to play God, if they're not already playing God, and eventually a man will come that everybody will think is God. He'll do things, and they'll say, 'Well, only God can do those things. It must be him."
	*Interviewer: You're a literal believer of the Bible?
	*Dylan "Yeah. Sure, yeah. I am."
	*Interviewer: Are the Old and ]s equally valid?
	*Dylan: "To me."
	*Interviewer: Do you belong to any church or synagogue?
	*Dylan: "Not really."
	So kind of mixed in a way. Still in it he says he believed in the New Testament and the Book of Revelation, at that time, so I'd say he was at least vaguely Christian. Again "at that time." At the same time he disliked the "born again" label and did not belong to any Church. (Not that it matters, the issue of including reverts shouldn't have revolved around one guy)--] 02:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
	::I actually see no "dispute" of a conversion in the above statement. The closest thing to a dispute is the phrase "I'm not a believer in that born again type thing", which is clearly a present-tense construction, and says nothing about his beliefs at the time. Also, as a practicing Catholic, I can say most of the members of that church are also not believers in that "born again type thing", but are clearly Christians. The subsequent statements also seem to be more or less a criticism of the modern media, not a denial of any sort of conversion. ] 17:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

	::: Actually, Dylan doesn’t say that he “believes in” the New Testament, only that the Old & New Testaments are equally valid. Nowhere in the source provided does it state that Dylan converted to Christianity. The source supports my statement saying: “Despite his spiritual preoccupations, he insists that he's no prude ("I think I had a beer recently") and that his religious odyssey has been misrepresented in the press.” Dylan’s statement that “eventually a man will come that everybody will think is God.” Indicates that he does not accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah – he is apparently still waiting for the Messiah. This is the most fundamental difference between Judaism & Christianity. Had he converted, he would have had to accept Jesus Christ in that capacity. My point is that it is not a clear-cut matter and cannot be adequately addressed on a list. ] 04:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
	:::: Judaism, or Judaism since at least 200 AD, does not believe anyone will come that will be considered God. Judaism does not equate the Messiah to a God-Man. Still considering the New Testament to be as valid as the Old could just be some kind of "every religion is equal statement" and considering the things he said later in the interview that might be what it is. I'm not a Dylan fan though and I think there's been too much said on him so I'll stop now.--] 04:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

	::::"Eventually a man will come that everybody will think is God" does not mean that he does not accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah. Christians generally believe that God came as Jesus, and he will come again... that's what's being referred to here, and that's to a large extent what the book of Revelations is about. ] 15:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
	::::It should also be noted that the Apocalypse of John, which Dylan has stated he believes in, indicates that there will be a person coming whom everyone thinks is the Messiah. That book is taken as canonical by the majority of Christians, but that does not mean that the majority of Christians are not, in fact, Christians. ] 17:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
	* Lets not forget the famous 1980 interview with Karen Hughes:
	:* ''"It would have been easier", he sighed "If I had become, or a Buddhist, or a Scientologist or if I had gone to Sing Sing"..."Jesus put his hand on me. It was a physical thing. I felt it. I felt it all over me. I felt my whole body tremble. The glory of the Lord knocked me down and picked me up. Being born again is a hard thing. You ever seen a mother give birth to a child? Well it's painful. We don't like to lose those old attitudes and hang-ups. Conversion takes time because you have to learn to crawl before you can walk. You have to learn to drink milk before you can eat meat. You're re-born, but like a baby. A baby doesn't know anything about this world and that's what it's like when you're re-born. You're a stranger. You have to learn all over again. God will show you what you need to know.
	:*''"I guess He's always been calling me", Dylan said gently. "Of course, how would I have ever known that? That it was Jesus calling me. I always thought it was some voice that would be more identifiable. But Christ is calling everybody; we just turn him off. We just don't want to hear. We think he's gonna make our lives miserable, you know what I mean. We think he's gonna make us do things we don't want to do. Or keep us from doing things we want to do. But God's got his own purpose and time for everything. He knew when I would respond to His call.'''' --] 02:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
	*I question the reliability of this source. It seems unusual that an Ohio based journalist could not get a one on one interview with Bob Dylan published in the United States. The link provided states that the article is reprinted from the New Zealand newspaper, The Dominion. It would appear that this newspaper is now known as The Dominion Post, which is a joint business-publishing venture with The Press of Christchurch. With all due respect, that does not strike me as a neutral and unbiased source of information. ] 04:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
	:Because it's a conservative paper? Because it's based with the Press of ], ]? Is that press Christian or biased?--] 04:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
	::I also find that the above editor is adding additional parameters beyond those included in ]. That section cites only three parameters, and, while I agree that it might not be "authoritative in relation to the subject at hand", the last parameter, I also note that that clause is preceded by the word '''OR''', meaning that it is not necessarily an absolute requirement for something to be counted as reliable. Of course, if it can be indicated that the source does not meet the two criteria, or fails in some other way, I would be willing to revise my opinion based on the evidence presented to support that contention. ] 17:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
	At ] the very fist sentence states, "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth." There exist sources that satisfy Misplaced Pages's requirement for the use of "conversion" in the 1979 period. Misplaced Pages requires verifiability, not truth. We do not have truth, because nothing even approaching an account of a formalized conversion process exists. We merely have supposition. One individual states that Baptism took place, but he knows neither the time nor the place. Clearly he was not there. He says it took place some time during a few day period of time. He say it took place ''"probably in the ocean."'' Does that sound like an eyewitness to said conversion? With such flimsy evidence, actually no evidence at all, it would be irresponsible to say that actual conversion to Christianity for Dylan ever took place. The word is used. The word is tossed around. But there is certainly no evidence anyone has turned up for formalized conversion. At best there are the suppositions of the above one individual. Now, if you are talking about whether Misplaced Pages can use the term conversion relating to the time period of 1979 certainly they can. That usage is established by reliable sources. But the ''fact'' of conversion for Dylan is very much in doubt. One person's supposition does not establish fact. ] 05:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

