Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bus stop (talk | contribs) at 21:37, 28 April 2007 (→Request for comment: response to patsw). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 Nov 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 Mar 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Claims of conversion

This list is of little value - this list seems very POV and impossible to verify - as are all claims of conversion even within the Christian church. Should have been deleted.Brian0324 14:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What brings you to this conclusion?--C.Logan 19:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a ponderous list of people. Sooner or later it would have to include everyone who claimed to be a Christian for one reason or another. Where does it end?Brian0324 20:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can follow through to your argument. This page exists as a simple reference to notable individuals who have converted from any faith to Christianity. It's really not "impossible to verify"... just click the Wiki-links to the individual pages, or the references placed here. The page exists for the same reason the other religious conversion pages exist, and for the same reason pages like List of vegetarian celebrities exist. It simply provides a convenient list of notable people based around a certain subject. It provides a footstool to reaching useful information about a person: for example, a student doing a project on religious conversion. I'm surprised that you believe this page should have been deleted, when there are pages which are much more obscure and useless hiding in the far corners of the Wiki-verse.--C.Logan 20:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Christian or Protestant

Nowhere does it say if they converted to Catholicism or just to one of the heretical 'faiths' called christianity. It's all a load of bollocks anyway, your dead family members and friends are dead, just lumps of meat now, get over it.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.70.244.164 (talk) 07:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Articles for Deletion debate

it seems that saying some one converted to christianity is a great temptation specially to say a muslim converted to christianity, no word can be sure without knowing the name of his mother and her faith as we see she was white and verry white acording to his writings was she a christian??? i dont know. if she divorced his muslem father when this guy was 2 years old! then christianity will have a cristal clear evidence that she can convert 2 year old children raised as christian!! the temtation cames from the name hussein as if this person born muslim raised muslim and lived islam then he decided to convert at 40 years old after too much studies! matter of fact he beleves in christianity becouse it is an easy non demanding cult that ask u ,to do non ,and think non,just say jesus christ he forgive u for raping !! why to think in what u dont care what it says! since u have not to folow any scripture offered by christianity not even the event of divorce!!! do we have a list of who converted to each other faith?

Hello. Please learn more about Christianity before ranting nonsensically here. Thanks!--C.Logan 20:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Barak Obama

I dont think this is a valid case of conversion. Barakh was never raised as a muslim to begin with. At 2 he had little influence whatsover to even understand Islam or muslims.

Despite the above unsigned contributor's assertion, Senator Obama's parents were Muslim and he was converted to Christianity. The list isn't "list of converts to Christianity on their own volition at a late age," but rather it is "List of converts to Christianity." Senator Obama should be on this list, and I have re-added his name. 65.66.149.215 15:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, his mother was Christian, and his father was an Agnostic from a Muslim background; also, his stepfather from his mother's remarriage was a non-practicing Muslim. I think it's valid to include him on the list, however.--C.Logan 22:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Kerokou and George Weah were both born Christian, converted to Islam, then converted back. Should this be mentioned in parenthesis? "(Converted to Islam, then back to Christianity)" This is what it says for these people on the Converts to Islam page. Fkh82 23:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed Obama from the list. I've also removed the following quote, which an anonymous user added to the introduction: Barak Obama was never a Muslim, in his book he states that his father was a Muslim who later became atheist, his mother had no religious preferences and observed different religions, and he later became christian. There is an excerpt from his book on Time magazine on the October 23, 2006 issue where Barak Obama explains this. - I've moved this quote here, as I don't think it belongs in the article itself. David Cannon 04:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Barack Obama IS a convert from Islam to Christianity. Although not raised specifically religiously, and his father LATER became an atheist, he was a Muslim. He was circumcised as a Muslim, and his father was a practicing Muslim until he became an atheist. After graduating from college and while living in Chicago, Obama was baptized as a Christian in the United Church of Christ. Therefore, he is a convert from Islam to Christianity and rightly should be included on this list. See . Accordingly, I have added him again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.28.3.218 (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

There is an excerpt from Barak's Obama's book in Time Magazine's October 23, 2006 issue, where Barak Obama himself states that his father was a Muslim who later became an athiest, his mother was never a Muslim, and she did not follow any particular religion and was wary of any organized religion. His father divorced his mother when he was two and was almost entirely absent from his childhood so he obviouly did not have not have a great influence on his life. Barak Obama was never a Muslim to begin with, he himself has said that he was never raised a Muslim, just because he has Muslim sounding name does not mean he was a Muslim, so why do people insist that he was a former Muslim who converted to Christianity? Therefore he should be deleted from the list as a convert to Christianity from Islam and maybe be added to the list of Athiesim to Christianity if it makes you happy.

