Talk:List of converts to Judaism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Judaism Portal
List of converts to Judaism is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do:
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.
 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
List This article has been rated as List on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 5 Nov 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents

[edit] Names Requiring Full Articles for Re-Inclusion in the Main Page

The following are the names that are still not sufficiently documented as a standalone article. Since my own effort is being delayed by the proof editing on my book, and will not likely resume until April, I am moving the names here. Diviama has expressed concern that each listed name requires a separate article before inclusion on the main page. I have expressed concern that removing the names entirely will hamper the effort to create those very articles. Moving them here keeps the names available for other editors (solving my concern) and does not leave them hanging with empty links on the main page (solving Diviama's concern).

I hope to resume my efforts in early to mid April, and other editors are welcome (and encouraged!) to help.Tim (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Please create articles for these persons if possible in accordance with Wikipedia:Notability_(people).

[edit] List of converts to Judaism from Christianity

[edit] Christian Proselyte Communities

  • Veracruz Jews [1]

[edit] From Christianity

  • Mary Hart (1950 - ) American television personality, long-time host of the entertainment program Entertainment Tonight upon marrying Burt Sugarman[2]
  • Baruch James (helped in translating part of the Talmud in English also in his youth he thought of someday becoming a minister)
  • Paula Winkler (Paula Buber), German writer (upon marrying Martin Buber) [3]

[edit] Former Christian clergy and Christian theologians

  • Andrew/Andreas, the Archbishop of Bari, a city in Southern Italy, declared himself a Jew upon a journey to Constantinople in 1066 and subsequentally fled to Egypt.[4][5][6]
  • Wecelin, a cleric who worked for Duke Conrad of Carinthia, accepted Judaism sometime about 1005. There is written evidence that Wecelin published a brief tract against Christianity. Wecelin, who may have fled to Egypt, is only one of many 11th century converts described in the Cairo Genizah.[5]
  • Cornelio Da Montalcino, (a Franciscan friar who had embraced Judaism, and was burned alive on the Campo dei Fiori.)[7][8][9][10][11][12][13]
  • Dionis (former priest) [14]

[edit] 1900's to present

  • JoAnn Fay, a nun converted to Judaism in 1980. (Orthodox Judaism)[15]
  • John David Scalamonti (former Roman Catholic priest) converted in 1972 (Orthodox Judaism) Official book at Amazon.comOfficial book at Barnes and Noble[16]
  • John Hove (former Lutheran pastor) converted to Judaism in 1988 (Orthodox Judaism)[17]
  • Sheldon Christopher Smith former Pentacostal Pastor converted to Judaism in 1987[18]

[edit] 1990's to 2000's
  • Thomas Roper (ex-baptist minister) (Orthodox Judaism)[19]
  • Gavriel Sanders former evengelical minister and missionary in Israel. Mark Sanders ultimately converted to (Orthodox Judaism). He served on staff with Jews for Judaism before moving to the East Coast [20]
  • Tonica Marlow former female evangelical minister and daughter of a Pentecostal preacher (Orthodox Judaism)Official book[21]
  • Aharón Calderón (former monk of a Catholic monastery in South America) (Orthodox Judaism) [22]
  • Armando Quiros former catholic priest (Orthodox Judaism) Official book[23]
  • Julie Galambush former American Baptist Minister (Orthodox Judaism)[24]
  • Michael Flanagan former Baptist minister, his mother-in-law, wife and their two adult sons, grandchildren, daughter-in-law also converted (Orthodox Judaism)[25]
  • Ahuva Gray served as a Christian minister in the African American community both in Chicago and Los Angeles for fourteen years. She left that world in 1996 to fulfill her spiritual yearnings and become a Jew. (Orthodox Judaism) Official Website Official book[26]
  • Nobutaka Hattori former Protestant Minister of Japan (Orthodox Judaism)[27]
  • Carlos Samuel Salas, former Methodist minister (Orthodox Judaism)[28]
  • Abraham Carmel (former Anglican and Roman Catholic priest) (Orthodox Judaism) Official book[29]
  • Mariano Otero a former South Florida-based former Pentacostal minister is now a counter-missionary[30]
  • Timothy Olivieri Former Catholic Deacon to Reform Judaism
  • Jack Saunders, a former minister [31]
  • Carole Le Faivre-Rochester, a former Domican nun, she converted to Judaism in 1989[32]

[edit] From Religions Other than Christianity

[edit] From Buddhism

Yitzhak Fanger (reverted to Judaism, was a former Buddhist Priest and Monk now a Haredi rabbi) (Orthodox Judaism) [33]

[edit] From Shintō

  • Setzuso Kotsuji (son of a prominent Shinto priest, descended from a long-line of well-known priests.) is a convert to Orthodox Judaism)[34][35]

[edit] Converted or not?

Saul of Tarsus was not a convert to Judaism. He describes himself as 'a Hebrew of Hebrews, of the tribe of Benjamin' (Romans 11:1) (Phillippians 3:5). DJ Clayworth 19:25, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The article you link to refers to a statement by a scholar who believes he was indeed a convert to Judaism. If this belief is so marginal that practically no Biblical scholar takes it seriously, then it should be removed from that page as well. On the other hand, if it's regarded as a serious theory, then Paul should be reinserted into the list here. As the introductory text states, it's not just for confirmed converts, but those who are "believed to be" converts. Psychonaut 19:51, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
As far as I can determine this belief is pretty marginal, but not quite so out there that it is ridiculous. It's a theory held by a very small minority. Putting Paul back in this list would certainly give the wrong impression. I'm going to go and rework the Paul article a little. DJ Clayworth 15:05, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Descended from proselytes

According to Maimonides, Avtalyon, Meir & Shemaya were descended from proselytes (i.e. weren't converts themselves). Udzu 19:54, 8 June 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Consuelo Luz

Did Consuelo Luz really convert to Judaism, or has she just become more aware of her Jewish roots? Udzu 22:59, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Jethro - a convert?

I find it curious that Jethro is listed as a convert. I have never heard that before. The book of Exodus identifies him as a "priest of Midian" - an identity he kept. He visited but did not join the Israelites on their flight from Egypt - after meeting Moses and worshipping with him, he went back to his own people. (See Exodus 18.27). Had he converted, I think he would have joined the Jewish people and stayed with them - after all, his own daughter had done so.

The fact that he acknowledged the God of Moses and worshiped him does not necessarily mean that he converted to Judaism. Judaism teaches that one may truly worship God without converting, and does not regard all worshippers and fellow-travellers as converts. In the book of Acts, Paul distinguished between "Jews" and "God-fearing Gentiles."

Jethro's worship of the same God as Moses is not really surprising, either, given that the Midianites, like the Jews, were descendants of Abraham (see Genesis 18). Only about 3 or 4 generations had passed since Abraham's time, so many of the basic beliefs that Abraham had would have been preserved intact. David Cannon 21:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you're right. Jethro is portrayed as a 'righteous gentile', not a convert. Juko 21:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
PS What about Abraham and Sarah? Not an ethnic conversion like Ruth ("thy people shall be my people"), but a conversion...

Hi, according to the commentary of Rashi based on other sources of Midrash (part of classical Judaism's Oral Law. Jethro was indeed a convert, as was his daughter Zipporah the wife of Moses. So yes, according to Jewish tradition, Jethro was a convert, even more reliably so than Sammy Davis and Elizabeth Taylor who would not recognized as such by Orthodox Judaism then or now. P.S. What's an "ethnic conversion"? There is NO such thing in Judaism! And yes, Abraham, Sarah, and Ruth are all real converts, by accepting the faith, or religion, in full of what we now know as Judaism. IZAK 09:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you don't know what I'm referring to by "ethnic conversion" then how do you know that there's NO such thing? :-) I was simply noting that from Ruth onwards, converting to Judaism has necessarily involved not just accepting the Jewish faith but also embracing and becoming part of the Jewish people ("thy people shall be my people"). Abraham and Sarah's conversion saw the creation of the covenant that proselytes seek to enter, and was uniquely personal. Ruth is held as the archetypal convert precisely because her conversion also encompassed the "ethnic" element. Juko 11:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Claire Danes

Does anyone know if she has converted to Judaism? She was going to convert to Judaism when she had a relationship with an actor called Ben Lee. But they have broken up and now she is dating Billy Crudup. So, I want to know if she ended up converting to Judaism or not, PMLF 03:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abraham and Sarah

Abraham and Sarah, while leaving their pagan roots, did not convert to Judaism. They were only proto-jews. Judaism didn't exist until centuries afterwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.20.213 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removals

I removed the former converts section per a request. I also removed Shyne for lack of sources. The source given was a deadlink. I've kept Marilyn Monroe and Jim Croce, for now, as their cases seem a bit debatable. It's unclear if they stayed in Judaism, but it's also unclear if they left.--T. Anthony 20:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I restored the former converts. "Per a request" is not a reason for removal that I understand, and those entries seem to fit well. Mangojuicetalk 20:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Judaism proselytizes?

Judaism proselytizes? Endless sources say that Judaism doesn't proselytize. Yet one editor repeatedly inserts the opposite statement, based on one source that only refers to "welcoming" converts, and even at that, mostly the non-Jewish spouses in already existing marriages. This is at least an undue weight issue, if not a complete mischaracterization. Furthermore it is irrelevant to this article, which is a list of converts to Judaism. This article need not pass comment whatsoever on whether or not Judaism is a proselytizing religion. The mandate of this article is just to list converts to Judaism, nothing more. Everything else is speechification. Bus stop 15:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Orthodox" Judaism

Is it really appropriate to make this distinction in the article? Such qualifiers can take us far afield, as in stating the specific Orthodox community that the convert joined, distinguishing between Reform and Reconstructionist, Conservative, etc. In my view, we should simply state they converted in this list, and then describe their conversion history - if it is known and sourced - in the biographical article. I somehow doubt that anyone would use Wikipedia as a source for determining what type of conversion we're talking about, so this distinction seems potentially divisive where it doesn't need to be. --Leifern (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Idumeans

Others dispute the account of the forced conversion of the Idumeans to Judaism, Strabo, a non-Jewish historian says the Idumeans circumcised themselves as a part of an alliance shared by the common custom of circumcision idumeans+bond+of+circumcision —Preceding unsigned comment added by Java7837 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Then you can put that the reason for their conversion is disputed, but that's no reason to remove it since a considerable amount of sources also say that John Hyrcanus forced the conversion. Divamia (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Strabo, never mentions that Idumeans converted just that they were circumcised, all Roman scholars of the time, say the same thing, Josephus Flavius, is the only person that says the Idumeans were converted. --Java7837 (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The Jewish Encyclopedia is a highly reliable source. If you can get other secondary sources that dispute the account, then please provide them here. You also deleted the other account about Dhu Nawas sourced to William Muir. I don't think your argument in saying that the source is outdated is valid, since there are probably no new developments to this historical event. But if you insist, I've added another source anyway. Divamia (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
strabo+idumeans+judaism
Idumeans+Judaism
Even Encyclopedia Brittanica merely interprets the event to relate to circumcision. Also of note is that the Latin language does't have a word for conversion!--Java7837 (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you should add the sources to the footnote rather than remove the entire incident from the list. Divamia (talk) 01:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why

why does this topic deserve a wiki page??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.251.214.120 (talk) 01:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Clergy

Not every element of an article needs to meet the requirements for a separate article. This is an article of converts to Judaism. Sammy Davis Jr. is notable because he is a singer. The fact that he converted is incidental. He warrants a separate article and a passing comment here. Gavriel Sanders and Asher Wade, on the other hand, may not merit separate articles. But as Christian clergy who converted to Judaism they certainly merit the notability standards for this particular article -- that is, it is NOTABLE when a member of the clergy converts to a different religion. I personally know several of the people you eliminated, and one of the people you did not. So far as notability is concerned, the two that you deleted are far more notable in Jewish circles than the one you did not. The one you left is a great guy. Don't get me wrong. I've spent a shabbat with him and think the world of him. But he is less notable in Jewish circles than two others you eliminated.Tim (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you point to a policy or guideline that supports your argument? I don't see any non-notable clergypersons (who do not have their own articles) in either the Christianity or Islam conversion lists. If you read the notability guidelines, you'll see that they state:
Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people [36]).
Your own experiences are anecdotal, and unless the people in this list merit their own article here, they don't merit inclusion in lists that they might be relevant to either. I did not delete entries based on whether or not I knew them to be notable, but rather my criterion was whether they had articles. Divamia (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
So make articles for them, but do not delete people like Asher Wade and Gavriel Sanders -- who are very much in demand as speakers worldwide on this subject, and leave David Weiss who is not. David is a great guy, but he was born Jewish and spends his time writing movies (like Shrek 2). Wade and Sanders are notable on this subject. Weiss is not. My experience isn't merely anecdotal. Do some research on the speaking schedules of these people on the subject of conversion to Judaism and you see that your notability practices are completely reversed from reality.Tim (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't intend to take upon the duty of writing articles on these particular subjects, but if you want these people listed here, then I welcome you to do so. So far I have been able to back up my "notability practices" with guidelines and precedents at other similar articles. Besides, Wikipedia is not concerned with reality, it's concerned with verifiability. Divamia (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
We are required to not lie, also. The guidelines are not meant to warp reality the way you are doing. David Weiss is NOT more notable as a clergy convert to Judaism than Asher Wade and Gavriel Sanders. First, he isn't a gentile convert. He was born Jewish and returned to the faith. He is a Baal Teshuvah. Second, he isn't clergy. He was a lay minister, which is entirely different. Finally, he isn't notable for this. He is notable for his hollywood work. The guidelines are meant to keep things real, and it is wrong to make them do the opposite. Do I need to make an article on every single person? That's absurd. This article is enough.Tim (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not concerned with any single person, such as David Weiss, so I don't know why your arguments are centering around him. Neither am I warping reality. You will need to prove notability for people in this list, and you can do that by creating articles that are not likely to be deleted. Divamia (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
To require a full article for every ELEMENT in every article before that element can be included in any article would require Wikipedia to be empty until it was infinite. Your practice is entirely illogical. And your lack of concern for reality violates the purpose of Wikipedia. We cannot use the ruleset to create misdirection. That's not what they were there for.Tim (talk) 11:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The conversion lists for Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sikhism all generally don't have anybody within the list unless they have their own article. Sorry, but this particular list isn't going to get any special treatment and there is no misdirection being created by omitting these non-notable people. Divamia (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
You're not even following your own rules. GEZA VERMES???? You deleted Geza Vermes and left David Weiss? The only answer is that you aren't familiar with the subject. There's nothing wrong with unfamiliarity, but it's really poor form to woodenly apply some ruleset on a subject you aren't familiar with, without bothering to do a little research. Look -- if you insist, we'll make articles on these people. I personally think that's not necessary, but if you feel it is, fine -- do some research and help out. While you do the research you'll understand how completely backwards the deletion of Geza Vermes is when you leave David Weiss in. Heck -- you'll even laugh about it afterward.Tim (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Do both of us a favor and read the Geza Vermes article and the David Weiss article. Then, honestly answer the question of which is more notable on this subject. Then, in light of your answer, answer a second question: if you were going to delete only one of them, which would you delete? Take a breather for a moment and realize that your application of the ruleset you are quoting is not benefiting the article, but detracting from it. There are better solutions than your initial one, and I'm willing to explore them with you. But, for goodness sake, take a hard look at what you were doing, and catch up on the subject.Tim (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I only deleted those persons with an article by accident. The rest of those without an article have been deleted, and when you have created articles for them, by all means add them back. Divamia (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you get it -- your methodology is wrong. Geza Vermes had no link. Asher Wade had no article. You didn't delete them by accident. You deleted them by flawed methodology. Wikipedia does not need us to write a book worth of articles before writing a single article. That's flawed.Tim (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Flawed methodology? Maybe you'd like to explain why all the conversion lists use the same methodology, and why the notability guidelines state that notability does limit the content of lists of people. You have addressed neither of these arguments. Please stop adding these people until you can demonstrate their notability by creating articles for them, or escalate this to some sort of mediation. Divamia (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[reset]The notability is the fact that they are CLERGY who have converted to Judaism. A Rabbi who converts to Christianity is notable for that reason -- if for nothing else. That makes THIS the article that demonstrates the notability. Making more articles is a waste of Wikispace. The fact that you left David Weiss and deleted Geza Vermes demonstrates the flawed methodology.Tim (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Gaza Vermes is now still in the article, so what exactly are you talking about? A religious leader converting to another religion is certainly out of the norm, but it doesn't necessarily make them notable. If your arguments were valid, we would such a lot more of such people in other conversion-related lists. That simply isn't the case. I don't know why you edit as if this list deserves special treatment. Divamia (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
You're operating on a false assumption. Professional clergy from Judaism have not converted to Christianity in anything like the proportions cited -- and sourced -- in this article. Further, Geza Vermes demonstrates your flawed methodology. Learn from it.Tim (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter. If other conversion lists were going on your criteria, they would have more clergy. I'm 100% sure of that. This is a list of notable converts, not notable conversions of people who themselves are not notable. Divamia (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
These people are notable BECAUSE they converted. Can you sit there with a straight face and tell me that Abraham the Monk is notable for anything other than conversion? That's true for most on this section of the list. It is a notable thing for professional clergy to convert to another religion. I understand that you have an opinion that other lists would be longer if they included the same criteria. Perhaps -- but not by much. Conversion of Christian clergy to Judaism is a historic phenomenon unparalleled between any two other religions. To this day I've only read one bio of a Rabbi who converted to Christianity. They are very hard to find. I'm sure there has to be more than one. I'd like to know. This is a notable thing.Tim (talk) 10:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


Again, if you really feel that these people all need separate articles, by all means, I will help you for the sake of civility. But this edit warring needs to stop. It's counter productive. I don't know what your agenda is, but these people are not going away. So -- if you have some profound need for expansion, we can work together. But they aren't going to be swept under the rug. I looked for YEARS for these very people, and couldn't find them until they appeared on Wikipedia. This IS a notable phenomenon in both Christian and Jewish circles. There's an old skit song in the Boy Scouts: can't go under it, can't go round it, gotta go through it. Okay -- neither one of us is satisfied with our primary choices. You want to erase the phenomenon and I want to save Wiki space (and both of our time). Okay, so we won't get our first choice. What's the second? Expansion? Can we at least discuss the merits of it first? That is: discuss before destroy (that's the minimal requisite for good faith here).Tim (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
So you admit yourself that, for many of these people, their conversion to another religion while being clergy of their former religion is the only exceptional thing about them. Discussing this with you seems fruitless at this point, because you seem to want to ignore any precedents set at other articles, as well as guidelines. I will be taking this issue to 3rd parties for their opinion. Divamia (talk) 11:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I admit that conversion of clergy to Judaism IS a notable thing. I also point out that you delete people like Geza Vermes and leave Abraham the Monk under a flawed methodology. You can escalate the warfare if you like, or we can look for second options. Ultimately these people will be here. Whether they need to ALSO be in separate articles too is something I'm willing to discuss and work with. But if that is the ultimate end you insist on, you are detracting from that ultimate end by your insistence on edit warring. Please stop. Practice good faith here. Seriously -- please explain HOW Abraham the Monk (who you NEVER deleted) is in any way more notable than Geza Vermes who you deleted at least six times?Tim (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Please stop using red herring arguments. The only reason I previously deleted Gaza Vermes previously was because there was no link to his article. When a link was established, I stopped deleting it. Quite simple really. Divamia (talk) 11:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
You deleted him because you didn't think Geza Vermes was as notable as Abraham the Monk -- which SERIOUSLY calls into question why you are editing this page at all. I don't edit pages on subjects I don't know anything about, other than a grammatical or spelling correction that's an obvious typo. And I CERTAINLY wouldn't dream of vandalizing them. I've asked you to explain your thoughts, and you keep going back to robotic arguments like "he didn't have a link." That would be fine if you were a robot, but you aren't. You're a human being. So, I ask -- what is your agenda? I've offered compromises and you keep going back to edit warring. Discuss, please. Explain yourself. If I understand what you want, and if it meets Wikipedia standards, I may be able to help you out.Tim (talk) 11:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
However robotic it may seem, that is the truth and you'll have to accept it. I only deleted the entry because I thought he didn't have an article. You'll notice that I have not deleted entries like Azizus, because I believe entries such as his are simply without an article due to the fact that Wikipedia is not complete. Clergy, on the other hand, are not people I believe are automatically qualified to be listed here. You insist that I keep on going back to edit warring. I will not edit the article again until we have third party opinions, but you also have to realize that it takes two to tango. Divamia (talk) 11:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Why in the world would Geza Vermes not have an article? That's an assumption someone would make only if he were completely unfamiliar with the subject. And, if so, why are you editing on this subject? Pick one you are familiar with. But that's not the only problem: "Clergy" [who convert to Judaism], "on the other hand, are not people I believe are automatically qualified to be listed here" [on a list of clergy who convert to Judaism]. It seems that it is the SUBJECT that is the problem to you. It is not notable to you that a member of the clergy would convert to Judaism. Therefore, you are requiring someone to be notable for entirely different reasons and have their conversion only to be incidental. This is not a list of "nobel winning clergy who convert to Judaism" but a list of "clergy who convert to Judaism." That's the SUBJECT. It's a very limited number. It's like a list of civilians who have been in space. It's a short list. They don't have to be "left handed famous singer civilians who have been in space."Tim (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
You keep on asking for my "agenda." My "agenda" is to bring this list up to par with other conversion-related lists. This is not a list of clergy who converted to Judaism, if you haven't noticed yet. It's a list of converts to Judaism. Divamia (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[reset]The subsection is a list of clergy who converted to Judaism. That is their notability. Period. The same would hold true for any such page.Tim (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Where do you find support for such a criterion in the notability guidelines? Please point it out. Divamia (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I am creating a summary below for third parties. Please feel free to edit the summary of your argument. Divamia (talk) 11:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

Argument 1 is that non-notable persons, including Christian clergy who have converted to Judaism, do not belong in this list. If their notability cannot be established with independent sources in their own respective articles (all disputed entries do not have their own articles), then they do not belong in lists of people even if they may be relevant to that particular list. Argument 2 is that clergy who have converted are exceptional in that regard, and should be listed here even if they themselves are not notable. Divamia (talk) 11:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


I'm responding to the RfC. Seems to be a simple solution to this. If they are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, and it can be established by reliable sources that they are converts, they belong on the list. I would not list anyone else, clergy or non-clergy.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Divamia (talk) 05:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
POSITION: All Names Must Have Separate Articles For Their Primary Notability Or Be Deleted If This Subject Is A Person's Primary Notability, This Article Should Include Them
EXPLANATION: People can only be listed if their notability is unrelated to their conversion (and therefore must have separate articles before being listed here). People can also be listed if their conversion itself is notable, such as professional clergy from other religions (and therefore do not need separate articles before being listed here).
JUSTIFICATION: It is not intrinsically notable for a member of the clergy to convert. It is intrinsically notable for a member of the clergy to convert.

Just to organize the perspectives.Tim (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Other articles mention clergy converting to faiths without having articles for each individual for example, Raëlism#Relationship_with_religious_people mentions three clerics who converted to Raelism--Java7837 (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That argument does not work. Read the notability guidelines:
Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people [37]).
Divamia (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a very limited group of people, and it is this very subject which is the basis for their notability. I've read the list of people guidelines, and they aren't geared for something in this specificity range. It is neither generic, nor so restrictive as to remove notability. Nevertheless -- we are faced with an impasse: these names are not going to go away, and you don't appear to be willing to help satisfy your own requirements. If you DO want to improve this article and you DO believe that your application of the ruleset is correct, then save us all time and energy by helping to create what you believe to be missing. We would have been nearly finished by now with cooperative effort. I'll suspend disbelief of good faith and assume it one last time: will you help with construction, or will you continue a waste of effort on all sides? Your call.Tim (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

So far you haven't been able to support your argument with a single guideline or policy. These names will go away unless they satisfy the notability requirements, which can't be arbitrarily made up by a user such as yourself. And please don't ask users to practice good faith, if you yourself can't assume good faith of others. Divamia (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The assumption of good faith guidelines themselves suggest not to continue to assume good faith when someone proves otherwise. To say that a clergy conversion to another religion is not notable is something you have arbitrarily made up. What will happen is this -- in the end the names will be there, and the more you fight the more articles and the more documentation will be present, in spite of the time people will waste dealing with someone who has no intention of satisfying his own interpretation of the requirements. "Good faith" means coming to an article to improve it. I do not see this happening. However, you have certainly freed me up, here. I can go back to work on the article(s) without appealing to you for assistance, or trying to reason with you. The good faith assumption has been proven to be incorrect when directed your way. Good day to you. Now -- if I find you at any time exercising good faith I will give you more time. But for now, be so kind as to either help or get out of the way.Tim (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

With that sort of attitude you can rest assured I won't be getting "out of the way" anytime soon. Divamia (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

By wikipedia standards, notability is determined by who has an article on wikipedia. If they have an article on wikipedia, and a source can be found that they converted to Judaism, they belong on the list. Otherwise, they should be removed. See List of converts to Islam for example. Yahel Guhan 06:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Divamia (talk) 10:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Update

Divama has successfully convinced those of us who are actually improving the article that the people listed do merit their own articles. Several points, however.

  1. Notability is not determined by who has an article. Getting an article is determined by notability.
  2. Several of us here are improving this article by researching these notable people to create or update their biographical information and articles.
  3. Anyone willing to improve the article can do so.
  4. Anyone not willing to improve the article is requested to allow the rest of us to do so.

Please understand that this will not give us much time to participate in debate, since this only helps the article when everyone engaged is filling in information.Tim (talk) 11:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

So far it seems no progress has been made. I've deleted the entries, but you can re-add them as you create their respective articles. Divamia (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Diviama -- just to show your good will -- please tell us what you have done to create the articles. So far I've purchased 4 books and have been doing extensive research. As long as you are actively working to supply what you require, no one will be stepping on each other's toes.Tim (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Div, the names are reference points for those creating the articles. How would any goodwill participant KNOW which articles to work on without the references? A goodwill participant is someone researching to create these articles. Also, it may save some money and time if you tell us which articles you are currently working to create. Thanks.Tim (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The names are all available in the revision history, so that's not a particularly good argument. I do not intend to create any of these articles, but have attempted to find additional names to add to this list for people's articles that already exist. Fortunately, however, I have found that whenever I am about to add a name, it is already on this list. Divamia (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You do not intend to help create what you require. I was just checking to see if the goodwill thing had improved. As for revision history -- please tell me how many articles you routinely review two months back in revision history to see what has been deleted that you want to add documentation to in another article?

I suspect that here, too, the answer is ZERO. So, then, you are expecting -- and in fact demanding -- that everyone else on Wikipedia do things that you yourself refuse to do.Tim (talk) 11:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Also -- Div, if I determine that a bio cannot be created, I'll delete the entry myself. Give it a bit more time and everything will either be backed up by an article or deleted. I made that agreement and I'll stick with it. In the meantime, each entry is at least backed up by a reference. It's not a completely unsupported list of names. It's simply a matter of changing the support from external support (sufficient for any entry other than a name, apparently) to internal support (i.e. a separate article). You will get what you have demanded, but without your assistance it takes more time (and money, I might add -- I've already spent over a hundred dollars in research materials and there is more to spend on this subject). If you REALLY want what you are demanding faster, you can help. If you DON'T help, it just drags it out longer.Tim (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I will wait then as it seems you are making some significant progress with your research. Divamia (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • There is absolutely no requirement on Wikipedia that a person can be mentioned in an article only if he/she meets notability requirements to merit a separate article. That's a completely bogus criterion as can be proven in any number of articles.
  • Whether someone's conversion is notable enough to mention is a separate issue. My gut reaction is that there has to be an interesting story behind it, something to indicate why an audience should care that it happened, above and beyond the assumed novelty that even clergy can have a change of heart. My guess is that if their conversion is known from a reliable source, then it's probably notable. If it's from an original source, then it probably isn't.
  • My bias is to leave the names in pending a more constructive debate on this matter. --Leifern (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Based on your first point, it's clear you haven't actually read the notability guidelines:
"Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people [38])."
Divamia (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's not that straightforward. What the list guidelines say is that "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future)." First of all, it's a guideline not a policy, and its intention is plainly to prevent these lists from becoming indiscriminate collections of information. Second, "reasonable expectation of an article in the future" suspends a definitive determination of notability. We'd have to decide whether the conversion of clergy is such an unusual event that the event itself is notable, and that's not something we're done deciding.--Leifern (talk) 03:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I do agree with you when you say that if there is a reasonable expectation of an article in the future, the names should remain. That is why I have left the entry on Azizus, for example, in this list (because he is a king). However, it's not so clearcut with these people that are disputed. Do conversions of clergymen automatically make the people themselves notable? There is no support in the notability guidelines to say yes. Divamia (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know whether a member of the clergy becomes notable by converting. Maybe he/she does, maybe not. Or even if the person isn't notable, his/her decision is. I suppose it depends a bit on just how unusual such a conversion is. Clearly, if hundreds of, say, Baptist pastors converted every year, then it would not be notable. But if it's just a few, then it might be. If it's happened only twice in the history of humankind, then each one probably is notable. I'm not sure where to draw the line. --Leifern (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
There are a number of factors involved:
  1. If conversion of clergy between all religions were commonplace, it would not be so notable.
  2. However, if conversion of clergy were imbalanced between religions -- that is, more so from one than another, then it would be notable.
  3. Also, if (as you said) conversions of all clergy were rare, that again would be notable.
In my observation, the second and third cases are true. It is rare for clergy to convert to different religions. However, of those conversions, there is an imbalance of Christianity toward Judaism. I know a number of these individuals, and I am aware of the hurdles that are involved. It is a notable phenomenon.
Also, I would like to add that it is extremely difficult to find these people listed in a single source. I spent over a decade looking in vain, until they appeared on Wikipedia. It was a huge coup for Wikipedia to list them, and speaks volumes to the integrity of Wikipedia as a source. Removing them diminishes Wikipedia, and in fact would be a misuse of the guidelines. There are exceptions that prove the rule. We are human editors -- not robots. We should exercise our judgment to enhance not only the content of Wikipedia along repeatable guidelines... but we should also exercise judgment in working to enhance those very guidelines when an exception is found. The general procedure is that these people should be notable. The general understanding is that they are notable for reasons OTHER than the list. In rare ocassions it is the subject of the list itself that is the basis for that notability. For instance: a list of people involved in the plot to assassinate Lincoln are notable BECAUSE of the subject of the list. Most of them have absolutely no notability outside of that fact. Must we, then, have a separate article for each member of that plot before we are allowed to list them in an article together? That, I believe, is not the intention of the Wikipedia guidelines. If a single line on Wikipedia is more than a person deserves, how much less an entire article? But some people only warrant a line, and not an entire article. The guidelines themselves should be modified in this instance, because we have found a limitation to them that is consuming too many bytes of Wikispace, and too many hours of Wiki-editors' time.Tim (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Leifern, my instinct was against removing them. But I do not currently have the time to engage in an edit war over it. I fully plan to create an article for everyone who merits one. As for notability, some are notable because of the conversion itself -- that is, professional clergy who convert. It is a phenomenon unique in scope of Christian clergy toward Judaism, and merits a study in its own right. I certainly will not fight to keep the names off the main page, since I plan to document and return them there myself. I merely needed a reasonable solution to a protracted edit war that would only delay the documentation further.Tim (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] reasons to [be] convert[ed] to Judaism

Perhaps some other intent can be described as a list of ways/used people are routed into Judaism or the 'Jewish religion', with reason to change dietary habits, as example. From such perspective, the congregation "will take" some specified individual who appears to lack conscience in eating habits (say, because thoughtlessly or blindly combining meat and milk in the same meal) and from the temple is further routed into various industries of community choice. Marcia L. Neil/beadtot 66.239.212.82 (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jpgordon-

Undoing all my changes is quite a bold action on your part, especially since I explained most of them. Did you bother to check out any of these entries yourself? Very few of my changes were cited and those that were cite The Jewish Encyclopedia from 1901! Has wikipedia become the new Jewish encyclopedia? You even reinstated repeats in your haste to be heard.Karlsruhe (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This page is a joke

Abraham the Monk?! Give me a break! Jews converting to Judaism!? The head of a church dedicated to the Virgin Mary was Jewish! Shouldn't there be some kind of disclaimer stating the refusal of Israel to recognize the proselyte communities? This article reeks of a desperation to hide Jewish racism. When one reads further into the supposed Jewish converts and how they are treated by "real" jews, the impression that Jews are racist rears it's ugly head. How many "real" Jews making aliyah have to live in illegal settlements bombarded by missles everyday. Contrast the devoted Jews of India with the treatment a self-proclaimed agnostic Albert Einstein received from Israel(he was asked to be their leader)and one cannot help but see how truly racist Jews are.Karlsruhe (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as one of those proselytes -- your comments are inaccurate. Even so, they are misplaced here (since Wikipedia is indeed not supposed to be a soapbox). However, the honesty about your opinion is helpful to the rest of us, to know where you are coming from and why you are making these changes.

I'm currently in a bit of hiatus and will return after researching and documenting what is available regarding clergy converts. In the meantime, try to replace or improve rather than simply delete. If you think the page is a joke, then I would encourage you to work on pages that are more worthwhile.Tim (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] All Jokes Aside

There are proper and improper ways to edit a page. Here are a few suggestions:

  1. Don't require something that you are unwilling to help provide. We ran into a problem a few weeks ago with an editor who was demanding that we create full page articles on individuals before giving them a single line... and this same editor continually refused to help create said articles. The end result is that I've spent well over a hundred dollars on only part of the required material just to retain information that I never put in to begin with. The task of maintenance required by constructive editors is ten times that of destructive ones. Only create work that you are willing to play a part in contributing.
  2. Don't edit pages that you have no stake in. If you think there are problems with a page, work to construct solutions. If you are not interested in the subject or do not value it, move to a page you do value. Not every notable page is notable to every editor. There are tons of pages on Wikipedia I have no interest in, but I would never dream of trashing the work created by those who DO value the subject. And if you don't value it, how can you be competent to edit?
  3. If there is something missing, provide it. Don't go around chopping off information because it's incomplete. You create edit wars and waste everyone's time. 95% of the time, supplementation is called for. Only 5% of the problems should be eliminated. And that's fair since it takes ten times the effort to supplement than to destroy.
  4. If something is miscategorized, move it instead of deleting it. Folks -- there's a category for nearly everything.
  5. If you are looking at an exception to a Wiki-rule, justify it and work to update the rule. We aren't robots. We build the rules too.
  6. Don't hesitate to undo destructive editing, but at the same time try to find a compromise if there is any merit at all (but only if there is merit). I got pidgeon holed by a promise to temporarily move real information onto the talk page. I'll not make that mistake again, because the problem was an abuse of a Wiki-rule and did not have true merit.Tim (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)