	::Well, Bus stop, I suppose I agree with you on this. Of course, anyone can doubt or believe anything they'd like. I don't see the sources' claim with such scrutiny as you, but I'm glad to see that we agree that as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned, the sources say what they say (factual or not). I've doubted the validity of many claims of conversion (a recent example being ], a famous secularist whose 'deathbed conversion' claim by the government seems like simple propaganda), but I know that my own opinions and scrutiny can not take precedence over the claims of sources. --] 06:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
	:I'm thinking we should remove Dylan just so we can have an actual conversation about including reverts or not. If this is only about Dylan it's selective and a total waste of time. If only we also had Sikhs complaining that ]'s conversion was "in unclear circumstances before he turned 15" and that reverts shouldn't be here.--] 05:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
	::I think all former Christians need to be removed from this list. There is no reason to have any former Christian on this list, except ] propaganda. It somehow makes certian people feel that if there are a lot of converts, their religion is somehow more true. That is part of the reason why these lists get long. I see no other reason to include former Christians other than to make this list longer.--] 05:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
	:::The only problem with this argument (and as I've watched articles like ], I know exactly what you're saying) is that there is no 'promotion in the inclusion of these names. As has been mentioned, these are individuals who have left Christianity, i.e. found it unsatisfactory or found it to be a falsehood. What propaganda comes from noting individuals who have left a faith? I watch List of notable converts to Islam and ], and I notice that some users add names to the former list with unreliable sources, and simultaneously delete listings on the latter list by using a harsh (but sometimes warranted) standard for sources. Propagandists don't want to show the ones who've left a cause. It's about joining- and staying. I understand your argument, but I don't see how it even applies here, especially considering a proposal such as the separate section. --] 06:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
	::::It is the same thing. Both are propaganda. Muslims who try ] non-muslims state that because there are so many converts to Islam, Islam must be true, and you should convert to Islam. Similarly, people who try ] muslims say look at all the former muslims out there, so Islam must be false. That is the whole reason why some try to make one list longer and another list shorter. At the same time, Proselytizers want good people on their list, while at the same time, they want bad people on the other list, that way they can say that the other group is bad, and their group is good. That is why the ] list, non-muslims are the ones adding terrorists, while the muslims often try to remove the terrorists from the list of converts. They realize it makes conversion to Islam look bad, and that makes their Proselytizing goals harder to acheive. The same is true for Christianity.--] 20:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

	:::::

	:::::I'm familiar with the common tactics on List of notable converts to Islam, as my watchlist is filled with tales of Wraith re-adding the same block of text repeatedly, terrorists getting deleted (or at least their descriptions being vanilla-fied.

	:::::However, again, how does this apply here? We're not debating descriptions or attempting to remove unsavory characters. In fact, as Bus stop presumes, Bob Dylan would appear to be a 'prize' of sorts- so if proselytizing was the issue why would a so-called 'prize' be listed as one who later left the religion (which, by the way, is a claim made by no ''known'' sources beyond Jewish community sites; you be the judge, but note the great scrutiny which was applied by Bus stop to prove conversion in the first place).

	:::::Obviously, if you want to use 'good' and 'bad' terms, then Dylan would be a 'good' listing- so why would the editors involved in the argument argue continuously to keep Dylan's place with a clear notice that he is no longer a Christian (even, as a hope to satiate the insatiable stance of Bus stop, to move him into a separate section entirely, so we can get on with more important issues).

	:::::As you've said, 'they want bad people on the other list (which, although you're referring to the other religion's list, pertains also to the sub-section proposed- a list of former Christians who had come to the religion by conversion)', but Dylan is most certainly a 'good person'. I wonder how such an argumentan be presented when the circumstances are quite the opposite: these editors are arguing to keep a 'good person' on a 'bad list'. This seems to run roughly against claims of proselytizing on the part of the other editors.

	:::::Additionally, the great passion and disbelief which Bus stop exhibits concerning his continued resistance of conversion claims seems far more like the strong-willed religionists who live in denial of conversions away from their faith (and honestly, I've seen this mindset most commonly in fervent Muslim individuals, claiming that the individuals were not "true Muslims"). This is not to say that his scrutiny is unwarranted, but his behavior parallels your examples more than the editors who argue for Dylan to remain on the list: he is working to keep a 'good person' (whom he himself has termed a 'prize') off of a list for the 'other religion'- even when this list makes it clear that Dylan's current status is uncertain, and he may not be a Christian (which really is all we can say for many of the individuals on the list, with a dearth of sources on the matter). --] 21:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

	::::::I'm not entirely sure then, that the allegedly "pro-Christian" editors of this list (myself among them), who all supported the inclusion of ] and others who, shall we say, don't make Christianity look really good, (he abandoned it, after all, and it's hard to see how having his name on the list will help convert anyone - maybe the opposite, in fact), can be called proselytizers, on the basis of those inclusions. While I agree that there is cause to question whether "former converts" to Christianity, or whatever else, should be included on these lists, and a fair basis for discussion of same, I'm not sure that the current discussion is necessarily the best place to do so. Regretably, I get the impression that the current discussion exists, and seemingly also has existed, on the basis of the inclusion of one particular name, ]. Personally, I think we might be best served by seeing whether that name should be included at all first. Then, once that discussion is ended, we might possibly find ourselves in a better position to engage in reasonable discussion about whether "reverts" should be included on the main list of converts, the list of former adherents, both, or neither. I do think however that that discussion would be a good deal more detailed and thoughtful than the discussion of Bob Dylan's inclusion per se, and think we might all be better served by resolving that one issue, even if only provisionally, and then going on to issues that relate to inclusion in this list, and possibly all other lists. But I really doubt whether the discussion of Dylan's inclusion will really easily allow itself to addressing these larger and more complicated issues, which would also seem to probably be relevant to any number of other articles as well, given the degree of overriding concern at least one party in this current discussion has on the inclusion of one particular party, Bob Dylan, on one particular list, this one. Just an opinion, anyway. ] 20:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
	:::If the list is long it's largely because Christianity is a large religion with a strong evangelical component. Something like ] will always be smaller because, although a large religion, most of Hinduism is not proselytizing. Plus a long list is not always a positive one. The list does include war criminals and vicious dictators. Likely more will be added if they can be found. Still it might be nice to have a bit more context there in a few cases. ] is listed and I was intrigued the last Ancient Egyptian priest converted. However what his article says is "he was later captured and after torture converted to Christianity" and his article is not in the category of converts.--] 07:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

	===From above===
	None of the above statements have any significance because no one (of the above people) know the answer to the posed question. Agreeing or disagreeing is just guesswork. ] 05:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
	:Considering that this is essentially how our court system works, you should probably get used to this sort of thing. We're weighing what evidence we see. Some find it unconvincing; others don't. You can feel free to cast your opinion on the matter. You already know what you believe. --] 06:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
	:This is not the discussion segment. Raise the problem with the question elsewhere or, I believe, you're both out of order. (Note: I think the question is meaningless and maybe unanswerable, but again this isn't discussion)--] 07:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

	::This is consensus related to what was said above. ] 08:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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

	==Notes==
	These are statements made by users involved that I have taken note of from the archived and current discussions on this talk page. Others may add to this section, but do not alter the original content.

	Demong- Question: Some people think the obvious definition of convert is "someone who has converted to a religion", others think the obvious definition is "someone who converted to a religion and remained that religion for the rest of their life"... I think it would be more appropriate to open an RfC on that question.