Unsigned contributor, you stated "his father was a Muslim who later became an atheist." So, Barack Obama's father was a Muslim. In fact, according to the cited sources, his father did not convert away from Islam until after he was born. He was initiated into Islam (he was circumcised as a Muslim). Under Muslim law, Obama therefore was a Muslim (see Who is a Jew? for the application of a similar cultural phenomenon on Misplaced Pages). When he was baptized as a Christian after college, he therefore became an apostate under Muslim law and converted to Christianity. Therefore, as cited, Barack Obama is a convert from Islam to Christianity. He rightly should be included on this list. And BTW, please sign your posts. 65.28.3.218 03:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The logic above is ridiculous and wrong, In his book excerpt in Times Magazine, October 23, 2006 issue Barak Obama himself states that his mother was a former Christian who took him to church, a Buddhist temple, Chinese New years celebration and Shinto Shrines on Easter's and Christmas. His mother had the Bible, Koran, and the Bhagavad Gita, next to books of Greek, Norse, and African mythology. He wrote in his book that his mother taught him that religion was an expression of human culture, just a way to control the unknowable and understand the deeper truths about our lives. Barack Obama's father left him at the age of two, he himself has said his father did not have much influence on his life. He also states in his book that by the time his father met his mother he was a confirmed atheist, thinking religion to be so much superstition. This means that Barak's Obama's father was an atheist even before Barak Obama was born. So what you stated above about him being initiated into Islam by his father is completely false. According to Islamic law, one must accept Allah as the one and only god and accept Muhammad has His messenger (known as the shahada), Barak Obama never did that. Unless you can provide a respected and reliable source where he himself claims that he was a Muslim, because that website (virginiavirtuecon.wordpress.com) you posted does not seem reliable to me, I do not think that most people has even heard of that website, and that article in that website just has nonsense right wing neo-conservative opinions and viewpoints, it has no statements or analysis from Barak Obama himself, unlike the article I am using from Times Magazine, there is no point in adding him to a list as a former Muslim. I do not know why you insist that he is a former Muslim, maybe to use him as false Anti-Muslim propaganda (which is a tactic of many Christian missionaries) to convert Muslims to your religion, because he seems to be the only well known person on this list, but it is inaccurate and false to add him on this list and therefore his name and picture should be removed. I also do not know why you want me to see the Who is a Jew? article, Islam and Judaism are 2 different religions, although I have not read the article I heard that someone is technically Jewish if he/she is born from a Jewish mother, Barak Obama's mother was a former Christian, so I guess judging from your logic, Barak Obama was always a Christian to begin with. Also being a Muslim is not an ethnicity like being a Jew is. So stop pretending that you know about Islamic Law, because you clearly do not, and accept the fact that you are wrong. Its obvious to me that you only want Obama's name in the list as a propaganda tool to convert Muslims to your religion, because clearly no one else on the list is as famous as him. It shows that there is an hidden Anti-Muslim bias by Christian editors of this page. Wraith12 18:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Wraith12

Wow, I'm not quite sure where to begin with your comment, Wraith12. First of all, this article is not "a propaganda tool to convert Muslims to your religion," any more than List of converts to Islam, List of converts to Judaism, or List of converts to Hinduism are tools for conversion to those religions. Heck, I began the Hinduism list and reformatted the Judaism list so all the lists are standardized. They were never about converting anyone to anything. Instead, as has been said time and time again (see the bottom of this discussion page), these are excellent research tools for anyone trying to research people who had converted from one religion to another. The lists help the researcher find examples of other people similarly situated. People have diverse reasons for converting between religions; these pages provided nexuses for anyone resarching those reasons. All the lists have some fairly unsavory people. Also, I think that Carlos Menem, the former president of Argentina, is a more famous person than a US Senator from Illinois - perhaps not to Americans, but definitely on a worldwide scale.

All that being said, you really should review Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, Misplaced Pages:Civility, and Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. Obviously, you have one definition of the "Who is a Muslim?" question. That's why I linked to Who is a Jew?. I know very well the differences between Jewish identity and Muslim identity. The allegory was not to suggest that traditional Sharia states that the two are the same, that the two are measured by matrilineal descent, or any other similarity; it was simply that there are controversies about both. Under Sharia, he who is born of a Muslim father, regardless of whether he is an apostate, is a Muslim. In Saudi Arabia, Iran, and many other Muslim countries, a person who converts to another religion whose father was a Muslim is considered an apostate (see Apostasy in Islam), and if found guilty of apostasy is liable to be put to death. Those countries consider any person whose father was a Muslim to be a Muslim, per traditional Sharia. According to their definition, Barack Obama was a Muslim when he was born. So, as in the Who is a Jew? question, there are a variety of answers. Under several theories, Barack Obama was a convert from Islam to Christianity. Apparently many people share this outlook about Senator Obama's birth and eventual baptism after he finished college. , , , , .

