Talk:List of born-again Christian laypeople

Contents

1 Earlier stuff

2 Padilla

3 Removal of Brit Hume from the list

4 USA special?

5 Additional disclaimer

6 Removal of Rick James from the list

7 Infamous people categorization

7.1 Rollen Stewart
7.2 Mordechai Vannunu

12 Removal of James Dobson

13 Laypeople?

14 Dead people

15 Merger

Earlier stuff

Must this page include only "nice" people? Surely at least a few self proclaimed Born-again Christians are not actually nice people? If this page must page must be limited to "nice" people then shouldn't it be renamed somethign like List of Nice Born-again Laypeople?

If you look closely, the list includes people like serial killer David Berkowitz, corrupt sportsman Hansie Cronje, former CEO of WorldCom Bernard Ebbers who allegedly defrauded investors, and not expecially nice musician Bob Dylan.

It would be useful if you could find some more for us. Please do some objective and detailed research and make sure you read those webpages and articles carefully so that you can contribute in a meaningful way - that's what Wikipedia is all about!
One Salient Oversight 00:36, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

that earlier comment was written because someone kept removing "bad people" Christians

I've just discovered that this page is up for deletion. Since I can't find it on the "Votes for deletion" part of Wiki I am a little confused. Let me just say that I think it is important to have this little page. One Salient Oversight 06:33, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the deletion notice. The notice was added 7-14-04 as a "minor" edit (which meant it would not show up in some people's preferences). Then it was never added on the deletion page. I think it can be reverted as an act of vandalism. If it was done by someone in good faith, but ignorant of normal procedures, I think now it should be brought here first. Pollinator 10:45, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

What about Glen Campbell, the country music singer. I think he had a conversion in the 80s or 90s. he allegedly stopped using drugs.

He's added to the list this date. I don't have the documentation (outside of my personal music collection) but I've seen a recent interview on MSNBC I think that talked about his recent drunk driving conviction and how his wife has helped him through that and kept returning to God despite his own failings and predisposition towards drug addiction. Good thought! Christ followers come in all shapes, sizes and backgrounds. . . (smile) --avnative 12:41, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

This list needs to be alphabetized by last name. I've done the actors but nothing else. Mike H 18:17, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

I just alphabetized the politician's list this date. The rest seems to be in alphabetical order. Hope other Wikipedians and anon users keep the list in order - I'm sure it will grow over time. Thanks in advance to all. . . --avnative 12:41, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

why can't we call a dictator a dictator, nothing non-NPOV 'bout that

Because not everybody agrees on what a dictator is. Syngman Rhee was democratically elected (to begin with, although his winning of subsequent elections was of dubious honesty), and never overturned the constitution (although I agree that he stretched its limits to the max). I would call him authoritarian, but not a dictator. Rios Montt was a dictator who seized power illegally, but is nevertheless recognized as a bona fide President of Guatemala. It's best to stick to the formal, legal terms. David Cannon 21:51, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree. If you look at the Dictator page and compare notes you'll probably doubt whether Rhee would be classed in such a league. Calling him an authoritarian is probably closer to the mark. One Salient Oversight 00:14, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Padilla

I've modified the brief description of José Padilla on this page to more closely match what is written in his full article. I felt "incarcerated for terrorism" implied too strongly that he was convicted of such, when in fact he has not been put on trial for any terrorism-related charge. --dreish 18:40, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)

Yep, fine by me. One Salient Oversight 22:47, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The modification is fine - not a challenge from me. One question I have is why he is included in this list in the first place. The current revision on him mentions nothing about any Pentecostalism or Christian faith, just that he converted to Islam. Just my two cents. --avnative 03:57, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

I have made some revisions in this article with an external link that shows his former Pentecostal faith. I'll also change the Jose Padilla article. One Salient Oversight 04:22, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's what I was looking for! Thank you so very much, Neil! --avnative 04:32, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Removal of Brit Hume from the list

Brit Hume - American managing news editor with Fox News

I haven't been able to independently verify this particular claim and give an external link. If someone can, please place it back in the article. Thanks. One Salient Oversight 04:47, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

USA special?