	GvH- This is not a list of Christians it is a list of people who converted to Christianity whether they continued to be a Christian or not. The consensus is cleartly for Dylan's inclusion here and BusStop and Cleos continued attacking seems to be like an attempt to drive people away from watching this list so that they can get their own way in removing Dylan.

	C.Logan - I have no opinion that any names should be removed. As I consider my own ignorance in regard to the inter-relation of the divisions within Judaism, I refrain from making any judgments about validity of conversion.

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

	Bus stop- Why would Misplaced Pages put a name on such a list if there may not have been "actual conversion?" You do not put a Jew on a list of Christians, which is what this list is, despite the attempts to contrive the list's parameters.

	Cleo123- I, too, do not feel Dylan should be included on this list. To label a practicing Jew as a "convert to Christianity" is potentially libellous.

	Scott P.-
	#Beside each convert who was currently "lapsed", this article might make a note to this effect, or else if....
	#This article simply did not list any "lapsed" converts.
	#In either case, this article should clarify in its opening paragraph how it treats "lapsed" converts.

	==The word is not "confusion." The word is "appearance."==
	The word is not "confusion." The word is "appearance." We should not be giving the appearance that Bob Dylan is a Christian by putting him on a list that is expected logically to have only Christians on it. Logic is always going to trump contrived parameters. Without contrived parameters this list would be just like the ], that is, consisting only of Jews. The ] does nothing to contrive the parameters of that list to introduce people to that list who are not Jewish. Why is the ] contriving parameters to include people who are not Christian? Dylan is not Christian. We should not convey the appearance that he is Christian by putting him on a list of converts to Christianity. That smacks of ], Internet style. I find that objectionable. ] 05:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

	:Read above "Several statements/questions will be presented, and there will be no discussion; that is appropriate in the discussion section. Say either Agree or Disagree, and give a concise explanation for your decision."--] 05:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

	::To Bus stop- I understand your view. You say that Bob Dylan should not be on the list because it may ''suggest'' that he is Christian, although he isn't. People tend to be converts to a religion and stay that religion until the end of their lifetimes (that is the definition that almost all people usually follow).
	::But, according to , it states (with emphasis added):

	<blockquote>Lowndes and Dylan divorced in 1977. They had four children, including son Jakob, whose band, the Wallflowers, experienced pop success in the 1990s. Dylan was also stepfather to a child from Lowndes's previous marriage. In 1978 Dylan mounted a yearlong world tour and released a studio album, Street-Legal, and a live album, Bob Dylan at Budokan. 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. Critics and listeners were, once again, confounded. Nonetheless, Dylan received a Grammy Award in 1980 for best male rock vocal performance with his “gospel” song “Gotta Serve Somebody.”</blockquote>

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

	::Since Bob Dylan's convert to Christianity is clear, we could rephrase and say:
	::'''Bob Dylan - popular musician, (has converted to Christianity in 1979, converted again to Jewish)'''

	::Further thoughts? ''']]''' 23:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
	:::I would dispute the specific phrasing, "converted again to Jewish". Unfortunately, Dylan has expressed belief in the Apocalypse of John, which I think is probably classified by Jews as being a Christian work, and that might seem to indicate that his belief system is maybe a Jewish-Christian syncretion. Such a syncretion, however, would not be "Jewish", but a syncretion. Also, I hesitate to use the word "conversion" (as in "converted to Jewish") without some sort of concrete indicator of conversion, particularly without, as in this case, any specific denial of Christian beliefs on the subject's part. Judaism has no equivalent to Christian baptism, so that sort of indicator doesn't exist there. I acknowledge that he is apparently more involved in Jewish practice lately, and have stated elsewhere, , that I think describing his current position as a "practicing Jew" is reasonable. But I would stop short of labelling him as a "convert" to Judaism without specific evidence to support that contention. And such phrasing makes the potential challenges regarding his lack of clear statements regarding his current religious beliefs less likely. ] 15:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

	::::Actually, John, ]. My ex-girlfriend was required to undergo such a ritual upon her decision to become Jewish, as it was her father's faith. However, I'm unsure if such a ritual would also be initiated for individuals who are 'reverting'; either way, there are many different situations for such an immersion (though Dylan's participation in these would give a strong case for current Jewish religious practice, depending on the source, of course).

	::::Additionally, as a side note, our 'baptism' is actually considered to be the new 'circumcision' (as I believe St. Paul makes the comparison). Thus, baptism would seem to be a union of the intent of circumcision with the intent and actions of Jewish ritual baptism.--] 22:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

	== Conversion by supposition ==

	A Pastor makes the following statement:

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

	''"This was total immersion. Because baptism is a symbol of burial, burying guilt, and then pulling the new man out of the water," says Pastor Kenn. Bob attended the baptism and, not long afterward, Bob was himself baptized, probably in the ocean, which was where the fellowship normally conducted baptisms."''

	That is as close as we get to indication of Baptism. The Pastor clearly was not there. He can not say when it took place or where it took place. If he is saying ''"probably in the ocean"'' that is clear indication he was not there. As far as conversion is concerned, what we have is supposition, not fact. ] 12:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


	:This, again, taking into account 2 things:
	:* You again, ignoring everything else that has ever been said about this subject, require baptism for an individual to be considered Christian. This comment is being typed to you by a Christian who has never been baptized and who has many friends who have never been baptized- we've just willfully chosen to believe in something, and we are Christians. And if someone were to say that we had 'converted to Christianity', do you think this would be disputed because of our lack of baptism? Apparently, we should likewise remove any and all converts from any page where the "time and place" of their baptism/shahadah/circumcision, or any other rights which we might "by evidence" legally determine their conversion status. This is very silly, and is nitpicking.
	:* And, even considering baptism as a requirement, you again ignore everything I've ever said in regard to the man's testimony. Do you have to be present at the time and place of an event to know it occurred? No, you do not. Please use simple logic here. Again, I can tell you that I'd gotten married, and you may not know the time and place, but you know the occurrence. Your testimony that I did, indeed, get married ("probably in a church"), is entirely true. And considering that Kenn, in these same narratives, 'sends out' his assistants to interact with Dylan rather than going himself (as most managers manage things rather than performing the tasks assigned), it's fairly obvious that he might rarely, if ever, have a hands-on experience in the baptismal rites. As baptisms of these sort typically occur en masse (i.e., they arrange a common day for 10 or so people to travel out to the beach, or wherever), it would have been just one of many baptisms on that day, in just one of the several possible locations in which the church performs its baptisms (e.g., some churches have a 'dunk tank' set up in the center of the courtyard- though I find this a little silly).
	:Imagine if, in fairness, we applied such a standard to every assertion made on Misplaced Pages about individuals: birth, schooling, residency, marriage, career history, death, and everything else which falls between. When one applies the same scrutiny to these occurrences, one sees how ridiculous the strictness of it is: we are editors on Misplaced Pages, not federal investigators. We report from second hand sources. And about 99.9% percent of the time, having a reliable source claim that "something happened" is enough for us to claim that "something happened"- we do not need to scrutinize the claims beyond reason.--] 14:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


