Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

I have adjusted the article's introduction so that it no longer contradicts the tag placed on the article by JohnCarter. In doing so, I have pulled language from other such lists of notable converts contained on Wikipedia, thereby addressing editorial conformity issues on the encyclopedia. John Carter's insistence on identifying the individuals on this list in the present tense, combined with the definition provided of "Christians" negates any possibility of listing individuals who are not Christians. Hence, I have removed Bob Dylan from the list in accordance with WP:BLP. Any other individuals who have left Christianity should, likewise, be removed from the list. Cleo123 02:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I support this change. The list should only contain converts who have stayed converted as opposed to people who have dabbled in one faith before moving back or on to the next. I suppose people could be added to List of former Christians if someone really wants to find a home for Dylan though that could be spoiled by making that list only contain people who have moved away if Christianity was their first religion. Ttiotsw 05:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not a list of dabblers. It's a list of converts. Some people think the obvious definition of convert is "someone who has converted to a religion", others think the obvious definition is "someone who converted to a religion and remained that religion for the rest of their life"... I think it would be more appropriate to open an RfC on that question, than to just change it, since precedent (in both similar and dissimilar lists) disagrees with the change, and there are some valid arguments for each opinion buried in the wall of text above, making it inappropriate to announce one of the two definitions is "more obvious" or "more correct". — Demong _talk 05:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

For instance, I think "someone who has converted to a religion" is the more obvious definition of convert, and if someone later converted to something else, a parenthetic note makes more sense than leaving them off the list entirely. Bob Dylan is a good example, since a huge deal was made of his conversion, by him, his fans, and his critics. I also think this definition is NPOV, and the other is POV. — Demong _talk 05:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Demong. There's points on both sides for this issue, but it's clear where I stand. Perhaps we should bring up an RfC on this issue alone, as this is the issue which actually has a chance of resolution. Additionally, it would be killing two birds with one stone. Arguing with a focus on Dylan just seems to get us nowhere.--C.Logan 06:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the text as it was, as it never was in contradiction with the new tag. Also, it could very easily have been suggested that the tag itself be changed, as it is demonstrably new. According to the page referenced, Christian, there are several different ways in which one could qualify as a Christian. I believe the definition in the now-restored text is the most significant, objective, and verifiable of them. However, there is nothing in wikipedia guidelines that I know of which demonstrate that the parameters for inclusion have to be identical to other articles. In fact, the definition used in the introduction is if anything more limiting than those listed on the Christian page. Given that that page indicates that just about everyone in the Western world (at least in the eyes of certain practitioners of Islam) qualifies as a "Christian", it makes sense to me to limit the definition to that primarily used by Christianity itself, and that definition is the most verifiable of the three in the Christian#Usage among Christians section. Needless to say, if a RfC is requested, I would have no objections to it. And, if others wish to use the broader definitions in the Christian#Usage among Christians section, I would have to agree to that usage. For what it's worth, I think I may have been the first person to indicate that a separate list of "reverts" would also be valuable. If anyone wants to create such a list, be my guest. However, until that article exists, I believe all converts should be included in the most appropriate extant page. John Carter 13:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The definition in the introduction is not "more limiting" - but more expansive as it allows for the incluson of non Christians. Unfortunately, this stands in contradiction with your tag which refers to Christians in the present tense. Such contradictions are very misleading to readers and create potential liabilty issues for Wikipedia. Cleo123 08:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

John Carter -- Why are you inserting that apparent contradiction? If Dylan is a Jew, why would he be on a list that is clearly labeled at the top of the list, "This page is a list of Christians?" Bus stop 16:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not a list of Christians it is a list of people who converted to Christianity whether they continued to be a Christian or not. The consensus is cleartly for Dylan's inclusion here and BusStop and Cleos continued attacking seems to be like an attempt to drive people away from watching this list so that they can get their own way in removing Dylan. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

John Carter -- Antisemitism is frowned upon on Wikipedia. <personal attack removed> Christianity is to a great extent concerned with the Messiah-ship of Jesus Christ. Do you know that Judaism rejects the Messiah-ship of Jesus Christ? This list is ostensibly a list of Christians. It happens to be a list of Christians who have arrived at Christian identity by way of conversion. It even says at the top of this list, in a tag that you, John Carter, added to the article yesterday, "This page is a list of Christians." <personal attack removed> (Dylan) by placing him on a list where he clearly does not belong? That is antisemitic, in my opinion. And I think others would see it that way as well. Bus stop 16:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please indicate exactly how including someone who has been verifiably baptized into Christianity is somehow "denigrating" to him and/or Antisemitic. I do not see how including verifiable content is in any way slanderous or libelous. Please specify exactly which policies or guidelines you believe are being broken, and exactly how they are being broken. Otherwise, I can have no clear idea of what the specific complaints you so repeatedly make are. John Carter 16:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Your last statement above is clearly an inaccuracy. You stated that there is not a consensus for the existence of this list, and yet the last attempt to delete it resulted in a clear consensus to keep. Also, your own opinions, however strong, are by definition POV, and have no place determining content in wikipedia. I also notice that you have once again apparently tried to avoid directly responding to comments you have been specifically and pointedly asked to clarify by instead responding to something else instead. As previously requested, please indicate exactly which policies and/or guidelines you see are being broken, and specifically where they are being broken. Should you not do so, I can only come to the conclusion that you cannot produce such evidence, particularly after you have been asked so repeatedly to produce it. John Carter 17:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: The statement to which the above statement is a response is that of User:Bus stop, who has since deleted that post, for whatever reason. If anyone is curious as to what that statement was, it can be found in the history of this document. John Carter 18:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Though Bus stop has removed his comment for an unknown reason, it was simply a reiteration of his ten major points of argument, which I will now attempt to explain for the casual reader:

1. He believes that we are a collection of Christian proselytizers who must be operating as a team.
2. He believes that the presence of clarifying statements in an article is a sign of corruption.
3. He believes that factual statements, related in a truthful and sufficiently explanatory manner, can be considered slanderous.
4. He believes that one list's disclaimer enhances the encyclopedic value of that list, while another list's (this one's) disclaimer is a sign of abuse and couldn't possibly have been set in place for the purpose of presenting relevant information.
5. He believes that the editors who oppose his viewpoint care about Bob Dylan's inclusion because he's a 'prize catch', and refuses to believe that the main reason for the continuing argument is his own frequent side-stepping of questions and statements directed at him, his ridiculously high standards for sources presented to verify a simple assertion (which I doubt could ever be satisfied, at this rate) along with his unwarranted belief that he has no need to provide sources for his own assertions about Dylan's life.
6. He believes that it is reasonable to cite a violation of WP:BLP against the use of sources which have, in actuality, fully satisfied the requirements set for reliable sources stated in the aforementioned policy.
7. He believes that every issue involved in this article is increasingly dramatic and makes obvious parallels to the historic persecution of Jews under medieval Christians, amongst other historic and theological issues.
8. He believes that the editors involved with the page are operating under this medieval mentality and thus dismisses all arguments presented by these same editors because he believes that their faith alignment alone is sufficient evidence that they is operating from a biased standpoint.
9. He occasionally takes small breaks to note that he's not assuming that all Christians are bad, but simply the biased and insidious editors operating within the shadows of Wikiproject Christianity. Never mind the fact that the only editor actually involved with the project is John Carter, and John had even forgotten that he was a member!
10. He believes that, because several of the editors involved have little Christian userboxes on their userspaces, it is sufficient enough for him to suppose that these editors must be in disagreement with him simply because of their religious bias, and certainly not because these editors believe that he himself has made no effort to produce a valid point outside of his own apparent bias.

This is just a little compilation for those who may not have been following the entire drawn-out, never-ending argument (which has continued for weeks now, and sadly shows no real signs of slowing down). --C.Logan 18:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

C.Logan -- Today Gustav von Humpelschmumpel removed the tag that yesterday John Carter put on the article, which said, in part, "This page is a list of Christians." This, to me, indicates the presence of strategy, not good faith. Antisemitism is not a noble motivation for compiling an encyclopedia. <personal attack removed> That is antisemitism, in my humble opinion. And each time they changed the parameters of this list it was in response to challenges to Dylan's presence on this list. <personal attack removed> How many more times will they change their parameters for this list in a strategy to do the illogical? Bus stop 19:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

And how many more times will you continue to making statements assuming coordination of effort (when there clearly is none), which seems to be an explicit failure to assume good faith, without ever producing anything remotely like tangible evidence to support it? And, for what it's worth, you still haven't answered the points raised earlier. Big surprise there, huh? ;) John Carter 19:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Though I feel the Dylan supporters have gone on way too much the point they have is that the title implies (to me too) that someone has converted and is currently participating in 'x'. When I convert a PC from Windows to Linux I call it a Linux box and if I convert it back it's a Windows box. I wouldn't list a currently running Windows box a convert to Linux if it wasn't still running that OS (i.e. Linux). Same applies to humans. If someone is running a particular ethical system then they could be listed as converting to that but if they run another ethical system then they should not stay on this old list. They could be on a list of former 'x' but not the current list. I feel this list is the current list. So what are we going to do to resolve this ?

• RFC the issue (I prefer this one) ?
• Edit war until we run out of 3RR ?
• Edit war until a friendly admin protects page on the version we like (kind of seen this happen) ?
• Slow revert until people get bored (I like this one too ;)
• Call up the Zionist Wikipedia Cabal (I've heard they exist but I could be mistaken).

Ttiotsw 18:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

C.Logan -- I don't say it is an advertisement. I say it is antisemitism. It may be advertising too. It could be and it probably is a combination of things. But it is antisemitism too. Bus stop 19:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Come on Bus stop that's not an answer that is very helpful. You're losing us here with the antisemitism claim. I was hoping for something like say the majority of other convert pages only show current advocates to 'x' but so far what people are saying (which is what I understood it to mean too) is that the converts to 'x' page need not mean that the person is still 'x'. Your attack on the other editors isn't really helpful towards consensus. Ttiotsw 22:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

One need only to Ctrl+F and search for 'advertising' and 'advertisement' to note the numerous times you've brought up on the issue on this page alone. Are you softening or rescinding your previous statements? --C.Logan 19:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

John Carter -- What happened to your strategy of yesterday, in which you applied the tag reading, "This page is a list of Christians" to the top of the article? You don't seem too concerned that today Gustav von Humpelschmumpel removed your tag. Was that a strategy that didn't work out? Bus stop 21:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I see no agreement on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity page for your actions. Apart from yourself and Bus stop, only one editor commented. John Carter, please stop edit warring on this article. Cleo123 22:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

John Carter --The {{Christianity}} tag is "directly relevant" to this article because it is a powerfully "Christian" article. That is it's context. Christianity is it's context. What I see is a continued effort at "stealth" on your part. What I see is the continuing effort to slip Bob Dylan onto a list of Christians, unnoticed. The plain and simple fact is that this article comes from a Christian perspective. Why are you seemingly trying to tone down the fact of Christian influence over this article by removing its normally occurring description of itself as part of the Wikipedia Christianity project? Bus stop 14:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there the slightest chance that you will actually produce some real evidence to support that accusation this time? It would certainly be a major change of pace for you to actually support any of your allegations. John Carter 14:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

John Carter -- It is a Christian article. That is self evident. I can produce no evidence beyond that. Why are you seemingly trying to tone down the fact of Christian influence over this article by removing its normally occurring description of itself as part of the Wikipedia Christianity project? Bus stop 14:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Because it is officially within the scope of another project, admittedly still proposed, which is created to deal with articles of this specific type. If you actually read the comments posted above, you'd know that. :) John Carter 15:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

John Carter -- The article happens to be antisemitic in its present configuration. All one need do is compare this article to its sister article, the list of converts to Judaism, to see this quite clearly. The list of converts to Judaism states very clearly at the top of the list that, This page is a list of Jews, and it lives up to those parameters. If it fails to live up to those parameters, any entry on that list can be challenged on the basis of that person not conforming with the parameters stated at the top of the list. Why shouldn't the list of converts to Christianity have to uphold similarly high standards of admissibility to their list? The list of converts to Christianity casts a much wider net. Why the discrepancy between two ostensibly similar lists? Bus stop 15:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And the person involved qualifies as a Christian on the basis of his qualifying under the criteria for inclusion on the list at the top of the article, which are if anything stricter than those employed on the page Christian. This has been stated before, although you seemingly haven't been paying any attention. Please read, or at least pay attention to, what others say in response to your one-note, seemingly infinitely repeated, statement. John Carter 16:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

John Carter -- Bob Dylan happens to not be Christian. You are mistaken about that. Bob Dylan is a Jew. From where did you get the notion that Bob Dylan was a Christian? Can you explain that to me? This is not a rhetorical question. Feel free to answer it. Bus stop 17:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The last statement above, requesting a direct answer from someone just about everyone else in this discussion has repeatedly noted rarely if ever directly answers any questions, is frankly amusing. :) As has been stated before, you might start getting civil responses if you demonstrate any capacity for them yourself. :) Unfortunately, to date, you have rarely, if ever, done so. John Carter 17:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

John Carter -- In other words you haven't formulated anything in the way of justification for your statement that Bob Dylan is a Christian. I have to assume that if you had a shred of evidence for, or argument in support of, your contention that Dylan was a Christian, you would be stating it. You've provided no explanation for your assertion that Bob Dylan is a Christian. That is typical of the merry-go-round that characterizes your conversational style. Bus stop 17:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

zadignose, you have the facts backwards. The Christianity tag was on this article long before this dispute began on April 22. [[1] Please, review the article's history. The long existing parameters of the article were adjusted by a group of vociferous editors who did not want to remove libellous material from the article. Recently, they have attempted to up the anty by adding the "This is a list of Christians" tag, which they have argued for on this page. When it was pointed out that inclusion of the new tag necessitated the removal of Bob Dylan from the list, they did another 180 attempting to remove what they had argued for. Please, read my comments below for a clearer picture of the chain of events, with supporting sources. I have not "inserted my own inaccurate description of the list" - I have restored the original parameters to the list, which are consistent with all other such lists contained on Wikipedia. Cleo123 03:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Who is the mysterious "we" that you repeatedly reference in your posts? Cleo123 05:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The 'we' is what is said when a group of editors have agreed on a certain point. However, you continuously use 'they' for actions made by solitary editors, and make these actions seem like coordinated efforts. Don't misrepresent certain actions as being motivated by a group, when we are in agreement of only some points of argument and in general approval of few actions.

As you may have seen, I've questioned edits made by users such as Demong numerous times. I am not opposed to Demong personally, but I feel that some of his edits have been counterproductive to the discussion (sadly, nothing has been as counterproductive as continuing the discussion itself). This is the general view I hold concerning all other editors.

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

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

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

Gee, if you were not working in tandem with John Carter when he added his list of Christians tag to the article, how do you explain this? It certainly wouldn’t appear that you objected to his actions as you seem to be implying. People aren’t operating as a gang on this? How do you explain these recent contributions adjusting the article’s introduction: [2] [3][4]Or these contributions removing the Christianity list, once you realized it no longer served your argument:[5][6] [7] The edit history of the article does not support your statements. As for your latest uncivil remarks, I am quite capable of reading. I doubt, however, that any administrator looking at the manner in which you and yours have bastardized the parameters of this article to avoid removal of libel will support you. Administrators tend to adhere to WP:BLP, rather than fabricating work arounds, as you have tried to do here. Cleo123 07:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