No, it's not about making the USA "special." I did not make the edit which separated the American and international categories, but I have restored it because it makes sense to me, for no reason other than that the Americans listed are numerous enough to warrant a category of their own. When any other nation has a similarly large number of names on the list, we'll do the same for them. Okay? David Cannon 10:30, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Additional disclaimer

I've added an additional disclaimer covering those who make a profession of faith, and then recant, don't behave according to expectations of a born again Christian, etc. My hope is that when people such as Larry Flynt, Jose Padilla, etc. are added, they are footnoted/annotated in such a way so that the reader doesn't get the impression that the individual in this type of case is considered by the Christian community at large to be a currently practicing Christ follower. Any problems with the wording, please let me know. Thanks! --avnative 13:55, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

Removal of Rick James from the list

Webpages here (http://www.thewiredpress.com/archives/culture/rick_james_bible.html) and here (http://members.tripod.com/~anxietyny/trainwrecks8.html) contain information about James' supposed faith but if you read them you will realise that they are parodying him. I can't find anything on google that suggest that he was a born-again Christian. One Salient Oversight 05:01, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Infamous people categorization

Someone came and changed the category to "others". I was the one who originally put the category as "infamous people" because it was a list of famous people who were Born-again Christians who, for whatever reason, were associated somehow with something really bad. The list contains several serial killers and others whose deeds may not really been deemed Christlike. In any case, whether the generic "horrible" event took place before or after their conversion isn't the issue. As a born again Christian myself I am actually happy that I will be in heaven with people like David Berkowitz - but that doesn't mean we forget that he was a serial killer. One Salient Oversight 14:22, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I changed the category name, for two very good reasons. First, an infamous person is notorious — deserving of shame — and notorious for something the person itself did. That is POV, of course, not that it was intended as such; and beyond that it does not apply to at least one member of the category, who was killed by the infamous actions of someone else (referring, of course, to the Columbine victim). Second, the POV category name has encouraged certain biased editors to move political leaders to this category — Bush and Ashcroft — and insert controversial statements. From my POV, Efraín Ríos Montt, Daniel arap Moi, Syngman Rhee, and Mathieu Kérékou are all dictators and deserve infamy, but I believe the page has already debated that issue. I have been on POV patrol recently, and 66.20.28.21 in particular has been engaged in partisan editing, here and elsewhere. I will give you time to respond, but in the absence of a compelling argument, I will restore my changes. Ford 16:14, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

I think I understand your point. What I wanted was a category whereby Born-again Christians whose fame was associated with some form of infamy - whether that was from themselves or from others - could be included. The Columbine Victim certainly fits into that category. I totally agree with you about Bush and Ashcroft staying where they are and trying to limit partisan editing - and I also totally agree about Montt, Moi and the others also remaining where they are. So long as a category exists that makes it clear that these born-again Christians are famous because of their assocation with some infamy remains, I am happy. It doesn't have to be "infamous people". How about "Born-again Christians associated with acts of infamy"? I don't think it should be classed as "others" One Salient Oversight 12:46, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Better; but there needs to be a catch-all category in these kinds of lists anyway, since eventually others will defy classification (or be in a class of one). Your second proposed heading still would encourage the move of all the political leaders (or at least the double listing of them), since it would arguably be true for all of them (from one side or the other). Rollen Stewart actually belongs in the Media Personality category, because his fame rests on his frequent appearance on television, not the kidnapping. In short, I agree that the list should contain recognizably “good” people and recognizably “bad” people, for balance, but should not label them as such, which is what ‘infamous’ does. How about a prison-convert category (for Atkins, Berkowitz, Dahmer, Nichols, and Tucker), and a catch-all category (for Padilla and Scott), with Stewart as a media personality? We then remove all of the editorial notations that properly belong in the biographical articles, providing just enough information to identify these persons for their primary fame and, if necessary, as born-again Christians.
You and I come at this from opposite perspectives; I am a rationalist. But I do not believe that these sneering, “aren’t they hypocrites” comments are serving my cause. Besides, they are biased: we allege the defrauding of investors (Ebbers), but we don’t mention the headlining of benefit concerts (Dylan). Let’s drop all the unnecessary editorial comments, except those that explain the person’s inclusion. Ford 14:08, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)

You're doing well Ford and I think you have convinced me with this argument. While I didn't intend them to be sneering comments I think they can be interpreted as such. The Ebbers/Dylan comparison is a very good point and I can't think of any reason to oppose it. Yep. Delete the editorial comments and create the new categories as you propose. One Salient Oversight who can't work out how to do four tildes on his brother's keyboard

A pleasure working with you, Neil. I have done as we agreed. I have also moved one of the Ebbers notes to the Ebbers article, and updated his indictment status. The other note was to an essay that was supremely biased, and I have just deleted it. All other biographical information that was removed is available in the main article for the person mentioned. Some of the descriptions are still too wordy, but that is a problem for another day. Ford 12:39, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)

Rollen Stewart

The person who changed the category also removed the fact that Rollen Stewart is in jail for kidnapping. Could that person please post comments here if Rollen Stewart is no longer in jail, or was actually found innocent of the charges of kidnapping? The removal of this fact could be interpreted as silencing facts. One Salient Oversight 14:30, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I had no intention of silencing facts, but Rollen Stewart has an article. That is the place for such details, particularly if we can agree to leave the final category as the NPOV ‘Others’. I have removed biographical details (and editorial comments) from other persons as well; those can be kept up-to-date on a single page, the relevant article itself. There is no need to describe these persons in detail, so long as they are identifiable (note the previous description of John Ashcroft, which was practically a CV, complete with a mention of a failed candidacy and the person who ultimately got the position). When Rollen Stewart gets out of jail, his article can be changed, without the need to change as well every article that mentions him. This is just a general editorial principle, and it has nothing to do with him specifically. Again, I am planning to restore my changes after you have had a chance to respond, if you like. Ford 16:14, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

Rollen Stewart is famous both for his Rainbow Man antics, but he is also infamous for his kidnapping case. If Stewart is going to exist in this "Born-again Christians associated with acts of infamy" category (mentioned above) then some details of his case need to be quickly explained - in the same way as others on the list such as Mordechai Vannunu, Jeffrey Dahmer and the Columbine victim. If you think having his kidnapping charge mentioned is POV, then logically you need to remove all the other comments in in the infamy category as well. If he is moved somewhere else - say "Media Personalities" - then you're making a judgement call that his fame as a media personality is more important than his infamy of kidnapping. Maybe in the same way as Syngman Rhee's fame as Korean president is greater than his infamy of being a dictator. I don't know Stewart's case very well so I'll leave it up to you to judge. If you believe his fame is greater than his infamy, then move him to media personalities and remove the kidnapping comment. If you believe that his infamy is greater, then you must keep the kidnapping comment in order to be consistent with the others in the category. One Salient Oversight 12:46, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mordechai Vannunu

I'd like to argue very strongly that Vannunu be returned to the infamy category rather than being in the "Scientist/inventor" category. First of all, he wasn't a scientist but a technician. Secondly, his fame is associated with his mid-80s revelation about Israeli nuclear arms and his subsequent arrest by mossad. Whichever way you look at it his fame is associated with something bad. One Salient Oversight 13:18, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I considered the technician/scientist distinction, but I am not sure that it rests in objective fact. Could he be a technician without understanding basic science? Need he have a Ph.D. to be called a scientist? Could he reveal nuclear secrets if he was just responsible for mopping the floor? I don’t know, but I doubt it. Why not include him in Others? Ford 14:08, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)

With what I have written above, I think that would be googd. (OSO)

Jane Fonda

I have reverted the anonymous user's removal of Jane Fonda from the list. As the disclaimer at the top of the list, persons are listed here on a self-determination basis. That means that people who describe themselves as born-again Christians are counted as such for the purpose of this list; whether we ourselves agree with their self-description is irrelevant. Not every Christian can believe Fonda's claims to be born-again; I myself confess to a certain ambivalence about it, but at the end of the day, only God knows who is truly born-again and who isn't, and the best that an NPOV encyclopedia can do is take people a their word without passing judgement on their profession one way or the other. Listing Jane Fonda here is not an endorsement of her claims to be born again, but an acknowledgement that she claims to be. To start judging her claim (as removal of her listing implies) is POV at best. David Cannon 11:38, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

POV insertions

This page, I believe, should list only otherwise-notable persons who are also born-again Christians. It should not be a platform for the exposure of hypocrisy by born-again Christians, let alone non-notable born-again Christians. (The manager of a Red Bank, Tennessee, Tasty Flavors Sno Biz? Surely he makes the front page of the New York Times every day.) Let those whose hypocrisy crusade has intruded here start a web page, and I will visit it. But encyclopedias do not go on crusades. This incident is a flash in the pan. Scandalous behavior, to be sure, but it probably is not the first stupid thing this unimportant individual has done, nor will it be the last. I hope we need not hear about all of them. — Ford 13:32, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)

Hi Ford. I usually keep tabs on this page to make sure bad things don't get inserted but obviously this one snuck in under my radar. Thanks for removing it - I would've done the same had I discovered it before you. One Salient Oversight 10:04, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Title

Is there any particular reason "laypeople" is capitalized? - SimonP 22:50, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

None that I can think of - unless you like The Lord of the Rings instead of The lord of the rings. One Salient Oversight 05:31, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've seen Wickipedia policy on this convention. It should be lowercase 'L'. Unless 'Born-again Christian Laypeople' is a single syntactic unit, or a proper noun, which it isn't. rmbh 05:37, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

I renamed to page to match Wikipedia conventions. - SimonP 22:38, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Al Green

I believe that the Rev. Al Green is pastor of the Full Gospel Tabernacle in Memphis. Should he therefore be excluded from the list?

If it's the same Al Green, and not a namesake, he definitely doesn't belong here. David Cannon 07:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removal of James Dobson

I agonised for about a minute, then made the choice to cut him from the list. The issue is whether Dobson can be classed as a "layperson". Although he has not been ordained to any Christian ministry, and although he won a "layman of the year" prize in 1982, the fact is that his fame is a direct result of his Christian ministry. Yes he is a medical professional, but no one would doubt that he is a major leader in the American Evangelical movement. That simple fact disqualifies him from this list - he functions as a Christian minister even though he holds no official religious title. --One Salient Oversight 10:40, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

That's silly. Almost any Christian who lives their life for God functions as a Christian minister. I consider myslef a missionary, but I have no title. I'm sure James Dobson would regard himself as a layperson. ··gracefool |☺ 10:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Laypeople?

The definition of "laypeople" in this list conflicts with that at layperson. I think it is wrong; I think Martin Luther (and Billy Graham) would have preferred to be called laypeople, as he was explicitly against the separation of believers into "clergy" and "laypeople". ··gracefool |☺ 10:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It appears that the intent of the message was to exclude people who are known primarily for their religious views, as opposed to people better known for doing other things. However, that restriction seems a little bit artificial to me. I think a better standard is to ask whether the fact that the person is/was born again is verifable and would be significant to a person reading this encyclopedia. Moreover, we should try to explain why the fact is significant here and in their individual articles. By changing the article to simply List of born-again Christians, we wouldn't have to worry about sorting between laypersons and clergy. As far as "professional" Christians like Billy Graham, they can hopefully be found on List of famous Evangelical Christians, which I'll add a link to in the article. Compare to the (I think reasonable) standards being proposed on Talk:List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people. -Wiccan Quagga 09:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dead people

This list should either exclude or include deceased persons. If it includes them, a great number of people will have to be added, making the list impractically long. If noone objects, then, I or someone should remove the recently deceased members of this list. DDerby 17:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think they should be left in. I don't think it would make the list "impracticably long," as the article can be divided into several related articles (politicians, scientists, etc.) when the length warrants it. David Cannon 11:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merger

I don't think the discussion of the term under the heading "The problems of fame and faith" belongs on a list page. Or at least not all of it. That's why I'm requesting it be moved to Born again. -Wiccan Quagga 09:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay with me:-) What do others think? David Cannon 11:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs at born again, but somewhere in the Christianity articles. Maybe its own article? That's because it isn't really about the born-again doctrine/experience, it's about being famous and being a Christian. DJ Clayworth 13:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:List_of_born-again_Christian_laypeople"