	== We should not contrive parameters to achieve desired contents ==

	We should not be contriving parameters to attain the desired contents for our list. There are only two ways that a person can become a Christian. One way is to be born a Christian. The other way is to convert to Christianity. Thus two groups of Christians arise. One group is the group of Christians who were born Christian. The other group is the group of Christians who converted to Christianity. Those two groups are defined by uncontrived parameters. There are no non-Christians in either of those two groups. It is only by means of contriving the parameters for the ] that the list becomes the list of "all those notable people who have '''ever''' converted to Christianity." Not all contrived parameters for a list such as this are necessarily bad. But if you contrive the parameters of a list such as this, it becomes incumbent upon you to explain the wisdom and the validity of doing so. I've heard no such explanation. The ] does not use contrived parameters. It simply lists those Jews who became Jews by means of conversion. There are no non-Jews on that list. (Or there should not be any non-Jews on that list.) If any editor finds a non-Jew on the ] they should simply be able to remove them on the sole basis of them not being a Jew. The ] hangs the tag on it saying, ''"This page is a list of Jews."'' The ] cannot hang the corresponding tag on its list. In point of fact the ] had the tag on it reading, ''"This page is a list of Christians,"'' but it had to be removed by editors trying to retain Bob Dylan on that list. The contrived parameters presently configuring the ] allow for an ''incalculably'' larger list. The ] makes no attempt to include on it all those who ever dabbled in Judaism. The resulting ] is more restrictive as concerns inclusion on it than is the ]. Why the disparity between the two lists? Why should the ] have the contrived parameters presently in place?

	I find the entire obsession with the placing of one highly charismatic living Jewish rock star on this list to be an unseemly exercise in Christian insecurity. For centuries Christians have forced Jews to convert to Christianity because it was not sufficient that they (Christians) had their religion which they believed in. It was additionally necessary to have Jews convert to Christianity. (No Jew ever forced a Christian to convert to Judaism. Judaism does not even proselytize.) This list, as presently configured, gives the appearance of a Jew having some relationship to Christianity. That is totally out of place because it requires contrived parameters in order to accomplish that, and it is totally unconscionable because it is a form of ], updated to the Internet age. We know that the Internet is a cesspool, but why would Misplaced Pages let down its neutrality policy to convey such bunk?

	Is it our overriding purpose to blur distinctions? Christianity and Judaism happen to be two different religions. Jews and Christians don't happen to believe the same things. Why attempt to convey that Christianity and Judaism are in some sense indistinguishable? Why give the appearance that a Jew (Bob Dylan) is a Christian? If it is a ] then it should follow the simplest parameters, which means it should have no non-Christians on it. It is point of view pushing to blur the important distinctions between Christianity and Judaism. ] 13:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

	:Is there some reason you, and a few others, have this Dylan obsession? At times I'm getting confused as to what your objection even is. Is it just about Dylan, is it about ], or ]?--] 21:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

	::While he personally does not believe that a conversion occurred (and this is an acceptable skepticism, I believe), he is aware that Misplaced Pages's policy regarding sources qualifies the sources used for conversion as reasonably valid per ], and also compliant with the stricter terms set forth in ] (the same cannot be said for sources claiming a reversion, as far as I know; it would seem that Dylan is in a religious limbo, if anything). Therefore, though he occasionally rails against the sources at hand, his scrutiny is misplaced, in my opinion (and I've tried to detail the problems with his arguments near the end of the above section), and it distracts the reader (as can be seen from your own uncertainty) as to what the actual conflict currently is.

	::As far as I know, Bus stop's argument has never operated outside of accusations of proselytizing, along with consistent comparisons to historical events (forced conversions of Jews, etc.), theological matters (the Christian view of supercession over the Jewish religion), and other unsavory things which may belong in a blog, but not in a reasonable discussion in which no evidence is presented to support such accusations.

	::While I accept that Bus stop's core argument may be valid, it has become so deeply buried in the muck of the histrionic interpretation that it is hardly discernible from a rant.

	::However, as I see it, the only strong case against the continued inclusion of such individuals (who, despite what one may think, have has a presence on the list for a very long time ) is if one were to undermine the opposing argument under the presupposition of proselytic motivations. Perhaps this is why users such as Bus stop so vehemently present this as the situation (without evidence, again). If there is a better argument, I'm willing to listen, of course. --] 22:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

	:First off, you have made frequent reference to the notion that many people are "born Christian." I don't accept the notion that anyone has ever been "born Christian." This is where you engage in your standard blurring of notions of ethnicity and religion. Christianity isn't a gene, it's a faith. If one can be "born Jewish," it's only in the sense that we sometimes approach Jewishness as an ethnic identity, as opposed to Judaism the religion... but then, the Jewish faith itself invites some confusion in this matter, because the faithful believers accept the notion that their family history conveys a sort of "chosen people" status prior to faith. Jews believe in being born Jewish more than Christians believe in being born Christian. You simply can't apply that kind of model to Christianity and Christian people. Secondly, with regards to the question of why we should not lable this as a "list of Christians," your claim that "I've heard no such explanation" is basically a reflection on the fact that you haven't listened. It's been said before, but I'll say it again. One good argument for not labling it as a list of Christians is because that doesn't accurately describe the list. Another reason is because it's impossible to reliably verify the current beliefs of any members of the list, but we can certainly verify historical occurances of a person's conversion. ] 16:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

	Of course it doesn't accurately describe the list, and therein lies the problem. The list as presently configured follows contrived parameters. Use straightforward parameters and that problem vanishes.

	Concerning beliefs, we are not trying to determine beliefs. We are trying to determine religion. Bob Dylan was born Jewish. He has had nothing to do with Christianity in 27 years. He has been associating with the Orthodox Lubovitch Jews in Brooklyn New York in the intervening years. He has been attending Passover services. He has been attending Jewish Sabbath services. What more evidence could there be? He doesn't have to meet a standard of piousness. He already is just a normal American male Jew. His brief flirtation with Christianity is in the past. You have no source for Christian identity for Dylan in 2007. You don't even have a source for Christian identity for Bob Dylan for any point in time after 1980.

	As long as Bob Dylan is not actively negating his Jewish identity he is Jewish. He need not do anything additional whatsoever. But his involvement with truly pious Jews (Lubovitch) makes his Jewish status even more obvious. There is a picture of him on the Internet wearing the extremely arcane Jewish adornment known as "phylacteries." He is additionally wearing the traditional Jewish head covering known as the skull cap, or "yarmulke." These are totally Jewish ritualistic adornments. I believe he is even wearing the Jewish prayer shawl, known as the "tallit" in that picture.

	No one is going to climb into Dylan's head and peer out through his eyes to try to determine his beliefs. Since he was born Jewish, in the absence of active negation of Jewishness, we consider him Jewish. And there is no evidence of any involvement with Christianity for 27 years. Or at least no one has presented any source for that. Dylan attends synagogue. He doesn't attend Church. Dylan attends ritualistic Jewish observances such as are found on the Jewish calendar. Even if he didn't attend these his Jewish status would apply. But he does so in the context of observant, pious Jews, in an Orthodox Jewish enclave in Brooklyn New York. We are not preparing to hook Dylan up to a belief determination machine, are we? His outward activities are clearly Jewish. So the question remains, why would he be on a list that should contain only Christians if it used straightforward parameters? ] 17:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
	* Yes, just the "''normal American male Jew''", affirming his "''Jewish status''". LOL. Somehow I just don't remember the rabbi at my temple talking about how his body trembled after being touched by Jesus. I guess Judaism has really evolved. In the meantime, I would remind you that we are not trying to determine beliefs or ongoing religious commitment. If we were, we would be forced to resort to the same type of POV mental gymnastics that you display in all your messages. That's called ] and is banned by policy. Instead, this is a verified list of notable conversions, like all the other lists, including especially the list of converts to Judaism, many of whom are not Jewish based on numerous definitions:
	:*"''Jesus put his hand on me. It was a physical thing. I felt it. I felt it all over me. I felt my whole body tremble. The glory of the Lord knocked me down and picked me up. Being born again is a hard thing. You ever seen a mother give birth to a child? Well it's painful. We don't like to lose those old attitudes and hang-ups. Conversion takes time because you have to learn to crawl before you can walk. You have to learn to drink milk before you can eat meat. You're re-born, but like a baby. A baby doesn't know anything about this world and that's what it's like when you're re-born. You're a stranger. You have to learn all over again. God will show you what you need to know. ''"I guess He's always been calling me", Dylan said gently. "Of course, how would I have ever known that? That it was Jesus calling me."''
	:* ''In late 1978 Dylan himself was busy being born again. His widely-publicized conversion to Christianity made him perhaps the most famous Jewish apostate in American history'' Yudelson, Larry. ''Dylan: Tangled Up in Jews''. Washington Jewish Week, 1991
	:* ''Dylan has, if only from the ironic sideline, taken part in --and sung at-- the deepest spiritual crises of his generation of American Jews: the drama of the civil rights struggle, the comforts and exoticism of the Jewish homeland, and the spiritual excitements of Lubavitch. He also became a Christian--the one leader he followed--and never really looked back and renounced it'' Yudelson, Larry. ''Dylan: Tangled Up in Jews''. Washington Jewish Week, 1991
	:*''Elie Wiesel wrote to me he had considered Dylan's conversion a tragedy and hoped that efforts to reach him would succeed.'' Marshall- ''Bob Dylan's Unshakeable Monotheism -- Part IV: The 1990s'',Jewsweek, 2004
	:* ''"During the conversion thing, I went where I was told. I was aware that it mattered to him. He's never done anything half-assed. If he does anything, he goes fully underwater''" Jakob Dylan, ''JAKOB'S LADDER Part 2'', Rolling Stone, 1997
	:* ETC, ETC, ETC, ETC.
	:] 16:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

	::I got caught in an edit conflict, but this is what I had to say in response to Bus Stop: ...And the answer remains that, as you seem to acknowledge, there's no way we can enter anyone's head to determine their current beliefs, so there's no way to limit this list, or any list, to people who are currently Christian... but the historical fact of a person's conversion can be researched and verified. As is often the case, you ignore a substantial part of the comment you've replied to. If it's possible to be "born Jewish," but Christianity is a matter of belief/faith, then there's no inherent contradiction in being both Jewish AND Christian. I also have not now, nor have I ever claimed to know what Dylan currently believes, so your statement that I "don't even have a source for Christian identity for Bob Dylan for any point in time after 1980" completely misses the point. All I've suggested is that we should accurately reflect what we ''do'' know, which we have done without distortion. You simply insist on mischaracterizing this article in an attempt to suppress factual information about Dylan's conversion. ] 17:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

	==This is what the issue is really about: Is the article anti-semitic?==
	]'s sources proving Dylan's Christianity has done more than enough than to thoroughly prove the matter to me. Likewise, didn't he go through a Gospel phase in some of his music (I'm sorry, I'm not a huge Dylan fan)?

	I'd also like to apologize that I'm new to a dispute resolution. If this comment belongs elsewhere, I invite the '''appropriate''' authority freedom to move it elsewhere.

	I would like to address what this issue is really about. I came to this article when I saw an editor request on the editor's request forum. If you read ]'s comments above, you will find constant accusations of forced conversion and other "]-like" activities. Here is a small sampling (the emphasis is mine):

	:The small clique of editors changed their parameters for this list twice in the past 24 hours! All they want is to have Bob Dylan on their list. That is the be-all and end-all of this list as far as those editors are concerned. <personal attack removed> All of their "disclaimers" are only indication that the name (Bob Dylan) shouldn't be there in the first place. In case you don't know this is not an emotionless issue. I am not referring here to my emotions. I am referring to the often tumultuous history of Jewish-Christian relations. '''The Pope himself recently had to apologize on behalf of Christendom for the wrongs historically committed against the Jews. Mind you, ''forced conversion'' did not occur in the opposite direction: ''Jews did not force Christians to convert to Judaism.''''' It is ludicrous to consider the possibility -- Judaism doesn't even proselytize. This article is a clear locus of abuse because it oversteps the bounds that even the list of converts to Judaism accepts upon itself. This list is correctly the list of those Christians who have arrived at Christian identity by way of conversion.

	:(By the way, the List of notable converts to Christianity used to contain that tag, until it was strategically removed.) With that tag in place, any name can be challenged and potentially removed solely on the basis of the entry's not being Jewish. Why doesn't the Christian list uphold similarly high standards of inclusion? Because it has a point of view to push? Because proselytization is an important component of Christianity? (In contradistinction Judaism does not proselytize at all.) Why is an incalculably wider net being cast for the List of notable converts to Christianity? '''Has there not been a long enough history of forced conversion (at the hands of Christians) of Jews to Christianity? The Pope himself has had to apologize to Jewry in recent years for the brutality of this.''' I think Christians should create their list based on sound parameters and should refrain from the slander inherent in forcing an apparent Jew onto what is ostensibly a list that should contain only Christians, that is, Christians who have arrived at their Christian identity by way of conversion.

	:Judaism is of course a religion that does not proselytize. Judaism is a religion that does not try to win converts. '''Christianity, on the other hand, has an important plank in its policy that encourages the active seeking of converts to its religion. This has often resulted in the forced conversion of Jews to Christianity. The Pope himself has had to apologize to world Jewry for this offense, committed over centuries, against Jews.'''

	Bus stop has likewise started an entire section on this accusation alone above. He likewise has a tendency to accuse people of being racist and ] on his own talk page (I am not defending what was said about him, only providing the facts). Plus, in the past, on his user page, he admitted to making this his own pet project and called it "light stuff". If it truly is "light stuff", why hasn't he compromised and moved on? The article explicitly states that Bob Dylan returned to Judaism and isn't a current convert. Several editors have provided sources to prove this. I think the material more than meets the qualifications of ]. However, I likewise think that Bus stop's actions are in violation of ] and ] (he has tried to have this article deleted on the basis that it was anti-semitic). If it really is "light stuff" (and as he said in the edit summary of his following edit, "irrelevant"), then what possesses him to fight over one single sentence? Why such racially charged language?

	I think it is simple. He may not claim to convert people to Judaism, but he seems to believe that people need to follow its strictures in reference to Jews. Misplaced Pages is not about that. No one said that Misplaced Pages even needed to be fair. Misplaced Pages is about ]. And personally, I'm sick of having Judaism pushed down my throat (hence the reasons I've taken frequent hiatuses from this article). We can make several more compromises, but I'm sure they'll hit deaf ears. He isn't going to quit until the name is removed altogether (even though its on a <b><i>former</i></b> convert list -- how is this conversion?). Providing Bus stop leeway in this argument is a bid for his version of Judaism's own "forced parameters". Personally, I think he needs to be blocked from editing the article, not the rest of us. Everyone I know has made reasonable compromise (which both he and ] blindly revert later, even though the majority of editors on this article state that the name belongs -- just pick random poll results above, as they demonstrate consensus).

	In summary, the conclusion, from the evidence, seems to be this: '''This entire debate is truly centered around whether or not the article is ] as Bus stop claims.''' Is the article racist? Or is it ]? This is the '''true question''' I think we need to be asking ourselves.

	I think Dylan needs to be on this list as a "former convert" because it made a significant impact on his life and career. I will state for the record that I am an ] person and so the issue of "forced conversion" is irrelevant to me, as I do not see it in this case. ] 21:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
	:Are you asking the question whether having a list of people who converted to Christianity is anti-semitic? Like the ones in the Jewish encyclopedia? ] 21:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
	::Regarding one of the points above, if after this mediation ends any parties to the discussion continue to edit the article or its talk page in conflict or contradiction of the terms of the mediated resolution, I too would agree that those parties should be blocked from editing this page. I would apply that to all parties in the discussion, myself included. ] 21:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
	:::I would hope that we could turn this from a debate tournament into an actual discussion of reasons, sans accusations and assumptions about motives. I believe the greatest block to compromise is the assumption that certain editors are pushing their point for religious reasons (despite, as has been noted, the fact that listing 'good people' on a 'bad list' is hardly a mode of propaganda; why fight to include such as an 'iconic entertainer' as a 'image booster' if he found the faith not worth continuing in all seriousness? ).

	:::I feel that at every point where the discussion might break into a situation where editors are actually discussing matters in a neutral manner, someone comes crusading back into the picture with a whole new round of unwarranted assumptions and accusations, with a heaping helping of drama, history, theology and all other peripheral matters thrown in, as it seems, for 'sympathy points'. Let's break that habit; possibly start afresh and try to assume good faith about everyone, whether friend or foe.--] 21:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

	* '''Comment''' I propose that this entire section be removed from the discussion. This is suppose be a discussion of sourced facts, not a discussion of editors, their motivations or alleged anti-semitism. Yes, Bob Dylan is a focal point of the discussion, but he is not the locus of the dispute. Unfortunately, rather than following Misplaced Pages's guidelines and removing misleading and potentially libellous information about a living person from the article; a group of editors chose to change the article's parameters rather than abiding by policy. Bob Dylan has become the focus of the discussion, not because anyone is "obsessed" with him, but because that group of editors chose to turn the article upside down in order to include his name.

	:My primary concern, as I have stated in the past, is the article's new parameters, which may adversely impact any number of celebrities in the future. This is not all about Bus stop, and in trying to make it so the fact that other editors have objected to the article's new scope and Dylan's inclusion on the list appears to be getting lost in the shuffle. To my mind, previous attempts at mediation, arbitration etc. failed because editors chose to use those forums as a means of getting Bus stop blocked, rather than focusing the article. It should be noted that Bus stop has conceded to discussion of Dylan's conversion being included in the ] biography. Moreover, he has agreed to the compromise I proposed some weeks back of a separate list of "Notable Converts Who Later Returned to their former faiths". Editors on the other side of this argument have refused to accept the proposed compromise.

	:As for "consensus" - there is no consensus as far as I am concerned. I have seen at least ten editors, on Bus stop's side of this argument effectively "run off" this and other Dylan related pages. When you attempt to "block" dissenting opinion and editors see a flury of bogus complaints being filed against anyone who shares any of Bus stop's views, it is natural for editors to decide they no longer wish to be involved in the discussion. How can there be a legitimate poll in an atmoshere rife with personal attacks and attempts at intimidation? ] 00:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

	::I don't think this should be a "Dylan related page" per se, but he does seem to have been on the list . Judging by other lists, like ] which is over a year older, including people who left is probably not a "new scope." However switching to excluding them is a good idea I think. One objection is "how can we know if they stayed, we can't read their mind", but to me that's a real reach. When you list people by religion you aren't trying to read their mind you're just saying what they publicly were in life. You often can tell if people renounce a religion or switch to a new one. If these conversion lists exclude people who convert then leave they might be more focused and useful.--] 02:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

	::I only mention this because Bus stop likes to throw out the word "anti-semite" or make similar allegations and seems to be fighting to remove said reference because it offends his own religious sensibilites. I do not think that Bob Dylan's inclusion on the list is. I believe this is the core of the whole argument and to ignore it would be silly. Bus stop, do you think it is anti-semitic to include his name on the list?

	::I'd like to add that we did compromise with him just recently on this very page about former converts who later returned to their faith. Both him and Sefringle have continually removed this section. I am not attacking Judaism at all. What I am addressing, however, is whether or not religious opinions should dictate Misplaced Pages policy and I believe a religious factor is present from the evidence above. I see no reason to remove this section as I believe it reveals a key motivation in this entire argument to begin with and personally, I'm sick of Bus stop's filibustering.