So, in proper Wikipedian fashion, I propose a compromise. Barack Obama should be included on this list, but with a disclaimer saying that some people disagree with that characterization. Therefore, all viewpoints will be covered, and this truly will be NPOV. I have changed the article accordingly. 65.28.3.218 01:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

65.28.3.218, The sources that you provided were not neutral, nor were they reliable, you only provided nonsense right-wing, neo-conservative, bigoted, intolerant Anti-Muslim blog websites, Just like the website you posted earlier, none of them had statements from Barak Obama himself. It's seems to me that you have an Anti-Muslim bias considering you get your information from these sites. No Muslim considers Barak Obama to be an apostate because he was never born or raised as a Muslim to begin with. The definition of a Muslim, is a person who follow the religion of Islam, meaning one must believe in Allah as the only god and follow the teachings of Prophet Muhammad. Barak Obama never mentioned anywhere that he followed Islam, meaning that he used to believe in Allah and follow the teachings of Prophet Muhammad. Since Barak Obama's father was a Muslim who became an athiest, before Barak Obama was even born (as mentioned by Barak Obama), that means only he is an apostate and not his son. Perhaps Saudi Arabia or Iran, under their version of Sharia law, would put Barak Obama's father to death, which I believe is absolutely wrong and a horrible thing to do, but Barak Obama wouldn't be put to death in those countries just because he is the son of an apostate who happened to choose to adopt his mother's former religion. Under Islamic law there is no compulsion to convert to Islam, so Barak Obama would be free to choose any religion he wants. Barak Obama never said that he was a Muslim or followed the religion of Islam in his memoirs or any public or written statements so there is no reason to add his name and picture to this list. As I mentioned above his mother made him observe and be respectful of different religions, but never made him convert to any of them, because she was against any organized religion. I am not the only person who agrees that his name should be deleted from this, DavidCannon also removed his name from the list. I also see no point to have a disclaimer when its obvious that he was never a Muslim to begin with. Putting his name on this list would be false information and potentially libelous. Therefore its a closed case and his name should be removed. Wraith12 05:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Wraith12

Wraith12, please stop your personal attacks and uncivil language (see WP:Civility, and WP:No personal attacks). They are against Misplaced Pages policy. The Chicago Sun Times and Yahoo Answers are NOT unreliable, non-neutral, "right-wing," "neoconservative," bigoted, or intolerant. I used those websites to show that people have differences of opinion. I have nothing against Muslims and certainly have no bias against anyone. From your list of contributions, you haven't been on Misplaced Pages all that long, so let me explain to you that on Misplaced Pages, information needs a source to be included; if the source or information is disputed, that dispute need only be noted (see WP:Bio). That Senator Obama may maintain otherwise does not preclude the information from being included; if Senator Obama wrote in a book "I am Caucasian," but another source shows him being African-American, it can be included on Misplaced Pages that he is African-American, but should note that the information is disputed. In point of fact, your explanation of Sharia is only one of many opinions on the subject. This is not a "closed case" and certianly is not "libelous." In the United States and the United Kingdom, any information that may be reasonable (and despite your disagreement, this is reasonable) is not libelous (see libel for more information). I added a disclaimer. This is enough for Misplaced Pages. His inclusion clearly meets WP:Bio, and WP:NPOV. Please familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages guidelines. And if you continue to make personal attacks and reversions against Misplaced Pages policy, a moderator will be called in. Thank you for your understanding. 65.28.3.218 06:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