C.Logan -- I don't know if you noticed Cleo123's comment relating to "fabricating workarounds." Let me paraphrase: We don't fabricate workarounds to avoid the correct parameters. This article had the same parameters as the article which is it's natural "Jewish" sister list. And the list of converts to Judaism still has those parameters. Why is the list of converts to Christianity fabricating workarounds to what the parameters should be for these lists? Is there some reason why the "Christian" list needs to, or deserves to, have less restrictive criteria than its sister counterpart? The Jewish list holds itself to incalculably more restrictive standards. The Jewish list clearly states that, This page is a list of Jews. That is an incalculably more restrictive standard for a list to have to live up to. The "Jewish" list is setting standards for itself that it must abide by. Why can't, or why shouldn't, the "Christian" list set similarly high standards, for itself? Should the list of converts to Christianity be engineering workarounds to its parameters in order to claim for its contents people who are not even presently practicing Christianity? Isn't that a little cynical? The "Jewish" list does not allow itself to do this. The "Jewish" list is forced to abide by the standards that it sets up for itself at the outset. And, if it fails to abide by its own standards, stated in the enunciated concept that, This page is a list of Jews, then it is clearly subject to to being altered for failing to live up to its own clearly stated, and highly restrictive standards. How come the "Christian" list, in its present iteration, is lacking a similar statement? Why does not the "Christian" list say that, This page is a list of Christians? Can you tell me some reason why the "Christian" list feels it should have less restrictive standards for inclusion than its "Jewish" counterpart? Should you be engineering workarounds to avoid the parameters that naturally apply to these lists? There are only two ways for a person to become a Jew or a Christian. Those two ways are by birth and by conversion. These lists are simply of those notable people who have arrived at their religion by means of conversion. That is what the "Jewish" list is. In fact, that is what the "Christian" list was. In its various iterations, the parameters of the "Christian" list has vacillated between one set of parameters and another. In each instance, its changing parameters were in response to challenges to "Dylan's" presence on the list of converts to Christianity. Dylan happens to be a Jew. Why is the list of converts to Christianity contriving parameters in this way? Bus stop 04:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Your assertion that the list was 'incorrect' in its parameters is simply your opinion, nothing more. There is no 'correctness' involved when consensus determines such a standard to be reasonable. As the standard for the article has been more or less preserved over this time, there is no issue of 'incorrectness'- that is, there was not until you decided to oppose the parameters by posting heaps of your personal opinions while ignoring the reasoning presented to you by other editors. Remember that anyone can 'think' that some element in any list is incorrect. Like I've repeatedly tried to tell you (and to which you commonly twist the argument by suggesting I specify "who I feel should be removed from that list"), an Orthodox Jew may consider the parameters used on the List of notable converts to Judaism as a 'perversion', or he may suggest that the article has been "incorrect since its inception" because of the inclusion of non-Orthodox conversions, which, as the sources presented during the discussion have shown, are considered invalid forms of conversion (they consider them gentiles). Of course, such an opinion should be entertained and respected, but as it is, it is still an opinion. There is no more value in such an argument than there is in your own- they are both the case of an individual who feels that his own opinion about "what belongs on Wikipedia" trumps the presentation of factual information and the consensus of editors which has preserved the article in its current standard since its inception.

Once again, you set up straw men- this is not a list of Christians. It is a list of individuals who converted to Christianity. You are confusing the cooking of dinner with dinner itself. One is a process, and the other is a thing which more often than not results from it. However, one can just as easily burn the meal, and thus no dinner results from the cooking process- but such an instance does not negate the fact that one did, in fact, cook dinner. Understand the difference, and cease to apply your own opinion about what this list 'is'- I can assure you that as long as we're arguing apples and oranges, no one is going to settle for anything.

Yet again, you place the same argument here for Dylan's Judaism that you do on the Bob Dylan talk page. As it is, I suppose I'll just paste a response I'd prepared for that page:

If I, for some reason, converted to Islam, and I became private about personal issues later on, it would be fallacious to argue that I am a Christian because it was my birth religion, because it is inherently linked with my ethnicities, and because there was no 'active negation' of my belief in Christianity. No such interpretation is warranted- one is simply arguing (by assumption) as to what a lack of negation 'might imply'; to suggest any sort of proof in a situation like this would be jumping to conclusions. As I've said, the above assumption would be true, if he hadn't converted to Christianity. As this point, you assume that the lack of public negation of Judaism is proof of faith in the religion of Judaism (and not simply cultural and ethnic considerations, which can't exactly be negated). However, you have argued that no such negation of faith is necessary to assume that a person is no longer affiliated with Christianity. He hasn't negated either faith- which should be all the more reason for us to stop assuming his current religion, and leave it ambiguous, as he has. Dylan is ethnically Jewish, culturally Jewish, but religiously- well, we just don't really know. Nor do I believe that you or I have the right to dictate his current religion without reliable sources which can attest to it.

As it is, the above is not relevant in its entirety, considering that the preceding arguments are located on another page (and indeed, I had to trim more specific sentences which would make no sense outside of that argument). The point of including the above is that it reiterates what I've been saying. Dylan's post-conversion religious status is not a case of black-or-white. You consistently assume that if a person is not publicly displaying the religion of their conversion, and not publicly negating their birth religion, then one should make a clear conclusion that they returned to their birth religion. Never mind that, despite your opinion, it is entirely relevant in this case that Dylan is a private individual who makes no real 'public display' of anything- even in interviews, one could hardly call him an 'adherent' of any religion, as he presents statements which are too vague to be presented as any sort of evidence one way or the other. As you know, there are many more possibilities than "Christian or Jewish". As I've said, you should cease conflating the ethnic and cultural aspect of "Jewishness" with the religion of "Judaism".

If you'd like me to cease 'defining' what the template means, then I would suggest you cease to misrepresent its purpose. Given your frequent conflation of the different aspects of Judaism, it is no surprise that the disclaimer is needed on the aforementioned article. As I'm sure you know, anyone could consider themselves a "Jew" in regards to their culture and their ethnicity, and an "Atheist" in regard to their religious affiliation. For this reason, it is difficult to determine from sources whether a person is considered a Jew because of current belief, because of a 'flirtation' with the religion or because of a necessity for marriage within tradition. Many of these latter examples could hardly be considered 'Jews' in the religious sense, and no source would be the wiser in noting the difference. Perhaps they do not belong on the list. Are they not actively negating their birth religion? Well, if no recent source for negation can be found, then we should remove them from the list. The previous thought process is very similar to what you are suggesting for this article, and it is a conclusion which does not follow. No proof is derived from such a consideration, so discontinue your suggestion that there is any merit to the suggestion of "no negation = birth religion". People don't operate in such a simple manner.

That is why you do not want the list of Christians saying that it is a page of Christians. Please stop pretending otherwise.

While it's nice that you may assume whether I 'want' something or not, as you may have noticed from what I have actually said, I don't feel the template is relevant or necessary. John Carter created it from the mists around a week ago, for reasons which are still not entirely clear to me. The only articles which need such a template are Jew-related listings. This is, as I will say again, because of the complicated definition as to what constitutes a Jew. There is no example where a person born a Spanish Catholic and becomes an atheist at some point is still considered a "Catholic"- although they are most certainly Spanish in culture and ethnicity. Judaism is actually slightly similar- with the main difference, of course, being that "Jew" is ethnic, cultural, and religious. The separation of these meanings is not as clear as the above instance concerning our Spanish friend, partly because of the identical terms used, and partly because of the three-fold bond which the identity of "Jew" possesses with the individual. Saying that "he's a Jew" is not a complete answer. In what sense is this person a "Jew"? Was he born into a Jewish family? Is he related by blood, but living in a culturally estranged home? Is he religiously devout? This is the purpose of the article Who is a Jew?. I suggest that you take this fact into consideration before you persist as using the template as a validation of your own argument. --C.Logan 15:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

"And they aren't being overlooked. However, there is no clear evidence that I have seen that he does currently, in any discernible way, "follow Christ", or see himself as being in any way a Christian. Without that evidence, and with the evidence supplied above, it can reasonably be stated that he is now a "practicing Jew", as that statement is itself neutral regarding his beliefs, whatever they may be. John Carter 19:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)" [8]

Anyone who has read the above posts is aware that in the last 48 hours John Carter has placed the following tag on the article several times: {{Christian list}}. [9][10] There has been some edit warring on the article during which John Carter has vehemently defended his position that Bob Dylan qualifies as a Christian. For those of you who couldn't be bothered to click on the link to Carter's definition of a Christian, it states the following: “A Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity, a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament Christians believe Jesus to be the Son of God and the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament.”

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

Here are the facts:

On April 22nd, Bus stop made his first edit to this article. [11]. At that time the article's introduction read: “The following is a list of people who have converted to Christianity from non-Christian religions.” That’s it. It also carried the Christianity project tag, that Carter is now edit warring to remove,[12]in yet another act of blatant hypocrisy. Only after Bus stop and another editor began removing names from the article [13] were these new “article parameters”, which have been so vociferously defended by members of Wikipedia’s Christianity Project, placed on this article [14] by User:ScottP. It should be noted that this user also openly proposed a conspiracy to get Bus stop blocked. [15] On April 27th, only five days after Bus stop made his first edit to the article, John Carter posted a complaint on the Community Sanctions Noticeboard requesting that Bus stop be permanantly blocked from editing this and two other articles. (one of which Bus stop had never edited at all!)[16] After a group effort to get Bus stop and his dissenting opinion banned from the article, an RFC was made that resulted in mixed opinions and no consensus. With the new article parameters still in place, Bus stop nominated the article for deletion. Although the AFD failed, Bus stop’s viewpoint gained more support. At that juncture, John Carter proposed that a complaint be filed against Bus stop with ArbCom. At that time, a new editor to the discussion advised Carter that ArbCom does not handle editorial disputes. [17] I, too, discouraged John Carter from taking such action [18] He has gone ahead and initiated an ArbCom complaint, which is likely to be declined. [19] Now we have him playing more games, removing the long-standing Christianity tag from the article.

This is not about Bob Dylan as far as I’m concerned. It is about POV pushing. The introduction to this article should have never been altered simply to accommodate a point of view. I am restoring the article’s introduction to a format similar to that of all other Lists of Notable Converts on Wikipedia. Likewise, I will remove any names that do not fulfill the criteria prior to the start of this dispute. Bus stop has repeatedly indicated that this whole dispute is all about getting Bob Dylan on the list and anti-semitism. I doubt that is true. At this juncture it seems to be all about pushing Bus stop's buttons in the hopes he'll break 3RR. The evidence clearly shows that John Carter has been unrelenting in his attempts to get Bus stop blocked or somehow "punished" for disagreeing with his POV. It seems that many more nuetral editors have successfully been "bullied" off the page at this juncture by Carter and his gang. Wikipedia is not a battleground, nor is it a vehicle for harassment. Cleo123 00:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I will also point out that John Carter's IP address has recently been blocked in connection with a vandalism only account. [20] Cleo123 04:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there something that you are trying to imply? --C.Logan 05:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that it was unblocked almost immediately thereafter as a mistake. It is, unfortunately, a common address where I use my laptop. Are you trying to imply something else? If so, I request that you provide some substantiation of what seems to me to be at least implicitly a personal attack or retract it. Also, please note that the definition which is in the introduction that has been restored is, in effect, the most verifiable variation of the three variations of the definition of "Christian" according to the preexisting text in Christian#Usage among Christians, which seems to be to be the most objective and applicable to the greatest majority of Christians who define themselves as such. Regarding the explicit personal attack of hypocrisy, I do not see how it can be objectively called hypocritical to say that someone can be identified as a Christian, or anything else, in a broad sense, that is to say, having been baptized and not formally explicitly renouncing it, and not say that they can be demonstrably categorized as a Christian at the particular moment based on their current activity, can be called hypocritical. That seems to me to be implying that no one can ever change opinions, which clearly is not the case.

If anything, I think the statement by Cleo123 clearly shows a continuation of the rather unfortunate tendency of the above user to engage in unsubstantiated, non-specific personal attacks, as that user has yet to provide any substantial proof of their own position that I can remember. I also note by the way that that users basis for his/her claims, that the inclusion of someone who has been clearly identified as being a convert to Christianity (or anything else) in the media already might subject wikipedia to a libel action, has yet to be substantiated by any extant policy of wikipedia or with any such example from elsewhere. And yet that user criticizes anyone who thinks that his/her unsubstantiated position has to be taken as an absolute guideline simply on the basis of some nebulous, unsubstantiated threat of a potential libel case.

I do not think that it is POV according to the rules of WP:NPOV to use the most "basline" definition of a term as it is used by the individuals who describe themselves by that term. Regarding the explicit accusation that much of the discussion has been an attempt to cause an individual who has already repeatedly acted explicitly against the guidelines and policies of wikipedia several times to do something he has already demonstrated him/herself more than capable of doing, I personally will say nothing in response other than to say such a unsubstantiated attack on me and others requires some sort of real evidence, something Cleo123 has yet to provide for any of his/her contentions. And the use of the phrase "Carter and his gang" I personally see as being an explicit violation of the personal attack. And the evidence actually shows that I have been trying to get someone who actually has done nothing but seemingly repeat the same statement over and over to stop doing so. Such action is in fact a direct violation of the rules of "tendentious editing" as defined as per WP:TE. I also note that the page is now protected and the non-neutral partisan "correction" made by Cleo has been reversed. If Cleo actually can propose something positive in this discussion, rather than continuing to unilaterally seek to change wikipedia to fit his/her own POV, such as maybe proposing an alternative phrasing on the talk page, I would be welcome it. John Carter 14:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Your remarks are little more than a smoke screen lacking in substance. I have provided multiple citations above to substantiate the points I have made. You, by contrast, have continued to attempt to twist and distort facts. I also have provided multiple sources on this and other pages for Dylan's return to Judaism, which based upon your recent edit to the Bob Dylan page you apparently accept. Sorry, you can't seem to wrap your mind around the concept that your editorial contributions are hypocritical. Let me spell it out more clearly for you :

1)You have tagged the article with a tag that states "This IS a list of Christians"

2)You have provided a definition (which BTW does not stipulate anything about renounciation of baptism. This is original research on your part.). The link you provided states : “A Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity, a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament Christians believe Jesus to be the Son of God and the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament.”

3) These statements are in the present tense.

4) Elsewhere on Wikipedia you have stated "Without that evidence, and with the evidence supplied above, it can reasonably be stated that he is now a "practicing Jew"

5) You have argued and argued on this page for the fact that Dylan be listed under the tag "This is a list of Christians." Seems pretty hypocritical to me.

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

You have repeatedly acknowleged that you are new to Wikipedia, rather than engaging in an open minded policy driven debate and working towards building consensus, you have caused significant disruption to the encyclopedia. Right from the beginning, rather than assuming good faith on User:Bus stop's part, you treated an established editor as if he were a vandal (when his edit was a legitimate WP:BLP issue) and openly campaigned to block him and his dissenting opinion. You have completely ignored the opinions of numerous other editors who have sided with User:Bus stop's view, choosing rather to abuse the system by filing bogus complaints at every venue you can find - thereby wasting administrators time. Rather than working towards a compromise, it seems that you have tried to rally other editors against User:Bus stop and intimidate all those who share his view with implied threats. I have made no personal attacks against you. I have commented on your contributions, not on you personally. I am not a tendentious editor. LOL! Please! Check out how many contributions I've made to the article, then look at your own. I have responded on the talk page to your numerous requests for citations. Indeed, it is downright comical that after I post 13 citations chronicling your disruptive behavior and contradictory statements and actions, your response is to post : "...such a unsubstantiated attack on me and others requires some sort of real evidence, something Cleo123 has yet to provide for any of his/her contentions". There is a tendentious editor here, but it's not me. Cleo123 21:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Presumably, based on the above comments, that user thinks that repeatedly raising allegations and calling other people by at least demeaning and potentially abusive language, such as using the word "hypocrisy" as a headliner, is acceptable. Please read the policy on no personal attacks, of which I believe the comment starting this thread is clearly and explicitly a violation. And creating the "smokescreen" about the number of "contributions" (at least one of which seems to have been a unilateraly change of the content, since reverted, which may have led directly to the current protected state) to the article, I note the above user still has yet to provide a single substantiation of their contention about how inclusion of verifiable information could be cause for a libel suit, despite having said elsewhere that such is your main reason for posting here. Interesting, isn't it, that that person's initial claim for posting here still hasn't in any way been substantiated? I would welcome any such evidence as has already been pointedly requested, by the way. I note that the only post that editor has ever made regarding WP:BLP was [here], regarding the Mel Gibson DUI incident. This despite the fact that there is no text in that page which I can see which would seem to support their contention. I would think that the average user would at least seek to verify whether or not their claim is accurate before basing an entire serious of edits regularly insulting others on it. Are we then to assume that that editor thinks that their simply arguing a position makes it a policy or guideline? Regarding their allegations regarding my my own, admittedly ill-informed and inexperienced conduct, being improper, I would have no objections whatsoever to being subject to mediation or arbitration. In fact, as many of you already know, I have already requested it once. The only people I noticed who seemed to be opposed were the above user and Bus stop. Verification of this can be found on the User talk:Bus stop page, where the above user even seems to encourage Bus stop to refuse to request arbitration. Interesting, isn't it? I wish to go on record saying I would welcome having any outside observer review the behavior of all parties involved, including the above editor, in this and any and all other related incidents. If a formal request for such comment, mediation, or arbritration is requested now by one of the parties who previously opposed it, or by any other party involved, I welcome it. Otherwise, I believe that such threats as seem to have been made above have absolutely no place in wikipedia anywhere. John Carter 16:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

John, you diminish your editorial credibility when you make statements that can so easily be proven false. I would be most appreciative if you would refrain from continually misrepresenting the statements and actions of other editors.

1) My use of the word “hypocrisy” refers directly to the overt contradictions in John Carter’s recent edits to this and the Bob Dylan article. It is not a “personal attack” on Carter, but a discussion of the content he has contributed. If John Carter believes I have made personal attacks on him, I suggest he provide citations. I believe I have exercised remarkable restraint in response to his extreme lack of civility. Indeed, very shortly after I entered this debate, he referred to my contributions as irrational and counterproductive and blatently accused me of acting in bad faith. The fact that I have waited so long to voice my concerns about this editor's behavior demonstrates my patience and restraint in this matter.

2) Unlike this user, I have not engaged in any name-calling or personal insults. As for personal attacks and the use of “demeaning and potentially abusive language”, I suggest John Carter take a look at his own contribution history. Some of the more blatant examples include referring to other users as : “the dead head duo”, “the Mad Hatter” ,“Bus stards”, unqualified to contribute and incompetent.

3) I did not “unilaterally change the introduction to the article”. I restored a version consistent with the parameters as they existed prior to the start of this ugly dispute. [21] I explained my revision on this talk page and it was met with immediate approval from a seemingly neutral editor. [22]. Interestingly, my edit was in response to Carter’s unilateral change to the article, adding his “This is a list of Christian’s” tag.

4) I have made multiple comments on this and other related pages regarding WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL, as John Carter is well aware. I have explained my position very clearly, even specifically quoting policy. I would suggest that John Carter take the time to re-read my contributions, instead of making false statements. My edit history also clearly demonstrates that the Mel Gibson article is far from “the only post I’ve ever made regarding WP:BLP.”

5) I wouldn’t say I “discouraged” User:Bus stop from participating in mediation. I presented both sides to him, also offering to assist him in preparing his case, if he decided to participate. [23] In light of the manner that the deck was stacked against him, I think he was wise not to participate. Although the mediation request was framed as a content dispute, only editors supporting John Carter view were listed in his complaint. Carter’s ongoing stream of complaints and requests to have Bus stop banned from editing Dylan material leads me to question the sincerity of his desire for an amicable resolution. Indeed, within days of Bus stop’s first edit to this article, Carter's first warning to User:Bus stop was an administrator’s final warning template on Bus stop’s page.[24]. He has repeatedly left threatening messages for User:Bus stop, along the lines of “if you keep editing, you’ll regret it .”[25] [26]:[27]. He has followed those threats with a host of complaints:[28][29][30] often ignoring other editors who have discouraged the misuse of Wikipedia’s dispute resolution process. Here’s an example, after being told this, 20 minutes later he posts this, then this. Even now, after his Arbcom complaint has been rejected, he continues to explore new forums in which to file complaints.[31][32]

6) Having worked with Bus stop on another article, I have made some sincere attempts to diffuse this situation and facilitate better communication between the parties. [33] [34][35] Likewise, Bus stop has made some attempts to engage in more positive communication. [36] Unfortunately, John Carter, however, appears to be more interested in fighting, as he has repeatedly left taunting messages for Bus stop. [37][38][39][40] These are just a few examples. There are many more.

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

8) In defense of his actions, Carter has repeatedly contended that he is an “admittedly ill-informed and inexperienced”.new user. On the surface, Carter has contributed many articles in a very short time period and made an incredibly significant number of edits to Wikipedia. When one examines his contribution history more closely, a disturbing pattern emerges. Confrontations with and complaints against other users [41][42][43][44] are frequently followed by 50 or more mindless edits, such as stubbing articles – making it more difficult to track his behavior. It leads me to wonder if this isn’t by design. As for the many articles he’s created, the vast majority are one sentence stubs. He would appear to be more interested in creating a volume of article titles to list on his user page, than actually working on the articles themselves. I am concerned that this user may have had a prior involvement with User:Bus stop, that pre-dates his account. From his very first edit, he would appear to possess an advanced knowledge of Wikipedia. Certainly, his propensity for Wiki-style legal action against other users is inconsistent with the behavior of most novices to this forum.

I have sincerely attempted to assume good faith on User:John Carter’s part. I have very judiciously watched and noted his escalating behavior, which I consider to be very disruptive. His insistence on pursuing this matter is the only reason that I find it necessary to chronicle his editorial conduct for the community. Above and beyond the personal attacks, litigious complaints, and incivility that I have cited herein; he has also vandalized my own comments on this talk page.. [45] Certainly, Bus stop has made some very inflamatory remarks. However, his commentary appears to be “article driven”. I have not seen him engage in the type of personal insults or retaliation that John Carter has trafficked in. There have been many points in this discussion, where an amicable resolution could have been reached. A clear example is when Bus stop backed away from his stance on the inclusion of Dylan’s conversion in the Bob Dylan article. Editors, such as John Carter are making a bad situation much worse by baiting, taunting and harassing Bus stop.

I believe my suggestion of a separate page for “Notable Converts to Christianity Who Returned to their Former Religions” is a very fair and equitable compromise that could quickly put an end this entire dispute. Cleo123 06:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I note that Cleo123 has requested an e-mail discussion of this topic at User talk:Bus stop#A Private Conversation? after my last comment above, and has seemingly dropped the earlier request for arbitration. One can only wonder why. John Carter 17:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have not "dropped an earlier request for arbitration." I have never made any overtures that would seem to indicate that I was seeking "arbitration." Please, provide a citation to support your statement or stop misrepresenting facts. On the contrary, I have criticized your abuse of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. Any "private conversation" I may or may not have engaged in with Bus stop is between that user and myself. Wonder at will...Cleo123 06:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Then bring the official complaint, or I will. I find your tone, particulary the tone of this entire thread, to be a clear and explicit violation of the policy regarding personal attacks. If you do not think that your complaints are sufficient to bring a formal complaint against me, I do think that I have grounds to bring one against you. However, in the spirit of good will, I will give you 24 hours from this posting to bring the complaint against me. At that time, I will file a comment regarding the, IMHO, clear violation of the no personal attacks policy which I believe this entire thread is a clear and explicit violation of. I also reserve the right to bring such complaints on my own in any event. John Carter 14:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

John Carter -- You've clearly transgressed WP:CIVIL many times in comments to and about me. In fact, abusive references to me, from you, is the norm, not the exception. I have not made so much of an issue of it because I am trying to stay on the topic of the specific dispute at hand concerning this article. But Cleo123 is 100% correct in pointing out your abrasive commentary on and about me, personally. I have not wanted to get into a petty exchange of insults and slights because I have not wanted to be diverted from what I see as the inherent rightness of my article-oriented argument. Bus stop 15:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I welcome a review of my own behavior as well as of everyone else in this matter. In fact, as stated before, I will formally request it in 24 hours. I am however going to give the above parties a chance to raise their claim first. John Carter 15:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

John Carter -- I'm not concerned with the petty bickering that you are trying to entice me into. I have articles to write, or to contribute to. Wouldn't we all be better off devoting our energies to that purpose? Wouldn't that be more in the spirit of what Wikipedia is about? Do you view Wikipedia as having the potential of being a viable encyclopedia? Or do you think Wikipedia's bureaucratic arteries need to be bogged down with adjudicating our petty bickering? Bus stop 15:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we would. And seeking outside review is the only way I can see stopping the two of you engaging in such explicit personal attacks as this thread. John Carter 15:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't bothered to read or investigate everything being discussed here and just happened across the discussion by chance, but for all parties involved this might be relevant: Matthew 7:1-5. Cheers, good luck, and why not calm down for a while? Does a heart good. -- Sapphire 16:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The article happens to be antisemitic in its present configuration. All one need do is compare this article to its sister article, the list of converts to Judaism, to see this quite clearly. The list of converts to Judaism states very clearly at the top of the list that, This page is a list of Jews, and it lives up to those parameters. If it were to fail to live up to those parameters, any entry on that list could be challenged on the basis of that entry not conforming with the parameters stated at the top of the list. Why shouldn't the list of converts to Christianity have to uphold similarly high standards of admissibility to their list? The list of converts to Christianity casts a much wider net. Why the discrepancy between two ostensibly similar lists? We do not contrive parameters in order to slander a Jew. That is antisemitic. Bus stop 15:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please indicate specifically how inclusion of a name based on verified data is "antisemitic". Otherwise, the above comment is meaningless. It should also be noted that a comment substantively identical to the one above had already been removed from this page by another editor on the basis that it constituted a personal attack on the editors who disagree with the above user. John Carter 16:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

John Carter -- You have tried a variety of parameters for this article, have you not? Why is that? Why have you found it necessary to try more than one set of parameters? In one of your sets of parameters this list was described as only containing Christians. In another of your sets of parameters this list was described as including not just Christians, but anyone who has ever converted to Christianity. Why are you so unsure what you wish to have as parameters for this list? And why do the parameters as presently in place for this list differ from the parameters at the sister list to this article, the list of converts to Judaism? Is there some reason why you have chosen to use parameters at variance with the parameters used at the "Jewish" list? The list of converts to Judaism of course uses very straightforward parameters: The list of converts to Judaism simply lists those Jews who have arrived at their Jewish identity by way of conversion. That is a straightforward and simple set of parameters. That is also a restrictive set of parameters. That set of parameters does not include anyone who ever dabbled with Judaism. Why does the list of converts to Christianity have such far more unrestrictive parameters for its list? Why, in effect, is the list of converts to Christianity casting such a wider net? Can you explain to me why the list of converts to Christianity is justified in casting a net large enough to capture Jews onto it, in addition to Christians? The list of converts to Judaism does not engage in that sort of content enhancement. The list of converts to Judaism does not engage in the parameter contriving that results in inflated contents for its list. Why does the list of converts to Christianity get granted all these special privileges in relation to the list of converts to Judaism, in your opinion? Bus stop 17:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You did note that the parameters for the "Jewish" list, in fact all the Jewish lists (those parameters being Who Is a Jew?) have themselves been challenged and NPOV and unreferenced, right? And, please note as stated above, that the terms used in the introduction are if anything more specific than those used on the Christian page. We have been trying to decide the terms for inclusion in this list based on objectivity, verifiability, and rationality. Maybe the terms have changed because there is actually some ongoing thought, and, from at least some editors here, ongoing reasonable and informed discussion of the subject? :) That would seem the obvious answer to me. And, if you are going to continue to indulge in these snide innuendo, given that you already have a history of making clearly personal attacks, I doubt the differentiation will do much good. John Carter 17:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

John Carter -- Please feel free to cease obfuscating. Please feel free to cease obfuscating and address issues. If any person on the list of converts to Judaism does not belong there you can challenge that. It is that simple. But you are apparently naming no names on the list of converts to Judaism that you feel should not be there. Why are you not specifying any names on the list of converts to Judaism that should not be there? Please stop obfuscating. Bus stop 17:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Actually, antisemitism doesn't mean opposed to Semites. What it means is opposed to Jews, specifically. And by the way, I never said racist at all.

Under antisemitism we find the following: "The term Semite refers broadly to speakers of a language group which includes both Arabs and Jews. However, the term antisemitism is specifically used in reference to attitudes held towards Jews." Bus stop 04:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Bus stop 04:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Truthfully I call what you say, Bus stop, as mudracking crap as you haven't yet proven that it only applies to Jews,

• If a Hindu converts to Christianity and then converts back are they excluded ?
• If a atheist has a brainstorm and professes lust for the deathcult that surrounds Jesus and then comes back to their senses and gets off that wagon are they excluded ?
• If a Jew tries out the cult of Christianity and then gives up are they excluded ?

No,no,no. Your plucking the rules for one list and trying to apply them to all lists is nonsense. Ttiotsw 14:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Illuminatedwax -- Do you see any Rastafarians or Manichaeanists on the list? If so, do you take issue with their placement on the list? Please be sure to voice your opinion if you find the placement of any Rastafarians or Manichaeanists on the list to be problematic. Bus stop 19:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You've already stated that you know little about religion, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but the word is Manichean. John Carter 19:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I was aware of that, John Carter, but thanks for pointing it out, for everybody's edification. Bus stop 19:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Bus stop, your complaints about antisemitism reside either on the fact that you do not think Jewish faith and Jewish ancestry can be separated, or your view that Dylan is of Jewish faith, or both. It seems either the majority disagrees with you or there is no consensus. Therefore, please take that specific dispute to the next step in Wiki-authority, or drop it entirely. You've said as much as is useful about the subject on the talk page; we don't need any more arguments. John Carter, you're becoming uncivil, too. You're egging him on: there's no reason to make pointless attacks regarding misspellings of religions. Cut it out. Illuminatedwax 08:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, that was not the intention. As Bus stop has stated before, he is I believe the quote was "not an expert about religion". I took that to mean less than extremely well-informed on the subject. And the only person included in that category, Augustine of Hippo, is mentioned no less than 9 times on the Manichaeism page, which, taken with the content of his own page, makes his status as a convert from that faith somewhat hard to argue. I do however offer my apologies for what was clearly poor phrasing. John Carter 19:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is wearing everyone down. Where will it end? Once again, I'm eager to move away from this boring, repetitive and abysmal chain of arguments and, perhaps, communicate on a friendlier level with all the users involved. Although I've suggested this before, no one's willing to soften up and consider it. I believe that a shedding of the 'debate'-like atmosphere would make the discussion much more productive. It feels as if neither side is listening to one another, because there is a reciprocal suspicion of strong bias which is affecting each opponent's argument. No one's making any headway, because they don't want to make any headway- they'd rather just come out as the winner. Does anyone believe that such a solution might be fruitful? --C.Logan 09:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I agree. We are no longer making any headway. I think I have an alternate solution, that may be acceptable to all parties. How about creating a breakaway article for "Notable Converts to Christianity Who Returned to their former faiths". Dylan's name could appear on such a list with other notable people who did not have a lasting conversion, such as Larry Flint. The original parameters could then be restored to this article, which would be consistent with all other "Notable Convert" lists on Wikipedia. I think that is a fair compromise, which will not be at all misleading to readers and might satisfy all parties. Cleo123 23:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, by trying to turn every discussion on this page into a discussion of a topic which has already been answered a number of times you are displaying the kind of problematic editing that you have unfortunately displayed before. Please allow people to suggest other changes to the article which are directly referenced and supported without facing the possibility of your trying to turn that discussion into yet another attempt on your part to continue your own self-described obsession with Bob Dylan. John Carter 16:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that after the request for modification of the page was placed, User:Bus stop removed his/her own comments which were clearly off-topic and at least a little difficult to understand. His/her reasons for doing so, are, of course, his own, whatever they are. However, even that party seems to have agreed that those comments were irrelevant to the request at hand. John Carter 17:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

John Carter -- But you don't have to be offensive. WP:CIVIL is a vague, but real, thing. Bus stop 17:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

From someone who regularly engages in unsubstantiated personal attacks on those who disagree with him, the comment above is more than a little amusing. John Carter 17:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Pursuant to the fair compromise proposed above, and the follow up suggestion that this be handled as a section within the article, I request the following edit. Please add the following section before "See Also":

I've disabled the editprotected request. This page will be unprotected in a couple of days, and then anyone will be able to edit it. The section below also doesn't list any people, it only talks about people vaguely. This page is very controversial, so editprotected should only be used here for things like typos and glaring errors. Otherwise, the protection will fade quickly enough. Also, this talk page should probably be archived soon; it's huge. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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

This looks nice. Maybe one less sentence would work better, if the information could be condensed. Would there be any further subdivision by the faith returned/converted? Wait, scratch that, as I could see another debate brewing over whether Dylan became a Jew, or adopted a mixed or nonreligious perspective. I suppose just a bare listing of individuals would work, and the brevity of this section would allow for longer descriptions on each listing (which would be much more informative). --C.Logan 03:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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

I disagree. There are examples of lists which include individuals who formerly satisfy the criteria (with notes clarifying any change in status) because of the inherent notability of certain events in a person's life. For example, Joaquin Phoenix may no longer be a vegan, but his opting to choose that lifestyle is notable information and it's listing may prove useful to someone(perhaps not to you or I... but even articles like List of counties in Idaho provide someone with useful information, and I can assure you that I'll likely never find such information useful). Likewise, Dylan's, Flynt's, Singh's, and any other individual's change in lifestyle is not negated by the individual's later decisions. I'm not the best at explaining things, but I hope you can pick up on this line of thinking.

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

I can only assume that the proposition of listing individuals who returned to their birth faith as 'converts' may insult some people in each religion. As it stands, the information would seem to occupy a more neutral position here. --C.Logan 03:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Concerning the point of confusion about the individual's current beliefs- that's the essence of having a separate section to note such individuals. Additionally, I've suggested placing such individuals on their respective 'converts to x' list if they re-converted, but as I've said, certain individuals consider the notion 'insulting', especially in the case of Judaism. As it stands, I feel that if one were to make a change to another religion, and revert to their former faith, they would best be listed on the page of the converted religion (but specified as one who later reverted, in a separate section from the other entrants), and should also, of course, be listed on the 'List of x', with 'x' being their reverted faith. Even so, with examples such as Bob Dylan, we don't have any clear picture of what he even believes now. He could believe in Judaism; he could be an atheist or an agnostic; some sources have suggested that he is still Christian; others, including his own statements, are rather vague about the whole picture and suggest a possible ecumenical view on the validity of religious ideas. Placing such an individual would be a complex process, and there would doubtless be disagreements. One thing which can generally be agreed on is that the sources make it clear that he converted to Christianity, and that his faith waned or perhaps left entirely for something else. For this reason, the least controversial position would be on this article, in my opinion. --C.Logan 04:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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

I understand what you mean, but nevertheless, the individual did convert to Christianity- this is a noteworthy fact which, I believe, deserves mention on a relevant list, along with other individuals with similar situations. The conversion has been verified by reliable, WP:BLP-compliant sources. I'm unsure as to why you believe that such an event does not deserve mention, specifically on the page to which it directly pertains. Dylan was born a Jew, so he retains a place on that list- at least because of his birthright into the culture and the ethnicity. Concerning religion, the only clear point has been that he had converted to Christianity in 1979. From that position, it can't be determined whether he reverted, remained (with cooled interest), or morphed again to another belief (or lack thereof) entirely. As I've said, there should be no ambiguity if such an individual like Dylan is listed here. A section for individuals who converted to the faith, but later left it to revert to their former faith or to an uncertain belief, would be established, and a summary of the individuals situation (which may also point to the complexities of listing it elsewhere, as in Dylan's case) would be provided to further clarify that the individual is being listed because of their proclamation of new faith, and not their current status. --C.Logan 04:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)I would note that I was the first person to propose this idea of a separate section (or seperate page) almost a month ago here. The idea met with no response then. I personally still think that the idea has merit. The questions that I think would have to be faced before such content would be separated out are as follows:

• (1) How do we determine the current religious status of an individual? I would generally count only those individuals who have clearly and definitively, through whatever means are dictated by that faith, converted to a particular system of belief. I acknowledge up front that this proposal is and will be controversial; however, particularly given the rather nebulous and free-form status of several religions today, someone embracing one of the syncretic new religious movements could be seen by one group as still adhering to a prior faith and by another as having meaningfully converted. We should strive to avoid such situations wherever possible. If we could develop set parameters which would be accepted by all parties involved as what does and what does not constitute conversion, that would be helpful. It would probably however be all but impossible to get people to agree on.
• (2) Would this be a separate section of each of the "List of converts" pages, or would it be an entirely separate page? Personally, I would favor the former, including in those cases of people who have over time embraced three or more religions. A list of people who have converted several times, with no indication of what faiths they have converted from or to, would in my eyes be all but completely worthless, except for titillation value. However, in cases like that, maybe phrasing to the effect of "converted from X to Y, later converted to Z" would probably be the best way to go, IMHO.
• (3) There would be at least from me no objections to having a subsection of each section (if the layout remains the same) for "reverts."
• (4) I once again question the existing format, however. To me, it makes more sense that the individual entries be organized more on the basis of time then on the basis of religion. Several of the religions included have had their "ups and downs" over the years, and in several cases may have had changed dramatically over the years. Having them organized by time would allow for perhaps some comments as to the beliefs of a given faith at that time, and also would give a better idea of the trends in religiousity over time.
• I welcome any constructive comments to the above proposals. John Carter 14:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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

In essence I'm happy for a flag or new section to list the apostates but not their removal and would support that change to this article (and the List_of_converts_to_Islam too) layout. Ttiotsw 15:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I request that the new List of notable converts to Buddhism and the currently single-entry List of notable converts to Scientology be added to the "See also" section. John Carter 16:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

As long as we are requesting notable convert article, I request List of notable converts to Atheism.--Sefringle 06:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the above two are already, if only barely, extant. I personally would have no objections to such a list as mentioned above, though. We do have a huge List of atheists, which is actually rather intimidating to try to page through to find anyone who claims to have had religious belief earlier. I note Richard Dawkins described Douglas Adams as a convert to atheism on the latter's page, but I'm not sure if that is sufficient for inclusion. So far, I haven't found any others which explicitly state having had earlier beliefs before becoming atheists. I am assuming that, as atheism per se has no formal induction ceremonies, we would be using the subject's own statements as verification of their atheism? Anyway, I welcome such a page, and am leaving a message at Wikipedia:WikiProject Atheism requesting one. I think they're probably the ones best informed on the subject. John Carter 15:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Atheism#New article request for the discussion there. As most atheists are individual converts, it looks like they may be adding details of earlier faiths to the List of atheists where such is practicable. When the page is unblocked, I hope to add that list to the "See also" section. John Carter 16:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Then request comment, mediation, or arbitration. Otherwise, this discussion has been ongoing for some time, and, until and unless substantiation of some of the claims above is actually made, continuation of this seemingly concluded discussion would seem to serve no useful purpose. John Carter 20:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for copying and pasting the same rant that you've been propagating for the past month or so. As you tend to ignore all responses directed to you and consistently feel the need to insert warped accusations about the motivations of other editors, it would seem that sites like these might be a more appropriate receptacle for your views. However, if you would cease making accusations and would actually begin discussing things productively, then I suppose the conversation is worth continuing. --C.Logan 20:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Bus Stop you still actually have brought no evidence that Dylan has practiced Judaism or showed that he believes in any of the fundemental tenets of Judaism since after he stated he did have some Christian belief. Therefore not only is your request to remove him from the list groundless but also is the request to move him to a section of people that are no longer Christians. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Gustav- that's the funny thing. Even considering that fact, we are moving him to such a section. It was essentially our idea, and Cleo proposed a similar one recently, which revived the proposal. We've already made it apparent that the new section will make it more than clear why the individuals within that section are listed, and what their current status is. They won't be intermixed with any other individuals. However, given the consistent opposition to even this motion, it seems that Bus stop is thoroughly opposed to any mention of Dylan's conversion, and finds it preferable to censor Wikipedia. --C.Logan 20:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that I proposed a seperate article for "Notable Converts to Christianity who returned to their former religions", not a seperate section. I also proposed that the parameters of this article be restored so that the scope of the list is consistent with all other such "convert lists" contained on Wikipedia. I see no reason for Wikipedia to make special concessions for Christianity as opposed to other religions. Doing so strikes me as inconsistent with WP:NPOV. Cleo123 04:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well of course you can create the new section but we would need a reliable source to show that either Dylan has either renounced Christianity or that he practices or at least believes the main tenets of Judaism to put him in there. If one is not provided I will have to move him out of the section.Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 21:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. Considering Dylan's own statements which make an ambiguity of his religious beliefs (but tend toward non-religious or syncretic beliefs), in addition to some public involvement with Jewish causes (which is interpreted by some sites as a show of a return to Judaism, while other sources claim that the actions are cultural and non-religious- the sources given even claim that his contact with Jewish organizations was from a Christian perspective), I believe the most non-controversial position would be in such a section, with a clarification of the actual ambiguity of his beliefs post-Christianity (if it is indeed 'post' at all). Whew, that was quite a sentence. --C.Logan 21:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We have time to iron out the specific phrasing before the block is listed, if anyone wants to propose any. John Carter 21:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No, come on you can't make special allowances for Dylan just because his inclusion here upsets some people here who have made a hell of a noise about it. If there is no reliable source that proves that Dylan has renounced Christianity or that he has reverted to practicing or at least believing in Judaism or he has changed to another religious or anti religious state then Dylan should stay on the from Judaism section until a reliable source can be found to indicate his current position. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 21:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. However, as per the Talk: Bob Dylan page, particularly the great body of evidence provided by User:Metzenberg, for which I personally am quite grateful, there is substantial evidence that Dylan is now actively practicing Judaic religion in some form. I would assume some of the sources used in the recent comments on that page would be used as the evidence of his having taken up practice of Judaism again. However, as stated on that page, that evidence does not (partially as a lack of documentation of conversion in Judaism) necessarily show proof of conversion or absence of belief in some syncretic version of Christianity and Judaism or anything else. On that basis, I think adding a comment to the effect of "is currently a practicing Jew" might be the best phrasing, possibly with his separate comment that he does not follow any organized religion. Like I said earlier, the exact phrasing of the comment, and what should be included in it, is something we now have the opportunity to discuss and hopefully come to some sort of conclusion about. John Carter 22:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What we see is a clear commitment to abuse. Dylan is a Jew. This is a List of notable converts to Christianity. Obviously Dylan does not belong on this list. What you have is out of control emotionalism. What other explanation to the denial of rationality? What we see in the above comments is a clear commitment to continue using this article as a locus of abusive behavior towards Jews. I can only assume the editors see Dylan symbolic of all Jews, but I have no way of knowing that. What other explanation for the irrationality of placing a Jew on what is a list of Christians? This abuse is not at all of a minor nature. In the face of the abuse that I am referring to and the above comments indicating more of the same I seriously feel this article is irredeemable. The above editors are demonstrating a commitment to continuing and ongoing abuse of at least one Jew on this article. My personal feeling is that Bob Dylan is meant to be symbolic of all Jews. He (Bob Dylan) is clearly Jewish. There is no doubt about that. He was born to parents both of whom were Jewish. He was bar mitzvah. Of course the fact that he is a rock star, possessing enormous charisma, about as high profile a creative individual as is alive today in popular culture, is not irrelevant. The events of 27 years ago are almost entirely irrelevant today. I don't think there is really anyone who honestly doubts that. What we have is out of control emotionalism and a possessiveness that wants to possess even that which is not owned. I don't see any reason why any rational editor should tolerate this abuse. This list was created in the atmosphere of abuse. It was sleight of hand that created this abusive list on January 17 of 2006. The idea at that time was to create a list containing, at that time, only three names. One of those three names was Bob Dylan. And the idea was to put the note next to the name Bob Dylan reading, from Judaism, to which he later reconverted. Here is the first entry, in its entirety: Bob Dylan, from Judaism to which he later reconverted. That wording has changed form and been removed entirely numerous times in the history of this article. I contend that the abuse does not go away no matter what wording you use. You simply do not put a Jew on a list of Christians. "Convert" to Christianity (as used in the title) means "Christian." Convert is a noun in the title of this article. What does that noun refer to? That noun refers to a Christian. This article has removed additional wording, the counterpart of which can be found on the List of notable converts to Judaism. The List of notable converts to Judaism carries the tag at the top of it which reads, This page is a list of Jews. Why has the List of notable converts to Christianity removed the corresponding tag for that list? The List of notable converts to Christianity used to have on it the tag reading, This page is a list of Christians. Why has that tag been removed? Dylan does not happen to be a Christian. Why the contradiction between the title and the fact that Dylan is in point of fact not a Christian? Bus stop 14:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What we have above is someone who is continuing to make statements based on unsupported claims who refuses to take the actions which are called for to resolve disputes such as this as per the WP:DR page. As long as he continues to make these unsupported allegations, without providing any evidence of his claims or showing any interest in taking the steps outlined on the page referenced, he has no reason to believe that continuing to complain in the manner above will produce any results. John Carter 14:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I imagine it is clear to anyone that is not Cleo123 or BusStop that they have been carrying out a campaign of bullying and harrassment on this page in order to try and get their own way in removing Bob Dylan on the list. They have invented conspiracies that his inclusion on this list is meant to insult Jews or swell the pride of Christians or whatever and then used these imagined conspiracies to claim that they are being attacked and belittled merely by Dylan's inclusion on the list. They clearly do not intend to be reasonable but instead to bully. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 15:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow! What a shocking misrepresentation of facts. In the first place, multiple editors have voiced concerns about the contrived parameters that have been added to this article during the course of this dispute. Likewise, several editors, apart from User:Bus stop and myself have objected to Dylan's inclusion on this list. Editors on your side of the argument have chosen to ignore other dissenting opinions, in favor of a focused assault on User:Bus stop. Apparently, my defense of this user has made me an additional target of abuse. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel, I would suggest that you review my contributions to this and other "Dylan" related discussions. You will find that I have not made any allusions to prostelytizing, nor have I referred to the article as "an insult to Jews". Indeed, I have actively discouraged User:Bus stop from speculating as to the motivations of others. I have stated very clearly that although Dylan is an interesting case in point, my primary focus is the article's recently broadened and potentially misleading parameters that could adversely affect any number of celebrities in the future. Cleo123 03:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Gustav von Humpelschmumpel -- How do you explain Sefringle's comments, in the section above, entitled "Notable Converts Who Later Changed Their Faith"? If I read Sefringle's comments correctly, that editor is arguing too that Bob Dylan does not belong on this list. Correct me if I am wrong, but that is what I read Sefringle as saying. Bus stop 15:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What Sefringle said was that people who have abandoned a faith should be added to a List of former (X)'s, like the specifically mentioned List of former Muslims. I note that there is a very short List of former Christians, which has all of 5 entries referenced. I can certainly see having appropriate content moved to such lists, if there is sufficient content and/or sufficient cause to justify maintaining as a separate entity. The question then arises whether certain parties would accept Dylan's inclusion on that list. I'm not sure I can answer that question. Also, I wonder (and request input from others) what the specific qualifications for inclusion on a list of "former" anythings would be, particularly in the rather free-form religious environment we are now in. Also, should someone who specifically qualifies for inclusion on both lists (on the basis of conversion to and form Christianity, in this case) be on both lists or not? Like I said, I welcome and request reasonable responses, preferably those indicating some specific aspect of some extant policy or guideline as their justification. John Carter 18:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)