	::Motives are highly important in determining a matter. What I am concerned with is Bus stop's motive in continually reverting the article and throwing out his own baseless accusations. Its not like any of us are trying to convert Dylan at gun point, myself especially. In fact, this list should not be used to support Christianity. I think Bob Dylan's name as a former convert would actually do the opposite, but then again, I'm only fighting for his name as his conversion seemed to have a serious influence on his life. ] 01:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

	== Sourcing ==

	It may also be better to lay out the sources that prove that Bob Dylan was a convert, because that is the core of the issue. We can then decide which sources may be biased. ''']]''' 23:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
	:Surely it should also be considered whether the sources that say he converted back to Judaism might be biased? ] 23:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
	::Okay. ''']]''' 23:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

	::: I see ''']''' is conducting a ''']''' here. ] 01:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

	::::Assuming that you're referring directly to the above comments, it seems to me that he's being completely reasonable.

	::::We should assess the sources for both claims, because as hard as it may be for you to believe, those sources could be biased and unreliable as well. It's also worth scrutinizing these sources, as it seems I'm the only individual who took the time to get reliable, published sources about the topic.

	::::The sources I've seen for reversion are all explicitly Jewish in nature, and so they must be addressed with the same scrutiny as the internet-based Christian sources.

	::::I'm surprised that you feel the need to bring up such accusations, seemingly without extensive consideration.--] 01:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

	:::::Two reasons to why I'm doing this- one, to compile the sources in one area (so users need not go back and search again for them), and two, to put clearly into view and determine whether these sources are reliable. After doing so, we can concretely prove (through ]) whether Dylan was a convert or not. I want to clear any skepticism on this matter as soon as possible, so we may proceed on other matters. ''']]''' 09:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

	===Sources suggesting conversion to Christianity===

	<blockquote>Lowndes and Dylan divorced in 1977. They had four children, including son Jakob, whose band, the Wallflowers, experienced pop success in the 1990s. Dylan was also stepfather to a child from Lowndes's previous marriage. In 1978 Dylan mounted a yearlong world tour and released a studio album, Street-Legal, and a live album, Bob Dylan at Budokan. 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. Critics and listeners were, once again, confounded. Nonetheless, Dylan received a Grammy Award in 1980 for best male rock vocal performance with his “gospel” song “Gotta Serve Somebody.”<sup></sup></blockquote>

	<blockquote>Jesus put his hand on me. It was a physical thing. I felt it. I felt it all over me. I felt my whole body tremble. The glory of the Lord knocked me down and picked me up. Being born again is a hard thing. You ever seen a mother give birth to a child? Well it's painful. We don't like to lose those old attitudes and hang-ups. Conversion takes time because you have to learn to crawl before you can walk. You have to learn to drink milk before you can eat meat. You're re-born, but like a baby. A baby doesn't know anything about this world and that's what it's like when you're re-born. You're a stranger. You have to learn all over again. God will show you what you need to know. "I guess He's always been calling me", Dylan said gently. "Of course, how would I have ever known that? That it was Jesus calling me."<sup></sup></blockquote>

	<blockquote>In late 1978 Dylan himself was busy being born again. His widely-publicized conversion to Christianity made him perhaps the most famous Jewish apostate in American history <sup>Yudelson, Larry. ''Dylan: Tangled Up in Jews''. Washington Jewish Week, 1991</sup></blockquote>

			== C.S. Lewis ==
	<blockquote>Dylan has, if only from the ironic sideline, taken part in --and sung at-- the deepest spiritual crises of his generation of American Jews: the drama of the civil rights struggle, the comforts and exoticism of the Jewish homeland, and the spiritual excitements of Lubavitch. He also became a Christian--the one leader he followed--and never really looked back and renounced it<sup></sup></blockquote>
			How about ]? ] (]) 22:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

			== External links modified ==
	<blockquote>Elie Wiesel wrote to me he had considered Dylan's conversion a tragedy and hoped that efforts to reach him would succeed.<sup></sup></blockquote>

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	<blockquote>During the conversion thing, I went where I was told. I was aware that it mattered to him. He's never done anything half-assed. If he does anything, he goes fully underwater <sup>Jakob Dylan, ''JAKOB'S LADDER Part 2'', Rolling Stone, 1997 </sup></blockquote>

			I have just modified 3 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	<blockquote>I would never call it that. I've never said I'm born again. That's just a media term." (but then later he adds)<br>
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070612023838/http://www.kimfoundation.com/en/index.htm to http://www.kimfoundation.com/en/index.htm
	*"I believe in the ]. The leaders of this world are eventually going to play God, if they're not already playing God, and eventually a man will come that everybody will think is God. He'll do things, and they'll say, 'Well, only God can do those things. It must be him."<br>
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927202954/http://www.fictionwise.com/eBooks/SaintAugustineeBooks.htm to http://www.fictionwise.com/eBooks/SaintAugustineeBooks.htm
	*Interviewer: You're a literal believer of the Bible? <br>
			*Added {{tlx\|dead link}} tag to http://194.154.164.100/~westbury@westburymusicltd.co.uk/4artisttrackdb/showarticle.php?id=86
	*Dylan "Yeah. Sure, yeah. I am." <br>
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070922181219/http://underoathfan94.buzznet.com/user/journal/620461/ to http://underoathfan94.buzznet.com/user/journal/620461/
	*Interviewer: Are the Old and ]s equally valid? <br>
	*Dylan: "To me." <br>
	*Interviewer: Do you belong to any church or synagogue? <br>
	*Dylan: "Not really."<sup></sup>
	</blockquote>

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	Excerpts compiled by ] ]

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	===Sources suggesting no conversion to Christianity===

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 14:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
	<blockquote>"I went to Bible school at an extension of this church out in the Valley in Reseda, California. It was affiliated with the church, but I'm not a believer in that born-again type thing…. The media make up a lot of these words for the definition of people. I mean, who's a person anymore? Everything's done for the media. If the media don't know about it, it's not happening. They'll take the littlest thing and make it spectacular. They're in the business of doing that… Spirituality is not a business, so it's going to go against the grain of people who are trying to exploit other people." <sup></sup></blockquote>

			== External links modified (January 2018) ==
	== We should not contradict ourselves, nor should we create contrived parameters for lists ==