65.28.3.218, I'm sorry if I offended you, but the information from the websites that you posted are not "reasonable" or credible because they are all blogs and opinions of random people, many of whom if you read what they posted, have no idea what they are talking about and many of them have Anti-Muslim bias. I could not open the Chicago Sun Times blog website, however blog and opinion sites like the one you posted such as Yahoo Answers, are not reliable sources of information. Although I do not know much about Misplaced Pages policies, I'm sure it wants accurate information in this site, not opinions. As I have said before, it is clear that Barak Obama was not a Muslim or a Convert from Islam to Christianity, and I am sure that any neutral person would agree with me, you have not given any reliable or credible source of information that proves your point, so I suggest you remove his name and picture from that list. Instead his name should be on another list such as from Athiesm to Christianity, because that would be a more accurate description of his former belief system. The same has been done for Tamsin Greig, who also has a similar situation, she is of Jewish ancestry, meaning either one of her parents or grandparents was Jewish, yet she was raised an athiest, she has been moved to that list, also Senator John Kerry's grandparents were Jewish who converted to Catholicism, does that mean John Kerry should be on the list of convert from Judaism to Christianity? I still do not understand your logic therefore I am removing Barak Obama from this list. Wraith12 07:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Wraith12

Okay, Wraith12, you just admitted, "I do not know much about Misplaced Pages policies." Well, then let me inform you that weblogs, especially those of reliable informational sources such as the Chicago Sun Times are used as citable sources on Misplaced Pages all the time. The fact that you, others, or even the subject himself might disagree with the information does not preclude its inclusion. ON Misplaced Pages. It only merits a disclaimer that people disagree. (See WP:Reliable sources, Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons, and WP:NPOV for more information). The information about Senator Obama was found in a major newspaper's blog and several often-cited other websites (Yahoo and Freerepublic). That is enough for its inclusion. You challenged the information, and I provided sources and included a disclaimer that some disagree. That is enough. I also have reverted the information about Tamsin Greig, thank you for alerting me to that. Her entry should not have been moved, and citations have now been included there, as well. Lastly, there are two differences between Senator Kerry's situation and Senator Obama's situation as to why Senator Kerry ought not to be included here (though if he did fit, I definitely would support his inclusion): (1) the ancestor of Senator Kerry's who converted was paternal, not maternal (see Richard Kerry for more information), so under Halakha (Jewish Law) Senator Kerry would not be considered Jewish; and (2) Senator Kerry was baptised as an infant by his parents (i.e. didn't convert), whereas Senator Obama was baptised by choice after he finished college and was working in Chicago (i.e. did convert). The disputed information has been cited to ensure compliance with Misplaced Pages information policies; a disclaimer has been inserted in order to ensure compliance with Misplaced Pages neutral point of view policies. That is enough. Please stop reverting the information. Otherwise, a moderator will be called in. Thank you. 65.28.3.218 15:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

65.28.3.218, I'm happy that you put up the (See WP:Reliable sources), because if you read it carefully, none of your sources meet the requirement of Misplaced Pages's reliable source policy, considering that most of them have extreme partisan and religious viewpoints and none of the blogs actually references any reliable sources of where they get their information. The reliable source article says that messages left on blogs should not be used as sources, and partisan and religious sources should be treated with caution, and extremist sources that are political, racist, and religious in character such as islamanazi.com, theinfidelsage.blogspot.com should not be used as primary sources they should only be used as sources about themselves and their activities, and even then should be used with caution. I also could not open your link to the Chicago Sun Times, but the website says blog.suntimes.com, meaning its a blog site containing just opinions of random people which means it is not a reliable source. Barak Obama was never a Muslim period, if you read his biography he went to Christian school when he was a child, his mother has been described by most people as a secular humanist, and he has been raised as one. Your definition of Sharia law is wrong, because no where in the Quran or in other Islamic teachings, does it mention that if your father was a former Muslim, that means you are automatically a Muslim. In order to truly be a Muslim one must proclaim the shahada, which Barak Obama never claimed he did. Also according to many Islamic scholars everyone is born as Muslim, but then get influenced by parents or society to be a member of another religion. So technically using your logic and their's everyone is an apostate. The laws of Apostacy in Islam is not clearly defined, but Apostasy in general means when a person leaves one religion to be a member of another, Barak Obama never left Islam, since he wasn't raised as a Muslim, or been indoctrinated in Islam by any of his parents. Most of the viewpoints you have cited come from conservative Christian fundamentalists with Anti-Muslim bias who are no experts on Islamic law, some of whom claims that he is still a Muslim who is pretending to be a Christian, and therefore would not vote for him in a Presidential election. Why don't you put down the viewpoint of those who believes that Barak Obama is still a Muslim who is pretending to be a Christian? Obviously because those people are Anti-Muslim xenophobes who has no valid reasoning, just like the people who suggest that Barak Obama is a former Muslim. There is nowhere in the mainstream media where Barak Obama has been mentioned as a former Muslim, you only express opinions of bloggers, many of whom has an Anti-Muslim bias. I'm sure Barak Obama would not agree to have his name on this list either. His name and picture should be removed, call in a moderator if you want.Wraith12 19:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Wraith12

Obama went to a madrassa in Indonesia and he was raised as a Muslim for a while. Anyway we will have tow ait until we get another administrator becasue clearly the current administrator of this site views Obama converting to Chrisitanity as a victory of the neo cons which I have to say is pretty laughable. I am of the right and really wish that Obama wins. It is great to see a Christian convert from Islam become the most powerful person in the world. Obama for President!

65.28.3.218, Tasmin Greig should also have not been moved back either, her case is similar to that of Obama's her article says she was raised as an athiest, not Judaism, although she is ethnically Jewish and has Scottish ancestry, she probably never followed the Jewish Religion of Judaism, which are two different things. Therefore Tasmin Greig is not a convert from Judaism to Christianity, just like Barak Obama is not a convert from Islam to Christianity, both were raised in a secular or atheistic household, your interpretation of who is Jewish and who is Muslim is inaccurate. Although one may be considered Jewish if they have Jewish ancestry, doesn't mean they are apostates of the religion of Judaism if they were never raised in that religion. I suggest that you also move her back as well.71.62.121.16 03:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Wraith12

Felix Mendelssohn

Less arguable are Gustav Mahler and Arnold Schoenberg. The latter converted back but both were self-conversions. To the extent that conversion is an active verb (not sure of conflicting theologies, after all,) it should be noted that it was Felix's father who converted the family. I suppose one could take the fact that Felix did not attempt to renounce the imposed conversion as reason enough for inclusion (have wondered what to make of Die erste Walpurgisnacht opus 60 though!) but it's a debatable choice. Schissel | Sound the Note! 02:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Djibril Cissé

This football player has publicly confirmed that he converted to Christianity. Stephane Berne in 2004 asked him that he was surprised to see that there were Muslims like Djibril who converted to Christianity. Djibril confirmed this but did not seem to want to go into details. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.0.132.225 (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

I searched long and hard all over the internet to find some proof of this claim, but the only indication that he had converted to Christianity seemed to be his Misplaced Pages article, which now no longer makes that claim either. If you can provide some source, then he ought to be included. Otherwise, without proof he shouldn't be on this list. 65.28.2.218 20:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As this is unproven concerning Cisse converting to christianity can it be removed?

Jewish people born Christian

There's just a couple articles that sound like this. For example Jakob Jocz says he "was a third generation Hebrew Christian." Is your grandfather converting mean you count as a convert? Also Alexander Men wasn't born Christian, but he was baptized at seven-months old. This isn't much different than if he'd been born Christian. Do you really convert at seven-months? His article puts him in the convert category, but categories aren't as well-maintained as lists.--T. Anthony 03:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Quite right. I have remedied the problem. 65.28.2.218 01:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Almost completely uncited

Wow. Given that for presumably a less controversial articles like List of British Jews there is a citation to show that each individual on the list is Jewish, it is remarkable to see no citations at all here for the supposed converts from Judaism, either that the person was ever a Jew in the religious rather than ethnic sense (since if they were raised Christian they are not converts) or became a Christian.

In particular, is there a citation to say that Osip Mikhailovich Lerner converted to Christianity? A category was just (anonymously) added to that article effectively asserting so, which is what brought me here hoping to find a citation. There is no mention of it in the article on Lerner, and he is known (among other things) as a Yiddish-language writer. - Jmabel | Talk 18:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Jmabel, for each person on any one of these lists, there is something in the article about them (or another article on Misplaced Pages) that states something about their conversion. I made sure of that when I revamped it. Hope that answers your question. 65.28.2.218 18:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

OK on Lerner. (& I'd written the darn thing a while back. Total spaceout on my part.) But the general principle of needing citation still stands. Policy (WP:V, WP:RS) is pretty clear that Misplaced Pages articles are not acceptable sources for other Misplaced Pages articles. - Jmabel | Talk 18:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Then cite away. =) 65.28.2.218 18:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I just did for the one I was concerned with. But it's really not my article (first time I've looked at it, as far as I remember). It's mostly a heads-up to anyone who cares to preserve the article. Anyone who wanted to would be entitled to remove most of the names as uncited, something that has happened to quite a few lists when someone decides to. In the case of this particular list, it's not my issue either way except insofar as I was trying to look something up. - Jmabel | Talk 18:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Deathbed Conversions

John Wilmot embraced Christianity on his deathbed, but he never converted, because he was already a baptised, even if nonpractising, Christian. Nor am I aware he ever "became" an atheist as such - he just had a very good time sexually with anyone he fancied and in utter disregard for the morality of the time, and didn't go to church.

Nuttyskin 00:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

St. Paul's "Conversion"

I don't think Saul 'converted', in fact, he designed his own religion which later became Christianity. --Vladko 01:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Christ

I would have thought that Christ may have got a mention since he was a Jew. And early "Christianity" could have been seen as mainly Jews who converted, or rather followed Christ's teachings of Judiasm. Christ introduced the notion that the Jewish Religion was not limited to Jews.

Error discovered and fixed

Aquila of Sinope was listed as a convert to christianity from judaism the fact is he is an apostate of christianity who became a jew.

Why is this worthy of an article?

What next? Can I, as a Wiccan, start a page listing all those who have converted to Wicca? The list would be 10's of thousands of lines long, at the VERY least! In addition, I have to say I find the purpose of this article repugnant. Namely, this is a "my religion is better than yours and to PROVE it I am gonna list all the SMART people who thought so, too!" page. Bill W. Smith, Jr. 22:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, a "List of converts to Wicca" would be a great article to have; I, for one, would encourage you to start it. I would, however, pose a caveat to your suggestion that it would be "tens of thousands of lines long." Neither List of converts to Judaism, nor List of converts to Christianity, nor List of converts to Islam contains an actual list of every single convert to the respective religion; as you suggest, it would be far, far, too long, and additionally I doubt that such an article would fit Misplaced Pages's purposes. Instead, all of these articles only include notable people who (for the vast majority) already have articles on Misplaced Pages. They function as a research tool - something that fits Misplaced Pages's purposes very well. For example, let's say someone is trying to research people who had converted from Judaism to Christanity, or vice-versa. This page, or its "converts to Judaism" counterpart, would provide a great resource. The prospective researcher easily could find subjects to examine further. I would also dispute the suggestion that the lists are an example of religious boasting; people who some find to be very unsavory are included on this list (as well as the other two lists). For example, I doubt that many fundamentalist Christians would be proud to have porn star Harry Reems on this list, or that orthodox Jews would be proud to have porn star Shy Love on the List of converts to Judaism. I also doubt that Muslims would be proud to have neo-Nazi supporter David Myatt or dictator Idi Amin on the List of converts to Islam. These lists are wholly viewpoint neutral, and they provide a valuable research resource. Lastly, I should note that this article already survived a VfD analysis intact: see the top of this page. 65.28.2.218 23:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. These lists are for notable people, not every Tom Dick and Harry. --Matt57 20:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ibrahim Rugova From reading the article about Ibrahim Rugova, it said that there was rumors that he converted to Catholicism in his later life, so I added that his conversion is disputed since no one can be sure whether he actually converted to Catholicism, unless you can provide a reliable source that backs up that claim. 71.62.121.16 01:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Wraith12

Section headings poorly weight why they are notable and add undue weight to former religion.

Sorting by religion I feel is not a very logical order. I propose that the whole article be re-ordered by profession/notability criteria.

The reason the person is listed here is that they are notable in a field of endevour and they have converted to Christianity. They still retain their expertese in their field of notability but they now deem their old religion irrelevant or of little importance to them (for whatever reason) and yet we prefer to list them under that. It adds undue "negative" weight to the old religion. Another approach is to imply or claim a form of superiority of this religion over the other religion (i.e. the new religion "won" a convert and the old one "lost" a convert). Many of the people here had little choice in their former religion as the initial religion you have is culturally predicated.

As a simpler analogy if we had an article that was a List of converts to vegetarianism that listed notable people who are now vegan or vegetarian then almost certainly they would have come from an "omnivour" diet. All vegans or vegetarians I have met are very sincere in their new diet and it would be silly to list then under their former diet.

I propose that the whole article be re-ordered in line with how the List_of_Muslim_converts is ordered i.e. by profession/notability criteria. The former faith can be mentioned in the text entry for each person, if it is relevant. I will propose this for other similar articles e.g. List_of_converts_to_Judaism. Ttiotsw 19:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Did Martin Bashir convert?

I am not disputing that this journalist of Pakistani heritage is a Christian. But was he formerly a Muslim? Pakistan does have Christian minority population and Bashir's name seems to always have been Martin so that's why I am asking.

• Caption1
• Caption2

Bob Dylan

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

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

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

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

Regardless of the bias these sites may have, they are still sources which provide support for the veracity of Dylan's conversion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5."Laramie Movie Scope: Bob Dylan -- 1976-1981: Rolling Thunder & the Gospel Years": This is an amateur (from the looks of it) review of a documentary dealing with Dylan's Christian/Gospel period.

While the movie in itself may be a sufficient source, I haven't seen it, so the synopsis and review provided by this site is relatively sufficient in determining the content and purpose of the documentary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reliable sources can now be found in the Bob Dylan article, specifically, the New York Times, as indicated by the changes here. And, of course, the Encyclopedia Britannica as cited above is very hard to not consider a reliable source as well. John Carter 16:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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

• C.Logan -- Yes, I've read the article in "Jewsweek." There is absolutely no indication of conversion in it whatsoever. Would you care to post the except you find in it that indicates conversion on the part of Bob Dylan to Christianity? You will not find a shred of evidence for this, because it simply does not exist, not in this article, anyway. I am looking for evidence for conversion, not vague allusions to his embrace of the Christian life or any such meaningless gobbledygook. We are writing an encyclopedia. We don't put forth half truths as whole truths. I think you and several others should face the clearly emerging truth -- there is no evidence for conversion whatsoever. Conversion to Christianity is not tantamount to joining a street gang. It is not brought about by a wink, a handshake, and a swagger or any other signs and symbols you care to concoct. The Church is an institution. It has ways of accomplishing tasks. Dylan is a Jew. Stop pretending he converted to Christianity. That is advocacy. That is WP:SOAPBOX. By the way, your link to the New York Times article doesn't work. It only links back to Misplaced Pages. Bus stop 22:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Then please inform me what the governing body of this institution is. As we both know, there is none. Your whole argument falls apart on that basis. Without any such governing body, there is no one to enforce any sort of protocols. Also, I note from your own edits to the Talk:Bob Dylan page that one of the bases for your constant editing to these pages is, and I quote, once again, ""His Jewish heritage doesn't go out the window because he felt like exploring Christianity in 1979". On the basis of that and similar statements, I personally believe the one violating WP:SOAPBOX is yourself. You are free to file a formal WP:RFC for outside input in this matter. However, based on your own failure to provide any documentation for your own position, I believe that right now there is no alternative but to used the sourced information, and to not attempt any further to "qualify" it out of fear "his Jewish heritage out the window". John Carter 22:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Lets take a look at excerpts from the article:

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

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

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

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

Dylan: Yeah, I would say that. What we're talking about is the nature of God, and I think you have to, in order to go to God, you have to go through Jesus. You have to understand that. You have to have an experience with that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dylan: Yeah. Sure, yeah. I am.

Loder: Are the Old and New Testaments equally valid?

Dylan: To me.

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

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

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

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

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

Many of these either contain Dylan stating a belief which is explicitly Christian, or are essentially acknowledgments of some sort of conversion, if only by change of belief.

Let's take two quotes from Dylan from the above excerpts...:

"Well, Jesus is mighty to save, if He's in your heart, He'll convert you."

"What we're talking about is the nature of God, and I think you have to, in order to go to God, you have to go through Jesus."

What does the Central Conference of American Rabbis have to say about this kind of thing?:

For us in the Jewish community, anyone who claims that Jesus is their savior is no longer a Jew and is an apostate. Through that belief 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."

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

Request for comment

There has been discussion at both this page and Talk:Bob Dylan for some time now, as evidenced by the discussion above and there, whether or not the published sources which have been cited on both pages are sufficient to describe and/or categorize the subject, Bob Dylan, as a Christian convert. John Carter 23:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It should be noted that the person who has instigated this discussion is currently blocked for violation of WP:3RR regarding this article. It is therefore unlikely that s/he shall be posting any comments here anytime soon. John Carter 15:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Having followed this debate, and now having read this discussion on both pages, here and Talk:Bob Dylan, I tend to agree with User: Bus stop. I'm hesitant however to further speculate about another person's religion. I think that is a private and personal issue, no matter how famous, or important or popular the person is. I think this list should be deleted. Modernist 01:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The dictionary defines religious conversion as: "a change from one religion, belief or viewpoint to another". Dylan was raised to disbelieve the tenets of Christianity as expressed in the New Testament, then by his own description he changed his belief system to include them. This seems to me to satisfy the dictionary's definition of a religious conversion. -Scott P. 01:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

I agree fully. --C.Logan 01:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully I disagree. While Dylan's brilliance is undeniable, even early on he regards religious thinking in a song like "With God On My Side". I think speculation as to his actual notion of belief and disbelief and whether or not he has changed his belief system goes too far. Clearly he is a thoughtful, spiritually conscious artist/poet/musician/ who articulates deeply felt human conditions and convictions. As an artist he seems to change according to his ever turning inner force in defiance of all labels and categories, he has his own roadmap. I don't understand why this debate even exists. Modernist 02:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Modernist. Labeling him is as a "convert" goes too far given the sources available. There are too many sweeping implications connected to use of the word conversion. The issue is a controversial one and Misplaced Pages must heir on the side of caution as this is a biography of a living person. Cleo123 04:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that Wiki is designed to either redefine the dictionary definition of the word "conversion" or to deny Dylan's own claim that he had converted (changed from being a Jew to being a "born-again Christian"). -Scott P. 05:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope this argument doesn't continue forever. From what I've read, his baptism is described in the book "Bob Dylan: Behind the Shades", by Clinton Heylin. Obviously, I'll see if the book's available at the local bookstore. His conversion is also described in the book "Wanted Man: In Search of Bob Dylan". If these sources are still insuffiecient, and if this ends up going on much longer, why can't we just do something like this:

Bob Dylan - popular musician (has professed some Christian beliefs; whether or not there was an actual conversion is disputed)

Wow! Problem solved? Hopefully these eleven words will save us hundreds in the long run.--C.Logan 05:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• The remedy to a problem is to avoid the problem in those instances in which that is possible. We are not talking about a note next to Bob Dylan's name saying (inventor of the 7 string guitar) or (first person to identify the malady of subteranean homesick blues). Removal from the list is the remedy for the problem that no evidence for conversion can be found. Why would Misplaced Pages put a name on such a list if there may not have been "actual conversion?" Isn't this just advocacy? Misplaced Pages has a prohibition on advocacy. It is called WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. I find advocacy and proselytizing very similar concepts. Misplaced Pages defines advocacy, in part, as arguing on behalf of a particular idea. Is it a good faith edit to put someone on a list, and append a note saying that they may not have actually converted? Isn't that advocacy for a cause, in this case Christianity? A good faith edit, I should think, would involve removing Dylan's name, at least provisionally, until this issue gets ironed out. But I see that I am up against some stiff opposition. Despite the lack of evidence that any conversion took place, editors are adamantly refusing to even provisionally remove Bob Dylan's name from the list until some clarity can be achieved. I'm saddened by this. I know I've made some valid points. Yet I'm blocked by a multitude. Bus stop 12:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Bus Stop, I don't understand why you seem to be in a state of denial about the statements of Dylan himself, as well as the reams of published statements of others about Dylan's Christian beliefs as mentioned above. It floors me how after all of this you somehow still remain convinced that "no evidence for conversion can be found". I concur with C. Logan's suggestion. Simplify into eleven word statement as suggested. This seems to me to be an accurate and concise statement of the case. Misplaced Pages is not set up to judge things like this, only to fairly report both sides of such unresolved things. If Dylan wants to proclaim that he has some Christian beliefs, we are not here to editorialize that he must be insincere, only to report on the fact that he has publicly avowed that he holds some Christian beliefs. -Scott P. 13:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) There is a serious problem with insisting that the standards for inclusion being sought here are made universal. I will try to present the evidence for such as follows.

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

P.S.: It has been noted on the Talk:Bob Dylan page that Dylan was associated with the Vineyard movement. According to our own article on this subject, and I quote from the "Membership" section of that article, "Many Vineyard churches have no official membership procedures or membership records, and such a policy is not dictated by the national Vineyard church." It is at best nonsensical, therefore, to demand official records from a group with does not maintain them in the first place. John Carter 18:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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

• patsw -- Absolutely incorrect. A source has to be found for conversion, or placement on the List of converts to Christianity is a total abuse of the truthfulness expected of Misplaced Pages. We are not talking about, for instance, the Bob Dylan article. That is an article that can and should present more than one understanding of this. But a much higher standard should be required for inclusion on a list such as List of converts to Christianity. There is no allowance for shades of meaning as concerns a list. If a name is on that list it should be a person who has been verified to have converted. Bus stop 20:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

And the sources have been found, and you have been, and are continuing to, say that for whatever reason you do not find them sufficient. Out of curiousity, is your next effort in terms of wikipedia to have a printed record of the birth certificate of every living person who has an article here shown to you before you will accept that their date of birth is accurate? John Carter 20:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Holden, Stephen (1981-10-29). "Rock: Dylan, in Jersey, Revises Old Standbys". New York Times. p. c19. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

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

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

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

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

1. Opposition to Messianic Judaism from the Jewish community by Robinson, B. (Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance)