Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
It looks like you're becomming the subject of a witch hunt. Is it really worth it? Maybe you should step back from this a little bit and chill? Just some friendly advice. Peace, ] 02:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
It looks like you're becomming the subject of a witch hunt. Is it really worth it? Maybe you should step back from this a little bit and chill? Just some friendly advice. Peace, ] 02:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
:Cleo, besides ] Christian communities and individuals (which lack any unified structure and are heterogeneous in their beliefs), one such denomination which does not practice baptism is the Salvation Army. The ] page also notes that "a few Christian groups assert that water-based baptism has been supplanted by the promised baptism of the Holy Spirit, and water baptism was unnecessarily carried over from the early Jewish Christian practice."
:My old (non-denominational) church held baptisms, but no one was required to take part. I never took part in any real statement of faith, and I considered myself a Christian then. No one argued with me.
:Of course, the Salvation Army functions like a military organization, so there is some sort of conversion process. However, it is important to note that this denomination, which has over 100,000 adherents (according to their 2006 yearbook), does not see baptism as a necessity, nor do they encourage the practice of it. --] 02:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi! Just want to let you know I'm not bothered by the sculpture/art thing. It happens. We'll end up with a stronger article(s) however it comes out. --sparkit23:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking it up right now in a book I have. A lot of interesting stuff. It's all surprisingly interrelated. Yes, Op art is said to simulate movement, or at least to create the illusion of movement. Interestingly, the term Op art was coined by a Kinetic artist, George Rickey! It is said that the first Kinetic sculpture was Marcel Duchamp's Bicycle Wheel of 1913. Anyway, Op art and Kinetic art (or sculpture) are separate things. I don't see any indication of any overlap. Bus stop23:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Neat! I'd read that about Bicycle but hadn't added to any of the articles. I, too, think of only the actual moving stuff as kinetic, but because op art is sometimes referred to as kinetic some mention is warranted, but like I said on the kinetic art talk page, dunno if a whole section is needed. --sparkit12:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I really want to see some of your art
Is this possible? You need to convince me you are actually a painter. You can just e-mail me some samples.AlainLa23:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Bus stop can answer as he wishes, but I've seen your comment on the AfD, and I want to point out categorically that there is no need for any editor to prove anything, other than their good conduct on wiki. He may or may not be a good or not good artist, but he is making proper judgements according to wikipedia policy as an editor. No harm in asking to see work, but if you get a polite refusal, then don't press any further please. Misplaced Pages also has a strict policy of preserving editor's anonymity if they wish it. New talk goes beneath old talk by the way, so I've moved your post. Tyrenius01:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Canvas Made with Rabbit Skin Glue & Oil-based Primer
Bus Stop
I will accept that you are a painter. Have you ever made a canvas using rabbit skin glue? The primer dries much more slowly than regular artist quality paint. I have made hundreds of canvases for myself and others and it takes weeks--every single time--to dry. The "rabbit skin glue" article is about just that, not about regular paint. Your desire to change this point does not seem to add any more value. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.110.196.19 (talk • contribs).
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 24 hours. Nishkid6417:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Nishkid64 -- You point out that I should "please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future." To which I would respond, "How much more of an effort to discuss my changes further in the future would you think would be advisable?" In point of fact I have discussed my editing extensively on the Bob Dylan article Talk page. Have you looked at the Bob Dylan article Talk page? Bus stop19:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Unblock
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
That was hours ago. The last of the four edits you refer to was 5 hours ago. I don't think I was reported for those edits. Those were in the lead paragraph. I think I was reported for correcting the unbalanced assertion (in the body of the article) that Bob Dylan had converted to Christianity. I think I was reported because I tried to add balance to the assertion that Dylan had become a "born again Christian." There has simply been no reliable source put forth for that. That has a place in the article, but undue weight should not be given to it. I think the reverts from more than 5 hours ago were just an excuse. Bus stop18:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The block was put in place more than five hours after the last of those reversions. Do we live in the Information age? How long does it take to act on such a violation? Bus stop19:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. I have only made revisions to the article.
This is ridiculous. I have only made revisions to the article. Apparently I have offended some people by pointing out that they were introducing untruth into the article on Bob Dylan. There is no source whatsoever that Bob Dylan actually converted to Christianity. They have found biographers who have referred to Dylan's "conversion" and so they think that gives them license to blithely refer to his conversion. Similarly, writers have referred to him as a "born again Christian," so they think that provides them with a source to refer to Dylan in the article by that terminology. I have no objection to these things being pointed out. But they have to be balanced out against factual definitions. Misplaced Pages has articles on Conversion to Christianity, and other relevant articles. I merely argued to introduce balance into the article, and endeavored to rewrite a couple of paragraphs a few times. That is not reversion. That is attempting to rewrite in order to have all views represented. They can feel free to use terminology and language that puts the assertions of some Dylan biographers into a well balanced context. But that is apparently what they do not wish me to do. Bus stop18:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
You weren't blocked for trying to introduce balance, you were blocked for 3RR violation. If you believe there's something to be contributed and others disagree, it should be worked out on the talk page. And herein lies the problem: everyone thinks they're bettering an article. But breaking 3RR is simply forbidden. Part Deux18:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Have you looked at the article's Talk page? I do believe by word count my contribution to the Talk page of the Bob Dylan article exceeds that of anyone else's. Unfortunately, I didn't say anything about trying to improve the article. You should try to pay attention to what is said by others, before trying to respond to them. Bus stop18:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
unblock|This is pathetic. The reason for the block is over five hours old. The reason for the block concerns edits to one word in the lead paragraph. That is a bogus reason for blocking my edits.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
This is pathetic. The reason for the block is over five hours old. The reason for the block concerns edits to one word in the lead paragraph. That is a bogus reason for blocking my edits. The real reason is because I have been, since the time of the last of the cited edits of five hours ago, been making edits in the body of the article. That is the only reason I've been reported. Those are legitimate edits and it is those edits that someone wishes to block.
Decline reason:
Your claim that if you get away with violating WP:3RR for five hours, nobody is entitled to block you is quite disturbing. — Yamla20:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Yamla -- Are you equally disturbed that unsourced information is being written about a living person (Bob Dylan)? Are you aware of the following: all content must be verifiable.Bus stop 22:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Bus stop19:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
(→Netscott) -- There has been no edit warring. I use the Talk page. There has been just as much reversion by others as there has been by myself. Right now you can see an editor asserting that a blog page indicates Dylan's conversion and "born again" status. (When I look at the blog, it's guess what -- written by a born again Christian.) No one is particularly interested in what does or does not constitute "conversion." No one is particularly interested in whether a source is valid or not. They leap to conclusions that Dylan's momentary persona is the equivalent of actual conversion to Christianity. There may be some continuity between these things, and there may be a place to point that out in the article, but it calls for nuanced wording. Blatant references to Dylan's "conversion," without any balancing wording is out of place, in my opinion. Bus stop21:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
You were blocked for clearly violating 3RR. The diffs above are just some of your reverts during this period. That constitutes edit warring on your part. No other editor violated 3RR or they would have been blocked as well. Use of the talk page does not justify your behavior in any way. It does not excuse or provide a free pass for edit warring by you. However, an examination of the Dylan talk page does show that your views have been opposed by multiple editors. --JJay21:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
JJay -- It doesn't matter if other editors disagree with me. There is a rule as follows: unsourced information in biographies of living people can be removed immediately. Bus stop21:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
It's good that you brought up rules. You should review WP:3RR. The four diffs above show that you were not removing unsourced information. You were adding a statement concerning religion to the Bob Dylan article lead. Four editors objected to that, yet you persisted in your stubborn edit warring. That is why you are blocked. --JJay21:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
JJay -- You are correct about that. In that instance others were removing well sourced information. Thank you for pointing that out. Thank you for coming here to visit me on my Talk page. It is always a pleasure. (A pleistocene type of pleasure.) Bus stop21:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I've looked at the article and I understand the valid point you are making. You need to calm dowm a little bit about it. I think (→Netscott) has given you some great advice here. I'm coming to the conclusion, that I may have misjudged him - because it would certainly appear that despite all "our" differences, he's really trying to help you here. You can be as right as rain - but if you break the rules you diminish your position. I'm sure you didn't necessarily mean to break 3 RR, but that is what you did. Don't miss the forest for the trees. You can still argue your points on the page, while abiding by Misplaced Pages's rules. I think that you should appologize for inadvertantly breaking 3 RR and move on from here. You and I have seen far too many Wiki rules which are not enforced. It hurts when legitimate editors, like yourself, are blocked on a trivial first offense. That hurts. It's very obvious that you were engaging in legitimate talk page discussions on the matter. Unfortunately, an administrator has chosen to take a hard line approach on this matter - failing to recognize you for the good faith editor we all know you to be. Although JJay's manner and approach can be somewhat abrasive, I have little doubt that he is also trying to help you - in his own way. This, too, shall pass...Peace! Cleo12306:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
As of five minutes ago, on the Bob Dylan Talk page, we have an editor asserting that I am acting "hypocritically." This is the second time he has made that assertion. Of course, I can't respond, at this time. But throughout our interactions I can say I have been acting civilly. I have not made any personal attacks, as he or she is doing now. Bus stop19:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, busstop, I'm not trying to be uncivil when I mentioned you are asking us to provide sources (which we have, many time) while you provide no sources. My source was not "some blogger" but an article on the official bob dylan website. In any case, though, Mick Gold found a much better source, and posted it as a citation within the actual article - he also mentioned several others on the talk page. I'm sorry if you felt I was attacking you when I called you hypocritical, I didn't mean it in a hostile way. However, I was feeling pressured by your rocksolid perspective which was not supported by any external source, and to date, still isn't. all the best, SECProto23:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
As I said, Mick Gold found a different, much better source. And as I said, Countless sources state his becoming a born again catholic. I have never seen any source state something to the contrary - except you. You need to cough up a source. SECProto03:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
The Bob Dylan article is a biography of a living person. Guidelines say remove unsourced material in such cases. That is simple. There is no source saying that Bob Dylan actually converted to Christianity. The references that were in the article to his "conversion" are not supported by sources. I was perfectly understanding of a balanced approach -- indicating that some felt that there was a de facto conversion. (Not that I agree with this.) But you can see right now that on the Talk page the same assertion is being made that some blogger's reference to Dylan's conversion is a valid source for that claim. I do not believe the block against me is for the reason stated. The block against me is more likely because I was altering the article to remove unbalanced references to Dylan as a "born again Christian" and such. I do not like such point of view pushing, and no administrator at Misplaced Pages should countenance it either.
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
"Religious conversion" is a meaningless term in the hands of proselytizers pushing their point of view.
"Religious conversion" is a meaningless term in the hands of proselytizers pushing their point of view. Bus stop13:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
What are you saying? I can't even understand what you are trying to say.
Jimmy Wales has said:"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity:
''"Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia."
The Dylan "conversion" paragraph that all the fuss is over seems quite solid as of your (bus stop) last edit, except for the statement "No actual conversion process took place", which needs to be removed. --Knulclunk14:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Knulclunk -- There is zero source that any actual conversion process has taken place. Unless, of course, we accept the assertion of one of the editors there that it is an "internal" process, and therefore there can be no source for such a "process." Bus stop14:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
That maybe so, but if there is no source for the negative either, then we should not comment on it at all.
There are sources for:
Christianity ... imagery used on such albums as Slow Train Coming (1979), and "Gotta Serve Somebody" (1980).
Some publications asserted ... Christian.
Dylan won "Best Male Vocalist" for his song "Gotta Serve Somebody".
When touring from the fall of 1979 ... "sermonettes" on stage...
"Dylan's apparent embrace of mainstream religion irked some.
John Lennon, for example, recorded "Serve Yourself"...
But for Rolling Stone editor Jann Wenner...
In the 70s he became good friends with Christian singer Keith Green...
What don't you get about the fact that this wasn't a block based on the content of the article. You violated WP:3RR, which receives automatic blocking. Period. There's a saying (to which I will not link for WP:BITE issues): If you've been told something, especially by several people in the community, it might be wise to consider the possibility that it is true. BLP doesn't apply here. End of story. Part Deux15:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The blocking wasn't automatic. There was point of view pushing, and there was resistance to point of view pushing. Do you see any relation between the removal of Dylan's Jewish-American status in the lead and the insertion of Dylan's Christian conversion process in the body of the article? They are related. No matter how many "people in the community" you might bring to tell me the two are unrelated, I don't think it would sway my understanding of such a thing. One does not put on blinders and refuse to see what is eminently relevant. From the point that the following was posted, I made no further edits to the lead:
▪ It is not standard practice or really appropriate to reference religion in bio leads. No one here has supported your position to date. You have been reverted by a host of editors and have now violated 3RR. --JJay 14:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
For the next few hours I only made edits to the body of the article. I was rewriting the paragraphs to introduce some balance. The block was also related to that. Bus stop16:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes...and what you are persistently forgetting to mention is that you reverted the article lead 4x in less than 24 hours despite nine talk page messages from four editors who objected to your action. See . That is edit warring. It is why I reported you . It is the only reason you were blocked. Breaking 3RR will get you blocked consistently. You need to move beyond the denial stage and accept the reality of your actions. --JJay17:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not think that is why you reported me. I do not need to "move beyond" any "denial stage" because I do not accept that I am in any denial stage. I think you reported me because you found it frustrating to discuss the issue with me on the article's Talk page, and you did not want to make edits to the article at the same time that I was making edits to the article, and you did not like the outcome of the combined edits to the article of the other editors and myself, in the five hours that transpired from the time of my last edit to the lead and the time at which the block went into effect. I am not in denial, but perhaps you are. Bus stop17:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Your edits to Lists of converts to Christianity
In your edit here, you keep removing sourced material. Have you proven that these sources are not reliable? Have you participated in the Talk page of the article? No you have not. Why do you then ask other users to use the Talk pages when you are not? I'm reverting your change for now. I'm seeing other users are having issues with you as well. --Matt5705:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I also agree that your actions regarding this matter have been much less than completely rational. As I have stated, if you can point to any evidence in reliable published sources to rival the Encyclopedia Britannica and New York Times citations in place, then perhaps your contention would be one I would even support. However, without such sources, I believe that the sources already provided can be included, and should be included to ensure NPOV. John Carter18:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Born-again Christians don't have a formal ceremony that indicates conversion. Demanding proof that such a ceremony happened is a red-herring. The sources provided on the talk page prove that it happened. Arrow74004:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Arrow740 -- It is not a "red-herring." All that you are arguing is that the term "born-again" is without meaning. I will not address whether the term has meaning or not. But if you are arguing that the term has no meaning, then what justification could there be to pin it on someone? It is not just the term "born again." Dylan is blithely being referred to by some editors here as a "convert to Christianity." That terminology is not being given any qualification, either. Dylan is being categorically referred to as a "convert to Christianity" by some editors here. If, as you say, there is no formal ceremony, then on what basis are we making this leap in understanding to put a born Jew on a List of converts to Christianity? You have to come up with some basis for that. Not just figurative language, but some real, hard basis for assuming conversion. Change of religion is not a light issue. Yet you seem to be arguing that such a transition occurs based on nothing tangible. I feel that if there is nothing tangible to clearly indicate actual religious conversion, and so far no editor has been able to point to anything in that area, then isn't it just point of view pushing to put Dylan on a list of converts to Christianity? And I am hardly alone in this thinking. This has been debated considerably on the Talk page of the Bob Dylan article. In fact, I've joined this debate late. It was going on long before I began participation in it. Just look at this: Proposal - Remove Bob Dylan from Category:Converts to Christianity, which took place long before I got here. Bus stop16:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think 3R applies. For an extensive explanation, please see this on my Talk page. But, in a nutshell, Bob Dylan's status as a convert to Christianity is very much in debate, not just by me, but by many. (The previous link precedes my involvement in this issue.) I endeavored to do two things, engendering this block: 1) remove Dylan from List of converts to Christianity, and 2) add language after his name indicating that no real conversion ceremony or ritual can be pointed to by anyone. (This is a fact.) I think what I did is justified. WP:LIVING seems to me to say, for instance, "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Misplaced Pages, including user and talk pages." I request that you unblock me. Bus stop17:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Notes:
In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I don't think 3R applies. For an extensive explanation, please see ] on my Talk page. But, in a nutshell, ]'s status as a ] is very much in debate, not just by me, but by ]. (The previous link precedes my involvement in this issue.) I endeavored to do two things, engendering this block: 1) remove Dylan from ], and 2) add language after his name indicating that no real conversion ceremony or ritual can be pointed to by anyone. (This is a fact.) I think what I did is justified. ] seems to me to say, for instance, ''"Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Misplaced Pages, including user and talk pages."'' I request that you unblock me. ] 17:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=I don't think 3R applies. For an extensive explanation, please see ] on my Talk page. But, in a nutshell, ]'s status as a ] is very much in debate, not just by me, but by ]. (The previous link precedes my involvement in this issue.) I endeavored to do two things, engendering this block: 1) remove Dylan from ], and 2) add language after his name indicating that no real conversion ceremony or ritual can be pointed to by anyone. (This is a fact.) I think what I did is justified. ] seems to me to say, for instance, ''"Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Misplaced Pages, including user and talk pages."'' I request that you unblock me. ] 17:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=I don't think 3R applies. For an extensive explanation, please see ] on my Talk page. But, in a nutshell, ]'s status as a ] is very much in debate, not just by me, but by ]. (The previous link precedes my involvement in this issue.) I endeavored to do two things, engendering this block: 1) remove Dylan from ], and 2) add language after his name indicating that no real conversion ceremony or ritual can be pointed to by anyone. (This is a fact.) I think what I did is justified. ] seems to me to say, for instance, ''"Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Misplaced Pages, including user and talk pages."'' I request that you unblock me. ] 17:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
WP:LIVING states: Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Misplaced Pages page. Such material requires a degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to our content policies: Verifiability, Neutral point of view (NPOV), No original research. We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The burden of evidence for any edit on Misplaced Pages, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material. Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Misplaced Pages, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Misplaced Pages:Libel. Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion. Jimmy Wales has said: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity: "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia."
Given the above, why does it presently say next to Bob Dylan on List of converts to Christianity: "Bob Dylan - popular musician (current religious status disputed)?" And equally important, why is his name on the List of converts to Christianity if his "religious status disputed?" Shouldn't his name at least be provisionally removed from the list until this issue is resolved? WP:LIVING seems to clearly say this. Concerning Bob Dylan, all of the editors involved in many days of discussion agree that no actual conversion to Christianity ever took place. I am stating that more forcefully than many others would state it, but in many days of discussion no editor has found any source indicating any event constituting conversion. There has been no citing for such hallmark signs of conversion as Baptism, religious ritual, public and/or formal acceptance of the new religion. All arguments have been based on the figurative use of language that is in abundance in many sources. Obviously sources are going to refer to his "born again phase" and his "conversion." But that is no reason for Misplaced Pages to put him in a List of converts to Christianity. (Lists and articles are different in several significant ways.) This is not just my issue, either. This has been hotly debated here, here, here, here, and here. And there are many additional places where this contentious issue has been debated. Given this atmosphere, why does Dylan remain on the List of converts to Christianity?
Here we have people using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox to advocate for the recognition of a Jewish convert to Christianity. WP:SOAPBOX says: "Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Misplaced Pages articles are not propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." A list is unlike an article in a very important way. In an article more than one point of view can be conveyed. Not so with a list. A list is an either/or situation. Either a name is on a list or a name is not on a list. Given that dispute, why does Dylan's name remain on the List of converts to Christianity? Shouldn't that information be deleted immediately? Why was I blocked for trying to either alter the comment next to Dylan's name on that list or trying to remove his name from that list entirely? Isn't this issue sufficiently in dispute for at least temporarily removing Dylan's name from that list? My personal opinion is that the List of converts to Christianity should be deleted in it's entirety. My personal opinion is that it's raison d'être is crowing over converts, so I simply find it in poor taste. But I have not let my personal opinions guide me in attempting to specifically modify Dylan's relationship to the List of converts to Christianity.
I don't think I've violated much, if any, Misplaced Pages policy because of WP:LIVING, above, especially that: "Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Misplaced Pages, including user and talk pages," and also that: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles."
While making my edits to remove and/or modify the "poorly sourced" information I also made considerable use of the Talk pages on both the Bob Dylan article and the List of converts to Christianity article. My edits have been made in good faith, to try to improve Misplaced Pages, and I have not spoken in an uncivil manner toward anyone. I think blocking me from editing is uncalled for, and I request that I be unblocked at this time. Bus stop 15:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your request is much too long. Please be more concise. Admins are volunteers and have limited time, especially for a block of only 31 hours. — Sandstein16:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
A statement from me (concerning this most recent block to my account)
WP:LIVING states: Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Misplaced Pages page. Such material requires a degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to our content policies: Verifiability, Neutral point of view (NPOV), No original research. We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The burden of evidence for any edit on Misplaced Pages, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material. Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Misplaced Pages, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Misplaced Pages:Libel. Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion. Jimmy Wales has said: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity: "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia."
Given the above, why does it presently say next to Bob Dylan on List of converts to Christianity: "Bob Dylan - popular musician (current religious status disputed)?" And equally important, why is his name on the List of converts to Christianity if his "religious status disputed?" Shouldn't his name at least be provisionally removed from the list until this issue is resolved? WP:LIVING seems to clearly say this. Concerning Bob Dylan, all of the editors involved in many days of discussion agree that no actual conversion to Christianity ever took place. I am stating that more forcefully than many others would state it, but in many days of discussion no editor has found any source indicating any event constituting conversion. There has been no citing for such hallmark signs of conversion as Baptism, religious ritual, public and/or formal acceptance of the new religion. All arguments have been based on the figurative use of language that is in abundance in many sources. Obviously sources are going to refer to his "born again phase" and his "conversion." But that is no reason for Misplaced Pages to put him in a List of converts to Christianity. (Lists and articles are different in several significant ways.) This is not just my issue, either. This has been hotly debated here, here, here, here, and here. And there are many additional places where this contentious issue has been debated. Given this atmosphere, why does Dylan remain on the List of converts to Christianity?
Here we have people using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox to advocate for the recognition of a Jewish convert to Christianity. WP:SOAPBOX says: "Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Misplaced Pages articles are not propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." A list is unlike an article in a very important way. In an article more than one point of view can be conveyed. Not so with a list. A list is an either/or situation. Either a name is on a list or a name is not on a list. Given that dispute, why does Dylan's name remain on the List of converts to Christianity? Shouldn't that information be deleted immediately? Why was I blocked for trying to either alter the comment next to Dylan's name on that list or trying to remove his name from that list entirely? Isn't this issue sufficiently in dispute for at least temporarily removing Dylan's name from that list? My personal opinion is that the List of converts to Christianity should be deleted in it's entirety. My personal opinion is that it's raison d'être is crowing over converts, so I simply find it in poor taste. But I have not let my personal opinions guide me in attempting to specifically modify Dylan's relationship to the List of converts to Christianity.
I don't think I've violated much, if any, Misplaced Pages policy because of WP:LIVING, above, especially that: "Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Misplaced Pages, including user and talk pages," and also that: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles."
While making my edits to remove and/or modify the "poorly sourced" information I also made considerable use of the Talk pages on both the Bob Dylan article and the List of converts to Christianity article. My edits have been made in good faith, to try to improve Misplaced Pages, and I have not spoken in an uncivil manner toward anyone. I think blocking me from editing is uncalled for, and I request that I be unblocked at this time. Bus stop15:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for having made your own complete and utter failure to abide by NPOV clear above. I quote you above: " personal opinion is that it's raison d'être is crowing over converts, so I simply find it in poor taste." Nobody really cares about your personal opinion, despite the fact that is your basic reason for your edits. In this case, your "personal opinion" and your own insistence upon acting upon it is a clear violation of WP:AGF and is inherently a violation of WP:NPOV. You don't like the Encyclopedia Britannica and the New York Times, but a music reviewer in Rolling Stone you see as an unimpeachable source? Hello? There are proper ways to handle such disputes, and they have been enacted, not by you by the way. Personally, I have no objections to your remaining an active editor, but your clear POV in this matter makes you clearly unqualified to work with this subject. I note that the only project you see yourself as a contributor to is Visual Arts, and that you seem to have some more basic familiarity with it than with matters of religion. I respectfully suggest that you confine your future edits to subjects which you know better than you do Christianity, which you seem to be at best ill-informed about. I wish no harm to you or anyone else, but your own ill-informed and unilateral actions are what get you in trouble. Please learn from these events, and don't put yourself in the situation where your actions will get you into trouble again. John Carter18:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
John Carter -- I also said, "But I have not let my personal opinions guide me in attempting to specifically modify Dylan's relationship to the List of converts to Christianity." Did you notice that?
And, what are you referring to when you say, "but a music reviewer in Rolling Stone you see as an unimpeachable source?" Did I say something about a music reviewer in Rolling Stone being an unimpeachable source? Maybe you are mixing me up with someone else. I don't recall saying that.
As for my being qualified or unqualified to involve myself in the articles and issues that we are discussing, I don't think that is for you alone to say. I notice that some other people have supported my point of view. I recall a couple of comments from others explicitly saying they agree with one point or another that I made. So, thank you for your discouragement, but I think I will participate in Misplaced Pages where my interests lead me. I think that is consonant with the basic philosophy of Misplaced Pages and also consonant with common sense. I live my life pursuing those subjects that spark my interest. Try it some time. You might like it.
One more thing: This dispute was going on long before I got here. I doubt if I've even added anything new to it. The Talk page of the Bob Dylan article is chock full of disputations concerning the placement of Bob Dylan in the List of converts to Christianity article. That leads me to believe my thoughts on the matter are not so off base. Bus stop18:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Then at least bother to learn something about those matters which "interest" you before deciding that wikipedia has to abide by your own ill-informed opinions. And try to learn something about the in-place dispute resolution process. It might even prevent you from being barred again. How many times has it been now? I would have thought that you might have learned something simply on the basis of having been repeatedly barred. Evidently I was mistaken. John Carter18:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
John Carter -- I try not to carry on conversations in the abstract. I like to speak in concrete terms, so that me and the person I am talking with, both know exactly what we are talking about. I don't appreciate your attempts to berate and belittle me. But if there is a specific issue you want to address in a specific way, I would be glad to respond to you. But I think your comments are just about attacking me, rather than addressing issues. Please try to focus on an issue; please try not to make ad hominem attacks. Bus stop19:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
"But I have not let my personal opinions guide me in attempting to specifically modify Dylan's relationship to the List of converts to Christianity."
Well, if you say so. On the contrary, you've said a few things which make your claims of neutrality in editing seem a little bit questionable. Let's take a look at some of "Bus stop's Greatest Hits":
From an edit to the article itself: "Untrue and unsourced and slanderous information should be removed IMMEDIATELY: Dylan is NOT a convert to Christianity, and does NOT belong on this list." See the diff here.
"Unsourced"... There are 9 sources listed, another which is from a Jewish site and is discussed on the talk page, there is a New York Times article (broken link, however) and there is an excerpt from the Encyclopedia Britannica.
"Slanderous"... It's slanderous to list someone as a convert to Christianity because we have 12 sources which all essentially affirm that he converted in some manner (ritually or through simple belief, most evidence to the latter), some of which go into great detail in regards to the events leading up to his conversion (change of belief), and some which detail the conflict between his new beliefs and those of his Jewish/Non-religious friends and fans. How is this slanderous? On the contrary, you have been focusing more on arguing with the sources present than adding sources which clearly and unequivocally state (as this appears to be your standard for sources) that Dylan did not convert to Christianity, and that it was simple an artist's 'persona'.
Note that it would have been incredibly simple to add a note which said "(conversion disputed)".
"We need a reliable source if we are going to say a Jew converted to Christianity."
What constitutes a 'reliable' source? Encyclopedia Britannica? Additionally, it seems here that you're most bothered by the simple fact that a Jew might have become a Christian. As if thousands of people aren't converting from one religion to another each and every day. Jews become Christians every day, Christians become Jews, Jews become Muslims, Muslims become Christians, etc. People have endless reasons for converting. It doesn't mean Judaism is inferior.
"Christianity considers it a triumph to convert a Jew to Christianity."
Ah, yes. I remember at our last J.C. (Jew Conversion), trumpets were blown, hymns were sung, and we spent the rest of the weekend throwing a festival in light of the occasion. Please.
I'm sure many Christians consider it a triumph for anyone to convert to Christianity, as do Muslims consider it a triumph for anyone to convert to Islam, and I'm sure many other religions, including Judaism, consider it a triumph when someone "finds the truth".
Your characterization of Christians makes it quite clear that you have probably had bad experiences with insincere or fanatical Christians. I could be wrong, however.
"I don't think we should be pushing the untenable point of view that Christianity has won a victory over a Jew as concerns the world to come or any such nonsense (my opinion)."
Once again, you are characterizing Christianity as being very simple and antagonistic. My last girlfriend was very, very Jewish, but I could care less whether or not she converted to Christianity, even though I make attempts so that we can understand each other's faiths. I (and most other Christians) are not on any sort of crusade to "defeat" Judaism, nor do we view faith and religion in such simple terms.
"Reliable sources are required. Most of the sources provided are Christian sources, or they are secondary sources. They are mired in the agenda of proselytizing."
From WP:NOR:
"Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Misplaced Pages, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them...
An historian's interpretation of the decline of the Roman Empire, or analysis of the historical Jesus, constitute secondary sources. Misplaced Pages articles should rely on reliable, verifiable, published secondary sources wherever possible....
Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases)."
Secondary sources are actually preferred. Additionally, a site is not unreliable simply because it has a religious bias. The site itself must be assessed independently from that assumption. As you claimed the sources were unreliable, I presented them for everyone to see on this talk page, so that we can assess which sources are actually unreliable and remove them.
You seem to believe that any Christian source cannot be trusted, as it is "mired in the agenda of proselytizing". It seems that you believe that any Christian that contributes to or runs a website is mainly concerned with warping facts in order to gain more converts.
Using that logic, simply because some Muslims vandalize and remove large sections from Criticisms of Islam in the interest of improving the appearance of their religion, we shouldn't trust any Muslim editors. After all, anything they write is probably "mired in the agenda of proselytizing", right?
"He was born a Jew and firm evidence should be required to dislodge him from that status, even temporarily."
This applies to any person converting to another religion from their birth religion. You seem to feel that Judaism is a magic religion which holds on to its adherents with an iron grip. You surely remember that 'Jew' is not only a religious term, but also a cultural (or racial) one. Many of the Jews I know are hardly religious, and I've spoken to many who participate in many of the rituals and celebrations, but do not even believe in a 'personal God'. This doesn't mean that they are no longer culturally 'Jews'. Many Jewish Christians (Messianics and such) believe that they are still Jewish, culturally and often even religiously. To them, there is no real conflict between their Christian and Jewish beliefs (I believe one of the sources states that this was Bob Dylan's belief).
For us in the Jewish community, anyone who claims that Jesus is their savior is no longer a Jew and is an apostate. Through that belief has placed self outside the Jewish community. Whether cares to define herself as a Christian or as a 'fulfilled Jew,' 'Messianic Jew,' or any other designation is irrelevant; to us, is clearly a Christian."
As there is a wide range of beliefs in the religion of Christianity, we must adopt a general definition if we are to accurately maintain the List of converts to Christianity. Many Christians would not define Catholics as 'Christians', and yet there is (of course) no dispute on whether or not they should be included in this list. So must it be for "Jewish Christians", Judaizing Christians", and "Messianic Jews". The shared belief in Jesus as the Christ, and as the last messenger of God, or as God himself, makes these people Christians. I include the second part of that definition to exclude Muslims, and since not all Christians believe that Jesus is the only way to salvation, that can not be a guideline.
"There are accountings of his re-involvement with Jewish rituals such as attending upon regularly recurring holidays of the Jewish calendar, since that time."
It seems clear that you didn't read the Jewsweek (a Jewish newsletter) source which includes apologetic passages explaining that many Jewish Christians still participate in Jewish festivals and ceremonies. If this was a Christian publication, you would undoubtedly claim that it's apologetic stance on your above assumption was "mired in the agenda of proselytizing"... am I correct?
From the Jewsweek article:
Even Mitch Glaser, the man who distributed gospel tracts for Jews for Jesus at Dylan's 1979 shows in San Francisco, wasn't disturbed by Dylan's presence at such a special event: "Well, first of all, the fact that he attended, or paid for, or encouraged his son's bar mitzvah, this would be normal for a Jewish dad. The fact is, there's a real bad presumption in all this: and that is that when you become a believer in Jesus, you don't have a bar mitzvah. And that is really, for the most part, false. I mean, I had a bat mitzvah for my daughters, and I would say lots of Messianic Jews have bar mitzvahs for their kids. And so that's not disturbing at all."
"In keeping with the nature of religion it would involve ritual. All of those factors are absent from your conveniently vague standards for conversion to Christianity."
Phrases like that make it seem as if we editors are somehow conspiring with each other to intentionally use ambiguous sources to 'pump up' the list. Yes, I suppose Dylan's personal quotations about Jesus being the one who saves, or his quote about Jesus being the only way to God are conveniently vague enough for us to 'insidiously' slip him into the list. Please assume good faith.
Additionally, it has already been argued by myself and others that not all of Christianity is ritualistic, and some do not even require any outward "expressions of faith". Many non-denominational Christians do not even think it is necessary to go to church, and some Christians believe (quite erroneously, in my opinion) that no change of lifestyle is required, by incorporating the beliefs that "salvation is by faith alone, not works" and that "salvation cannot be lost".
"We do not assume a Jew converts to Christianity. We assume the opposite. We are only swayed to accept that a Jew has converted to Christianity when standards of conversion have been met."
Again, this should be more general. We do not automatically assume that anyone has converted to any religion. It seems that you are assigning preferential standards for Judaism. This, essentially, makes Judaism seem superior to other religions. It is like the case of Abdul Rahman, where many considered him mentally incompetent because he would not renounce Christianity in the face of the death penalty. In this case, Islam is viewed as superior, and anyone willing to die for Christianity must be considered 'insane'. This is a rather ridiculous assumption. By expressing such strong disbelief that a Jew could convert to Christianity, you make the same basic assumption that the Afghans do: that one religion is superior, and conversion from it is hardly believable.
"Jews have been willing to lose their lives rather than convert to Christianity, historically. Therefore our assumption has to be that conversion has not taken place, unless reasonably convincing evidence to the contrary can be brought to the table."
Welcome to Christianity 101: The Martyrs. This doesn't mean that we should scrutinize claims of Christians converting to other faiths simply because "Christians have been willing to lose their lives rather than convert to another faith, historically".
The argument against preferential assumptions applies here as well. Interestingly, "reasonably convincing evidence" is a rather misleading, unclear statement, as many of the other editors as well as myself find the evidence "reasonably convincing". You happen to be the one who applies increasingly high standards in your disbelief, despite the presentation of more evidence which we happen to find "reasonably convincing"
"The Church is an institution. It has ways of accomplishing tasks. Dylan is a Jew. Stop pretending he converted to Christianity. That is advocacy."
We've already been over the fact that Christianity is not monolithic. As it stands, it is several, if not many, institutions, and it has a large variety of ways to "accomplish tasks". As stated, many churches and individual believers do not even belong to any of these official 'institutions', and do not adhere to the strict guidelines for "accomplishing tasks". I use to belong to one of these churches.
And again, you need to assume good faith. We are working off sources which we believe contain "reasonably convincing evidence" that Dylan was, in fact, a Christian- if only for a short period of time. And considering that you've spent much more time arguing against our "reasonably convincing evidence" than providing evidence of your own, it seems that we aren't the ones 'pretending'.
"It is preposterous to list him as a Christian convert, and it is abusing Misplaced Pages for advocacy purposes, which is against WP:SOAP."
Preposterous? We believe we have "reasonably convincing evidence". We are acting in good faith. We are not conspiring to trick people into converting to Christianity by listing their 'hero' on the List of converts to Christianity page. Additionally, you assume that the editors who are in opposition to you are Christians with the interest of proselytizing.
"No reliable, high profile publication, makes note in a straightforward manner of the religious conversion of such an eminently newsworthy person."
What is 'high profile'? Jewsweek? New York Times? The Encyclopedia Britannica?
How would it "make note in a straightforward manner"? Perhaps it would explicitly say, "he converted"?
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica: "In a dramatic turnabout, he converted to Christianity in 1979 and for three years recorded and performed only religious material, preaching between songs at live shows."
"If Encyclopedia Britannica got it wrong so be it."
Apparently, the Encyclopedia Britannica's researchers found "reasonably convincing evidence" for Dylan's conversion.
"The articles of the Britannica are aimed at educated adult readers, and written by a staff of 19 full-time editors and over 4,000 expert contributors. It is widely considered to be the most scholarly of encyclopedias."
It's too bad we'll have to part from the conclusions reached by Encyclopedia Britannica in favor of Bus stop's expert analysis.
I'm not claiming that the Encyclopedia Britannica is never wrong, but I find it hard to believe that from amongst a "staff of 19 full-time editors and over 4,000 expert contributors", not a single one has run into claims similar to Bus stop's. It is almost certain that they have, and it is almost certain that they found sufficient evidence to consider Dylan's conversion as authentic, if only for those few years.
Please assume good faith in our edits. There is equal reason to assume that you are advocating your position, rather than acting in a neutral fashion. --C.Logan00:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Bus stop, please come down from your pillar of rectitude!
Much to my shock, I see your name pop up at the community sanction noticeboard, which is generally reserved for persons of ill repute. Since you had the good sense to vote on the same side as me in a recent AfD debate, I figure you must have judgment and excellent personal qualities. So why are you out of control in the matter of Bob Dylan? I actually agree with you on Bob Dylan, but violating 3RR is a good way to go downhill fast. Please learn how to work the system, it's not that bad, and if we didn't have 3RR we would be in chaos. Please calm down for a bit and then try to find people who have common sense on the Dylan matter; there are probably thousands of them out there. EdJohnston20:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
EdJohnston -- 1) You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
2) What AfD debate are you referring to? I don't recall.
3) It certainly sounds like some want to silence dissent.
4) By the way, if you agree with me on Bob Dylan, why don't you express that in the discussions on the two relevant pages? Bus stop20:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
To speak in the "concrete" terms you prefer, there are many recognized churches, the Salvation Army among them, which do not have the formal ceremony of admittance which you seem to believe is an absolute requirement for describing someone as a Christian. On that basis, your entire argument along those lines collapses. This is why I told you that you might like to actually know something about a subject before pontificating about it. Evidently, however, you prefer to just revert sourced content from others, including from what are generally regarded as the most reliable sources extant, if they disagree with your own expressed preconceptions. Frankly, I cannot imagine that there is any further point in communicating with you, and think that your repeated failure to observe wikipedia policies, WP:3RR primary among them, may well make the point moot in any event. Good bye and good day. John Carter20:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
John Carter -- Why do you make all of the convenient assumptions? Aren't you conveniently assuming that only the factors that support your case apply? Isn't it as likely that a different Church than the one you are assuming was involved in the supposed Bob Dylan conversion? This is an encyclopedia. We deal in facts. We rely on verifiability. And where differing or conflicting information exists, we make allowance for that. Are you going to make the argument that whether we know or not these relevant facts that nevertheless Bob Dylan should be included in the List of converts to Christianity? Bus stop 21:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Bus stop21:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Artist Jew Christian Dylan
Is this just an issue involving Christians? Or does this involve Jews as well? How about artists? Do you think it might not involve artists as well? Who are you to say that an artist, a performing artist, can't assume the identity of a Christian without it constituting conversion?
User:Bus stop.Maybe this doesn't belong here, but I don't know where else to take this. The above user above has been blocked from editing three or four times now for three reversions of content on pages related to Bob Dylan, specifically regarding his conversion to Christianity in the late 1970's-early 1980's. Sources for that conversion include the Encyclopedia Britannica and New York Times and a published book of his own Christian statements from the stage. He cites "absence of a high profile publication is clear proof that no conversion took place." Evidently none of the above qualify, and in his eyes absence of evidence is clear prove nothing happened. User seeks to see some evidence of a formal sacramental initiation into Christianity, evidently not knowing or caring that several branches of Christianity do not use such practices, or perhaps believing that those Christians should not be classified as such. User has also questioned the good faith of editors seeking to insert such sourced material, using phrases such as "His Jewish heritage doesn't go out the window because he felt like exploring Christianity in 1979", Request user be blocked from editing the pages Bob Dylan, List of converts to Christianity, and List of Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians, as those three pages would seem to contain the only content which causes him to engage in these repeated reversions and other POV matters, that being questions about Dylan's conversion to some form of Christianity. User:Name removed by me19:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)''
Isn't is a contrivingly narrow approach to take to the entirety of this issue? Why is this only being portrayed as an issue involving Christians? Isn't that a pretty narrow approach? Contrary to what is asserted above, I've argued for only one point: that Dylan be removed from the List of converts to Christianity. Bus stop00:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Copied from Community Sanction Noticeboard:
I believe User:Warlordjohncarter account of events is somewhat misleading. For the most part, I have merely been watching this dispute from the sidelines. I, myself, also questioned the information in the article a few days back because the primary source for this information appeared to be a blog. The New York Times reference has only recently been added (after Bus stop's 1st block) thanks to his persistent requests for citations. It seems that User:Bus stop is legitimately concerned with WP:BLP issues. Editors on the "converted Christian" side of the fence seem to be perpetuating a possible misconception in the article, which seems to have struck a nerve with User:Bus stop. He seems to feel that he is addressing a libel issue that is exempt from 3RR. Regardless, he has behaved improperly and I do not defend him on that. I will say, however, that this is shockingly out of character.
I am concerned by User:Warlordjohncarter's statements above. Having followed these discussions, I find it very implausible that JohnCarter accidentally misrepresented User:Bus stop's block history. User:Bus stop has created a lot of work for the other editors by challenging their position. I can understand why they might want him - or his view - blocked from the page. I do not see User:Bus stop's request for evidence of a formal sacramental initiation as at all unreasonable. I'd like to see some myself! I know of no branches of Christianity that do not require converts to be formally baptized in Christ. It is a fundamental part of Christianity required by all denominations. User:Warlordjohncarter has taken User:Bus stop's statements out of context portraying him in the most unreasonable light possible. I know User:Bus stop to be a very rational and civil editor by and large. He was a significant contributor on the highly contentious Michael Richards article and is most capable of working productively and positively within the community's guidelines and policies. Hopefully, he will take advantage of this block as an opportunity to calm down."
It looks like you're becomming the subject of a witch hunt. Is it really worth it? Maybe you should step back from this a little bit and chill? Just some friendly advice. Peace, Cleo12302:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Cleo, besides non-denominational Christian communities and individuals (which lack any unified structure and are heterogeneous in their beliefs), one such denomination which does not practice baptism is the Salvation Army. The Baptism page also notes that "a few Christian groups assert that water-based baptism has been supplanted by the promised baptism of the Holy Spirit, and water baptism was unnecessarily carried over from the early Jewish Christian practice."
My old (non-denominational) church held baptisms, but no one was required to take part. I never took part in any real statement of faith, and I considered myself a Christian then. No one argued with me.
Of course, the Salvation Army functions like a military organization, so there is some sort of conversion process. However, it is important to note that this denomination, which has over 100,000 adherents (according to their 2006 yearbook), does not see baptism as a necessity, nor do they encourage the practice of it. --C.Logan02:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