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	We should not contradict ourselves. We should not put a Jew on a list ostensibly of Christians. Are these Christians who were born Christian, on the ]? No, they are not. Are these Christians who converted to Christianity, on the ]? Yes, they are. In order not to contradict ourselves we should not put a Jew on such a list. That would constitute a contradiction. Nor should we twist the parameters of the list to accommodate some goal that we think we rightfully should achieve. We should adhere to straightforward parameters. Note the parameters in place at the ]. You won't find contrived parameters there. You will find straightforward parameters. The parameters that the ] uses are straightforward. Does the ] contain on it Jews who were born Jewish? No, it does not. Does the ] contain on it Jews who converted to Judaism? Yes, it does. Does the ] contain people who are not Jewish on it? No, it does not. We are talking here and now about the distinction between straightforward and contrived, as concerns parameters of lists such as these. We are talking about the importance of not contradicting ourselves. Contradicting oneself is a senseless thing. Please use the ] responsibly. Please follow straightforward parameters. That will make for a great list. It will be a list of those notable Christians who converted to Christianity. It will not contain on it those notable Christians who were born Christian. Nor will it contain on it Jews, because Jews are obviously not Christians. ] 01:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

			I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	:Why shouldn't we put a former Christian on a list? In particular, Bob Dylan? And what goal is being achieved? Remember, I'm not a Christian here, so I have no such goal. ] 02:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141018090107/http://kurd-art.com/index.php/en/everything-for-you/music/music/188-zara to http://kurd-art.com/index.php/en/everything-for-you/music/music/188-zara
	== We should not start new threads when we have nothing new to say, nor should we make spectacles of our obsessions ==
	--] 02:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
	:Poorly worded, and on the verge of an ]. Nevertheless, ] is being a little ] because he has repeated what he has said in a prior string. ''']]''' 10:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	== Looking back at the bigger picture ==

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	'''Should Bob Dylan be on the list?'''

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 07:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
	I don't see a problem at all if he is specifically defined to have converted to another religion (presumably Judaism) and is a believer in that religion today. Sure, he's not Christian anymore, but being a religion other than Christian at this current time although he was one before is not a good enough reason to stave Dylan off of the list. He has his own section, along with two others: (]). The section clearly states:
			== "Druze conversion to Christianity" listed at ] ==
			]
			A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ]. The discussion will occur at ] until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 17:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

			== Conflicting information 2.7 or 100 million converts anually? ==
	<blockquote>The people listed in this section made a conversion to Christianity which was notable and had a significant impact on their careers, public, or private lives. They, however, did not continue in the Christian faith for life. As noted under individual entries, some converted to another religion, returned to a prior religion, or renounced their faith. Some entries are also listed here because the faith of their later lives is sufficiently disputed, and it appears unlikely that they continued to practice a Christian religion.</blockquote>

			The article "]
	The consensus is that he has ''converted to Christianity'', and through consensus of discussions, converted from Christianity to Judaism. The only users objecting are ], who is questioning the conversion itself, and ], who questions that not currently being Christian (although being a convert) means that one should not be on the list. ''']]''' 10:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
	:I still don't think it is certain he "converted" back to Judaism as the only ref supporting it at the moment on the page is a Jewish website- are there not any third party neutral sources? ] 10:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
	::True, we haven't touched on that part yet, but this doesn't mean that he shouldn't be on this list, is it? ''']]''' 11:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

			says
	''']''' --Thank you for conducting this ]. Thank you for your failure to respond to violations of ] throughout this process. Thank you for your biased opinion expressed above. ] 10:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

	''']''' -- You disqualify yourself from mediating this discussion by the bias you express above. This discussion hasn't been about whether Bob Dylan converted. That is your point of view pushing that you arrived here with. Misplaced Pages does not require factuality; Misplaced Pages requires verifiability. There has been no establishment of factuality of conversion for Dylan. But there are sources using terms like conversion for 1979. That allows for the use of the term conversion in relation to the time period 1979. That is not the issue. You may say that is the issue, but that doesn't happen to be the issue. You arrived here with that point of view pushing agenda in mind, but that is not the issue. The issue happens to be whether a non-Christian can be on a ]. Clearly they should not. If they are not presently Christian, then clearly they do not fit the parameters of this list. The proper parameters of this list are, ''Those notable Christians who arrived at their Christian identity by way of conversion.'' Dylan is not a convert. Convert in the title of this article is a noun synonymous with the noun Christian. In point of fact Dylan is not a Christian. Dylan is a Jew. Two totally different religions. And the so-called mediator's preexisting bias disqualifies him as a mediator in this dispute. ] 13:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

			''"According to the ], approximately 2.7 million convert to ] annually from another religion; ] also stated that Christianity ranks in first place in net gains through religious conversion."''
	== Original research ==

	An interesting item on another talk page: ]. If the people editing this page are making the decisions as to whether or not the evidence is sufficient to write that someone did or did not convert, that is the definition of ]. And BTW, to what extent are biographies being added to Misplaced Pages simply to support the contention that the persons involved are notable enough to be added to lists like this? (E.g., though her bio was added a couple of years ago, to what extent is ] notable enough on her own to have a wiki entry at all?) --] 10:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

			Yet this article claims that the number of annual converts according to the very same source is 100 million. The source itself is not available online. I tend to think that the former number is accurate, but I can't check. ] (]) 13:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
	:Are you suggesting Bob Dylan isn't notable? ] 11:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 07:11, 16 February 2024

Skip to table of contents

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 December 2021. The result of the discussion was keep all.

Per Misplaced Pages policy on Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLP)...
"Misplaced Pages articles can affect real people's lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility."
Do not list a person as having converted from a particular religion (example: Islam) unless there are references in this list to their former religious affiliation with citation backing it up.
(merely growing up in a Muslim family does not count.)

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 26, 2006	Articles for deletion	No consensus
November 5, 2006	Articles for deletion	No consensus
May 3, 2007	Articles for deletion	Kept
February 16, 2012	Articles for deletion	Kept

This page is not a forum for general discussion about List of converts to Christianity. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about List of converts to Christianity at the Reference desk.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity Mid‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion: Interfaith

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

C.S. Lewis

How about C.S. Lewis? MaynardClark (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of converts to Christianity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of converts to Christianity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141018090107/http://kurd-art.com/index.php/en/everything-for-you/music/music/188-zara to http://kurd-art.com/index.php/en/everything-for-you/music/music/188-zara

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

"Druze conversion to Christianity" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Druze conversion to Christianity. The discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 27#Druze conversion to Christianity until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed,Rosguill 17:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Conflicting information 2.7 or 100 million converts anually?

The article "Christian population growth

says

"According to the World Christian Encyclopedia, approximately 2.7 million convert to Christianity annually from another religion; World Christian Encyclopedia also stated that Christianity ranks in first place in net gains through religious conversion."

Yet this article claims that the number of annual converts according to the very same source is 100 million. The source itself is not available online. I tend to think that the former number is accurate, but I can't check. Johannes Rohr (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Categories: