Talk:List of converts to Judaism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit warring and incivility must stop[edit]

User:Java7837 and User:SkyWriter have has complained on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism about the behavior of "anti-semites" on this page. User:SkyWriter joined in that complaint without distancing himself from the use of the "anti-semite" epithet. I see these complaints User:Java7837's complaint as a breach of Wikipedia's policies on civility. Perhaps it is commonplace where you come from to malign people who disagree with you as anti-semites but I find this sort of loose rhetoric to be offensive. Please stop it. Mutter it under your breath if you must but keep it off Wikipedia's talk pages.

More importantly, there has been a long-running edit war on this article, apparently going back several months and resulting in an open RFC.

The most recent outbreaks of edit-warring involved violations of WP:3RR by User:Jayjg and User:Skywriter on March 29 and User:Skywriter on April 5. There are other editors involved in the edit war, most notably User:Jpgordon and User:Java7837.

In at least one of the alleged 3RR violations (Jayjg on March 29), there were only 3 reverts, not the 4 required to constitute a violation of 3RR. It is likely that my other allegations suffer from the same defect and, not being in the mood to go back and count those instances again, I retract all the allegations. The point is: 3RR doesn't mean you should revert 3 times. Consider WP:0RR or WP:BRD instead of pulling yourself up just 1 revert shy of 4 reverts. --Richard (talk) 04:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am very conservative in blocking editors, especially long-standing editors such as Jayjg and Jpgordon. For shame, guys, you ought to know better than that.

My feeling is that it is not helpful to block long-standing editors who are editing in good faith. Blocking editors in such situations just inflames emotions.

But that only leaves protection of the article as a possible admin action to address the edit warring.

So... I will issue these warnings:

  1. Desist from the personal attacks; calling someone an anti-semite is a personal attack; you wouldn't like it if someone attributed your position on the contents of this list to your being a Christ-killer. Christ-killing has nothing to do with this dispute and neither does anti-semitism.
  2. Be WP:civil and assume good faith
  3. Don't edit war; also remember that WP:3RR does not entitle you to 3 reversions a day; you can be blocked for edit warring that does not technically violate 3RR

I will also make the following suggestion:

Whatever the status of the article text, leave it alone until the RFC has run to completion. Pretend it's protected. If you have trouble imagining it as protected, I can help by actually protecting it.

--Richard (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't violate 3RR on March 29. Jayjg (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's it? That's all you have to say? Heck, I didn't violate 3rr either time, and that's not the point. The point is that we were edit warring and have been for months. Sure we both know to stop at 3 -- but it's still edit warring. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been edit-warring for months. I first came across this issue on March 29, just over a week ago. You have been editing-warring about this for months; in fact, for over a year. I haven't been. Jayjg (talk) 03:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on all counts -- although I did not start off suspecting antisemitism, I did not argue against it either. I would, however, request three things: 1) that uncivil actions be regarded as offensive as the description of those actions (on all sides here, guys -- EVERYONE needs to treat each other with respect and courtesy in both word AND deed), 2) that the Wikipedia notability guidelines (including both Jayjg's preferred section and my own cited section as well) be used as the basis for determination, and 3) that the names be visible either here or on the article page itself. It's easy to argue against a vaccuum, but it serves little purpose. Geza Vermes for instance, perhaps the most notable person on the entire list, was the first person deleted in this extended edit war. Leaving the article in protected status with Geza Vermes missing would have not benefitted Wikipedia, and it would have left us with little idea regarding precisely WHO we were discussing. Also, I'd like to add that both Jayjg and myself want to remove the red lines. He simply wants to remove the names as well as the red lines as per the Wikipedia guidelines he's cited, and I merely want to remove the red lines as per the Wikipedia guidelines I've cited (both cited guidelines being on the same page of Wikipedia). And, finally, I'd call on all sides to stop the contention. Calling someone "uncivil" is as unhelpful as calling someone a "vandal". Accusing someone of not assuming good faith is as unhelpful as losing faith in a person during a war. And threatening someone with an "awkward position" is as unhelpful as any perceived personal attack. It's time to discuss the issue, the guidelines, and the best way to proceed -- and to stop stonewalling and treating "SkyWriter" or "Jayjg" as the issue. We are not the issue. Wikipedia guidelines, cited by both sides, is the issue. PS to Richardshusr -- you were the first person coming from the outside with a balanced approach, and I thank you.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a quick check here and on the Judaism page and did not find anything from me accusing the other party of antisemitism. I have speculated about this as a motivation for someone ignoring Wikipedia notability guidelines, but I did not do so here or on the Judaism page. What I HAVE done is to call the repeated deletion of sourced information and repeated ignoring of cited Wikipedia guidelines as "vandalism." If I'm incorrect, I apologize. I believe I'm correct, and I'll STILL apologize. But at some point Wikipedia guidelines need to at least be CONSIDERED and this sidetracking of saying "he's an antisemite-baiter" is grossly prejudicial and uncivil, and I ask the parties that have done so, including Richard, to retract that both here and on the Judaism project page. The actions, accusations, and obfuscations toward me are in themselves uncivil, and even led me to doubt myself -- how much more someone else? I even gave you the benefit of the doubt against my own memory. In other words, I've taken my assumption of good faith way too far. Again, I request an apology from everyone who has done this, just as they have requested an apology from me. And if someone HAS offered to go halfway with me in the past and I've missed it, please point that out so that collaboration can occur. To this point I have not yet seen any attempt to compromise or collaborate or even to assume good faith toward myself. I'll PREsume good faith one last time and imagine that I simply missed it. Please show me where it occurred.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Richard! You've been the first person to budge and show consideration of both views here, and I'm very grateful.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is where Tim alleges anti-semitismn; User:Java7837 then appears to run with the balll at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism, but it was Tim's invention, and it's up to Tim to back down from it, as well as the unfounded and highly inappropriate accusations of vandalism. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already aknowledged speculating about that possibility on his talk page (on March 29), and I've already apologized for that. The only reason I speculated was because my citations of the Wikipedia guidelines were being ignored, which you are continuing to do. I've apologized for my concern -- please don't continue the behavior that led to my concern. It's time to stop and to ADDRESS the Wikipedia guidelines I've cited here and on the Judaism project page. I find it passing strange that administrators will refuse to address a quoted Wikipedia guideline. I don't know what your motivations are and I don't care. I just continue waiting with morbid curiosity for how long it will take for you to stop your behavior. Again -- I apologize for speculating WHY you are refusing to address the guidelines. I will avoid such in the future. Now my only concern is THAT you begin to address those guidelines. Apology given. Your turn.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, why WOULD two admins refuse to address cited Wikipedia notability guidelines? You could have simply told me that I was misunderstanding something and showed me how I should look at it. I'll accept "uh, we just missed it in the heat of battle... sorry." That would be fine. My own speculation was wrong, but I'd at least like to know what the motivations could have been, other than just being caught up in the moment. You are human, after all.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't specify which guideline you were referring to, despite requests that you do so. Jayjg (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's on the same page as the guideline you are citing. I've said that numerous times now.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which guideline was I citing? Please give the time and date of the comment where I cited a guideline (aside from the comment I made a few minutes ago, at 02:23, 8 April 2009). Jayjg (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me -- maybe I had you confused with Diviama. If you've cited NO guidelines, then that's even more consistent with the fact that you ignored them when I cited the same guidelines. If you just aren't familiar with Wikipedia notability guidelines, then I apologize. I'd suggest you catch up on them for a few days and then we can discuss. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with the notability guidelines. They don't cover your edits, at least not in the way you claim they do; Malik has explained why below. You've taken them out of context, and context is crucial. If you want to draw peoples' attention to a specific guideline, then you need to link to the guideline in question, or at least name it. I have yet to see you do so; even now. Jayjg (talk) 03:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of WP:BIO1E[edit]

Skywriter, I think your interpretation of WP:BIO1E is mistaken. Here's why:

"When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both." A person's conversion is not an "event", it's part of their biography (i.e., their life story). If you read the rest of the guideline, all the examples refer to people whose potential notability is related to a notable event: assassinating a prominent royal, videotaping a police assault, witnessing an assassination, interfering in a baseball game, participating in a demonstration. In each case, an article could be written about the person or about the event.

"The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person." That should be a red flag that WP:BIO1E isn't relevant. How could you write an article such as Conversion to Judaism of JoAnn Fay? The "event"—the conversion itself—isn't notable. Either JoAnn Fay is notable or she isn't, but her conversion to Judaism isn't notable per se.

I hope this explanation helps. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for addressing my question.
Folks -- why in the world was that so difficult?
Malik, since you are the first person to actually address the question, could you do us the favor of recommending a solution that would accomodate both sides of the issue here? There are those who regard conversion of clergy to another religion to be notable, somewhat similar to a U.S. Senator renouncing his citizenship for that of another country (which if I understand you correctly is not an 'event'). There are also those who do not regard this as notable. That's fair. I do not find most articles on Wikipedia to be notable, but recognize that to others they would be. I don't go around trying to delete information from articles I'm not interested in. But at the same time I would not want what I consider to be non notable information to intrude in an article that I do find interesting.
The two sides have suggested that either a) all listed individuals would ALSO require their own separate article or b) such additional articles would be wasteful for the resources of Wikipedia. In your opinion, what do you consider to be the most efficient use of Wikipedia resources in this matter -- in which all parties may collaborate in constructing information, rather than deleting it? Thanks.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are mis-stating the two positions. One position is that conversions of clergy are inherently notable, and should therefore all such clergy should be listed in this article. The other position is that the conversions are notable only if the people themselves are notable; that is, if they have Wikipedia articles on them. No-one is insisting that articles should be created for every clergy-person who has converted to Judaism; rather, they are insisting that only those with articles should be listed here. Jayjg (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg, the first person deleted was Geza Vermes. GEZA VERMES. Doesn't that chill you or at least give you pause? And have you looked at the articles? Their notability in those articles is that they are clergy who converted to Judaism. Asher Wade is only barely more notable because he became a rabbi afterwards. You've been fine with Geza Vermes being deleted until I linked his name with his article. Same with Asher Wade. Are you consistent? Yes. Do you have Wikipedia guidelines to back you? Yes. Does that exclude the exception I've cited? No. I'm not saying you're wrong -- only that I'm not wrong either. The guidelines are nuanced in this case, and wooden application of some formula only results in article after article being created -- 37 or so -- before a single article on a single notable subject can be populated. That's not only wasteful, but it's writing Wikipedia backwards. If you continue to persist, we'll end up with 37 unnecessary articles. You may be fine with that, but as a writer and Wikipedia editor I find that to be extremely sloppy.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? I never deleted Vermes, nor have I deleted Wade. Jayjg (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'd like to add that creating 37 separate articles WOULD be covering the person, rather than the event of clergy converting to Judaism (i.e. a single article such as this one). I understand that this is not your view of that guideline, but please recognize that it is my own sincere understanding. An event is something "that happened" in my view. So I would take that citation of yours to mean something like: "Don't focus on who it happened to as much as on the thing that happened itself (i.e. clergy converting to Judaism)." Again, we may disagree. I'm simply seeking the most collaborative way to proceed. Until now, I've seen a willingness to war without direct discussion, and repeated statements of refusal to collaborate on any mutually rational consensus. Again, I do appreciate the fact that you've broken the ice here, and I'd very much like to find a resolution that is rational to all sides (i.e. "consensus").SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered the possibility that your position does not accord with Wikipedia norms? That there really is no "middle ground" here, but rather, that the material simply does not belong on Wikipedia? Jayjg (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would have considered that until you continued to persist in ignoring the Wikipedia guidelines I cited to you. Your ignoring them simply meant that Wikipedia guidelines or norms had nothing to do with your motivation. I won't speculate. But I've YET to see you even attempt to address the guidelines I've cited. I've addressed yours -- because I care about those guidelines. You have not addressed mine, because... well, only you can say why. Maybe this is just fun for you. I don't know and I don't care. What I do care about is good writing, concise editing, and the integrity of Wikipedia as a source of information. On this particular subject Wikipedia showed itself to be a shining example of good, sourced, information. In fact, I've been searching for this information for YEARS and had not been able to find it before some incredibly admirable editor took the time to add them. As far as I can tell, you like blue lines. Fine. You'll get them. I think they are wasteful, but during this edit war I've watched the articles you've demanded pop out of the woodwork. How many good responsible editors does it take to satisfy a wooden demand of one part of a guideline? I don't know. I'm not one of those good editors. I'm just another good editor trying to save them, you, and Wikipedia readers time by citing another portion of that same guideline you claim to follow -- which allows all the information to rest here, with no need for all those other articles. If I fail, we'll end up with dozens of articles on these people. If I had succeeded -- we'd have just one (which is all that was necessary in the first place).SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You refused to specify which guidelines you were referring to. In fact, I have yet to see you refer specifically to any guideline. You appear to be quoting guidelines, but you won't actually say their names, which makes it difficult for people to be sure what you are referring to, and in what context. Regarding your statement that I will "get to them", what are you talking about? Jayjg (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg, I think Skywriter was trying to say "You (Jayjg) like blue links. (as opposed to redlinks). Fine. You'll get them (meaning someone will write articles for those redlinks)."
--Richard (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Time-Out[edit]

Most of us Jews will be offline until at least Sunday. It appears that not everyone is familiar with Wikipedia notability guidelines, and we need to all catch up. I could use a reread myself. I propose that we table this until at least Monday (and many of us may not be back until late next week). I'd also suggest that those not observing Passover enjoy other articles on Wikipedia. There are many places to happily edit while we're away. Once we're back, we can discuss the notability guidelines -- all from an equal position of familiarity. Have a good Passover everyone, and a Happy Easter. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 03:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay -- now I'm definitely off for a few days. I promise that before I discuss anything further on this talk page I'll thoroughly study the guidelines I've linked (above), and if there are any other guidelines pertinent to the specific issue at hand, I'll be happy to study those also. Other parties interested in a mutually satisfactory conclusion to this question are welcome to do the same. Those not interested in discussing guidelines are welcome to listen in. But let's please keep this to guidelines for now. Let's all remember that consensus is best when all parties reach it according to guidelines. As I've said several times, it could very well be that I've misunderstood something. It could also be that those who disagree with me have misunderstood something. Most likely I think that the guidelines have something to speak for both sides here, and that we are more right in what we each affirm than in what we each deny. This is an opportunity for us, here, to address Wikipedia guidelines, reach a consensus regarding what they call for, and work together in a collaborative way. Have a holy week, everyone. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if anyone thinks policies and guidelines are truly relevant, then the best way to seek clarification of same is on either the talk page or noticeboard page of the relevant policy or guideline. Article talk pages in general are generally not used as a forum to discuss policies and guidelines, because they get less attention. I would suggest that the place to discuss any questions about the applicability of any policy or guideline is either the designated noticeboard for such discussions or the policy page itself. John Carter (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Policies and guidelines are irrelevant here? If that's the way everyone feels here then I'll have to move on, because there is no basis on which to form consensus. All we'll be left with is the greatest numbers and powers willing to edit war. If policies are irrelevant to anyone -- please pipe in. If the consensus here is not to consider guidelines, then I cannot be a part of that consensus and will leave you folks alone. Just let me know, guys -- either here or on my talk page. And please, no threats. I simply want to follow guidelines or be helped to do so if I'm mistaken. If that truly cannot be done here, I'll be very happy to move on. I figure three or four of you would be enough. Just let me know however it seems best to you. Wikipedia is a very large place, and there are plenty of articles, editors, and admins, who find that the guidelines are meant to be followed, and that we are here to work together. I figure it's big enough for a dozen lifetimes without needing to look at this article again. Best. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said nothing even remotely to the effect of policies and guidelines being irrelevant, and I would urge the above editor to take a long breath and actually read what others say, particularly as it will help prevent him making such inflammatory and clearly incorrect statements in the future. What I believe I had fairly clearly stated, if he would actually read it, was that the best place to seek a clarification of a policy or guideline was on the noticeboard relevant to that policy or guideline, as those pages are more heavily monitored than any individual article's talk page is. And I too would very much agree that at least the above editor would very much benefit from a period away from this subject. John Carter (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read what you wrote. I also read what you were responding to: my request that we each take a look at the guideline to see if we are following it. That is what you seemed to be disagreeing with. Do I take it, then, that you do agree we should collaborate according to guidelines? If so, fantastic: we have a basis for consensus. If not, I'll work elsewhere with those who do.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with John Carter. The results of the RFC are clearly running against SkyWriter and Java7837. If SkyWriter thinks these 7 editors are all misinterpreting the policies and guidelines, then the talk page of the policy or guideline is a good place to find Wikipedians who are more interested/knowledgeable in that policy or guideline. If you are unwilling to accept the results of a RFC, the next step is to ask for mediation via WP:MEDCAB and WP:MEDCOM. Consult WP:DR for a full expositon of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. --Richard (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I think they are misinterpreting it. It's that I think they are not addressing it, and that if they never have an interest in doing so, I'll be happy to move on. Do I take this to mean that you and John make two? One more and I'll be satisfied that I need to work with others elsewhere.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I for one think I did address it, to the degree that any article talk page is the place to try to determine the applicability of a policy or guideline, which it is not. And please remember policy trumps guidelines. In my opinion, having read the relevant notability pages more than once, is that the simple act of conversion is not in and of itself sufficient to establish notability in any case. If the notability can be established as per WP:PEOPLE, specifically, from that page, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". I do not personally believe that any religious conversion is in and of itself sufficient to establish notability. There are however other notability criteria, such as being mentioned in a non-trivial way in more than one source for more than one specific event. So far as I have seen, notability by those terms has yet to be established for the subjects under discussion. If it can be proven that such notability exists, fine. However, I once again think that you would be best served to make such requests on the appropriate noticeboards or policy talk pages as I indicated above, as you seem to think that other parties informed on these matters would think differently. John Carter (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For those of you who aren't aware -- John's link above is the same page as the link I gave. As such, we are actually in agreement that any guideline relevance would be from the same page.
The section I've addressed from the page John has linked is this:

People notable only for one event

When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified.
If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role.
When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. For example, George Holliday who videotaped the Rodney King beating redirects to Rodney King. On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example Howard Brennan.
Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident. For example, Steve Bartman redirects to Steve Bartman incident. In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most relevant is "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person" which I take to mean "The general rule in this case is to cover conversion of clergy to Judaism, not each individual".
I think we are both in agreement that conversion to another religion does not necessarily require a separate article under these guidelines. My problem was that some folks seemed to be saying that they were fine with including someone here if they had their own article -- and that people were actually creating those articles! I had a hand in linking Geza Vermes and restoring Asher Wade. After that, I felt I would be violating the spirit of this guideline to do more. They all basically shared the same characteristic.
Regardless -- if there is another who isn't interested in discussing this matter in this location, again, I'll move on. But I don't think the guideline page is the place to discuss the applicability of this very specific topic. I could be wrong. But if I do go there, John, Richard, would you mind vouching for me as someone who was directed there by responsible authorities?SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Okay -- although I did reread the page as promised before writing, I really do have to go. There are still things to do before Passover in the real world. Happy week everyone!SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it should be noted that above I clearly disagreed with the above editor regarding something. The ultimate policy of wikipedia is, to the best of my knowledge, WP:CONSENSUS. The consensus regarding this particular subject seems to be that these individuals are not sufficiently notable.
I too have in the past read the guideline SkyWriter has linked to. I think there are a couple of points here which he may have missed. One of these is that that guideline was I believe written, at least in part, with how to deal with individuals who may have, while performing in a way which would be counted as significant today, lived at a time when comparatively little was written about them. They may, through the circumstances of their lives, have been extremely significant, but may only have been mentioned in one source which has survived. Should those individuals be "written off" because of the lack of literacy of their time? I would think not.
Secondly, there is the matter of "interesting". Frankly, to my eyes, anyone from the past two centuries in the Western world who isn't "interesting" enough to be mentioned repeatedly by at least one source isn't interesting enough for an article. There are soooo many sources out there that any one-hit wonder should probably be relegated to being a part of another article. However, there are cases where an individual, human or not, may have done something truly remarkable. Scarlett the cat got 7,000 offers of adoption, partially due to heavy coverage from CNN. Is 7,000 offers of adoption "interesting"? I think it might be some sort of record. And, of course, in that case, the subject was also featured in several books, discussing the rest of her life, but that may be beside the point. There was a boy in Oconomowoc, WI who got the world record price for a pig, about $25,000 or $125-130 per pound. He is now in the Guinness Book of World Records. I note we don't yet have an article on him, which is odd. He is included in the Guinness Book, and he was also featured prominently on CBC's As It Happens at least once. Examples like those two, which are of a truly singular variety, are one thing. Conversions of ministers, which seems to happen in all faiths rather more often than we would expect, becoming almost "run of the mill", is something else entirely. They are nowhere near as unique, and may not qualify on the basis of being that "interesting". John Carter (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Paganism"[edit]

I think if you read paganism, you'll see that it's a loose and unscholarly blanket term for the various religions of antiquity. "Paganism" was a term invented by Christians to create an us vs. them dichotomy; see this definition of "Pagan" from Peter Brown. It's meaningless to call a Canaanite religion "paganism." We have no article named "ancient Roman paganism," for instance, for the very reason that no such thing existed; see Religion in ancient Rome. I don't have the knowledge to deal with ancient Semitic religions, but I hope someone will provide more helpful links within a scholarly frame of reference to the relevant religions. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is empty!![edit]

Where is the list of converts??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.97.153.133 (talk) 06:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of converts to Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of converts to Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of converts to Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

The following pages seem to have an identical purpose to this one. To save time and improve coverage, I propose that they be merged into this one. What do people think?

Jontel (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GenoV84 and Jobas: I suggest combining the various pages on converts to Judaism. See discussion here. Jontel (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the proposal, and suggest to merge these sub-pages of converts to Judaism from various religions as separate sections of this page.--GenoV84 (talk) 13:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darius the Mede[edit]

Darius the Mede could not have been a convert to Judaism since he is a fictional character, not a really existing person. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dianalasi23: This has to stop. The next time you introduce Cyrus the Great or Darius the Mede into this article, I will ask at WP:ANI that you get indeffed. See WP:CIR why. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


@Tgeorgescu: Bible isn't fictional. And I added Darius the Mede with according to Bible. Please you check List of converted to Judaism in Bible. See WP:CIR why.

No, the Bible isn't fictional, I have one myself. However, in the WP-context it is not a WP:Reliable source for historical information. And since you want to write on WP, that matters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Khazars[edit]

Since https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars#Judaism indicates doubts about the extent of Khazar conversion perhaps "Khazars ... many of whom converted to Judaism en masse" in # 1.2 "Other converted nations, groups or tribes" should be edited. Mcljlm (talk) 03:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

converts from islam[edit]

according to the article Ibrahim Shaheen did not convert. only his wife did after his death. Chazir (talk) 11:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Labelling Israel Bartal as "just another view"?[edit]

In this edit, @Tombah: you dismissed to Israel Bartal, then dean of the humanities faculty of the Hebrew University, as "just another view". If you read the full quote, he is making a broader point, that:

No "nationalist" Jewish historian has ever tried to conceal the well-known fact that conversions to Judaism had a major impact on Jewish history in the ancient period and in the early Middle Ages.

He is saying that there are no opposing views held by mainstream scholars here. So why have you suggested that this statement is disputed? By who? Has Bartal's claim that this is a well known fact that has not been disputed by serious scholars any evidence against it?

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Define "Impact". Social impact? Demographic impact? Is he referring to mass conversion of Jews? Tombah (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of the above. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where? I don't see it in the quote. Is it in the article? Converts did in fact had a significant impact on Jewish history, including significant sages like Abtalion, Shmaya and Rabbi Akiva claiming descent from converts, and even David himself, was according to tradition a descendent of Moabite convert Ruth. But, I would be surprised to learn that Bartal did assert that mass conversion to Judaism ever took place, and if he did, I wonder on what he based this claim. While the ancient sources do refer to converts to Judaism during the Roman period, as well as God-fearers who observed several Jewish practices without becoming full converts, there is nothing in the ancient sources that indicates a particularly large number of converts joining Judaism, and other renown scholars, such as Martin Goodman, reject that claim. Some scholars have used Matthew 23.15 as "evidence" for proselytization efforts among Pharisees, but this claim is also disputed. Tombah (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, read the full article. A wider quote for you:

…no historian of the Jewish national movement has ever really believed that the origins of the Jews are ethnically and biologically "pure"… No "nationalist" Jewish historian has ever tried to conceal the well-known fact that conversions to Judaism had a major impact on Jewish history in the ancient period and in the early Middle Ages.

His comment on "major impact" is directly related to his comment about not being "ethnically and biologically pure". It is crystal clear.
Onceinawhile (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is also Onkelos, one of the major commentators of the Torah, whose commentaries are frequently found in orthodox Chumashs. He himself was a convert. But as an individual, not as some mass conversion.
I think Onceinawhile is seeing what they want to see. There is not actually any record of mass conversions, and I haven’t seen any reliable sources saying there were. Drsmoo (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_converts_to_Judaism&oldid=1206782473"