Trichome

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
24.9.32.185 (talk)
No edit summary
SineBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
2,546,196 edits
m Signing comment by 24.9.32.185 - ""
Line 138: Line 138:
They may have been sourced but they are unreliable, the article was obviously biased againist John Todd, and the quote they gave may or may not be legitimate, we could keep it in, but emphasize that he MAY or may not have said it, if you so wish.
They may have been sourced but they are unreliable, the article was obviously biased againist John Todd, and the quote they gave may or may not be legitimate, we could keep it in, but emphasize that he MAY or may not have said it, if you so wish.
But i have no intention of giving information off as confirmed, without justification, which you claim i do not have.
But i have no intention of giving information off as confirmed, without justification, which you claim i do not have.
~~~~ {{subst:UnsignedIP|1=24.9.32.185|2=22:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)}} <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
~~~~

Revision as of 22:37, 1 February 2011

WikiProject iconBiography Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Note icon
An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Attribution

This article was created based on text from an earlier version of this article. Contributors to that article included:

This list of names is supplied to meet attribution requirements set out under the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. Without attribution as set forth in those terms, Wikipedia's content cannot be reused. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why this article should not have been deleted

This article is no more an attack than the article on David Icke or Son of Sam: the man has said and done some stuff that ministers (or other people) really aren't supposed to, but pointing these things out is not a POV based attack. This man, along with William Schoebelen, is one of the major sources of criticism against D&D (Jack Chick did not come up with these criticisms, he just printed them). Had he simply made most of his and done nothing else, he would not be notable, but he did cause quite a stir and has caused a lot of trouble for church-going fantasy fans (particularly in theologically conservative areas). Everything is sourced and verifiable. Christianity Today and Cornerstone magazine are good sources for this sort of material. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another note

The page is not a copyright violation of http://www.illuminati-news.com/0/JohnToddWikipedia.htm, they just had a back up of the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, though, it is a copyright violation of contributors to the earlier article here. I am remedying this with a list of contributors. Content contributed by other Wikipedians cannot be reused without attribution as set forth at wmf:Terms of Use. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The title which says John Todd(occultist)should say John Todd(revolutionary) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.10.129 (talk) 08:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could not try to censor the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why this article should not be deleted again

A lack of general and widespread fame is not the same as importance or notability, or else there wouldn't be a page on Susan Audé, even though many in my home state know of her. John Todd is notable because he is the primary source of many of Jack Chick's claims on various subjects, as has been added to the article. When Christian fundamentalists make arguments against D&D (not that all of them do, but about as many do as those that find rock music morally objectionable), claims originally made by John Todd or derived from his beliefs usually come up. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we delete this article, we need to delete the articles on Jeff Godwin, Rebecca Brown (Christian author), and Avro Manhattan. I have to wonder exactly why those articles which don't affect the reputation of Chick Publications in any way have not been deleted, but the articles on John Todd and William Schnoebelen have been deleted when they are equally common references for Chick but have said and done things that do not help Chick's authority. I can't help remember the USA Congressional staff edits to Wikipedia for some reason. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Each article needs to stand on its own. The existence of an article about someone is not a valid reason for others to exist. Notability has nothing to do with being a primary source for someone's claims. In order to establish Wikipedia notability one has to meet Wikipedia criteria. BTW - Your claims of censorship are not only unfounded, I can assure you they are far from the truth. ttonyb (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Wikipedia:BIO, John Todd meets the criteria for a notable creative professional, he "is known for originating a significant new concept" and "has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Also, what is there to claim that John Todd isn't notable? This isn't asking to prove a negative, but I'm just asking what the argument is. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would doubt the work he has produced is significant to meet the criteria or that he has initiated a new concept that meets the criteria. The question is not what "is there to claim that John Todd isn't notable," the question is what is what makes him notable. The burden of providing support for the article rests on the author of the article. ttonyb (talk) 23:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so the non-argument of it's just not notable. As for significance, he "played a major role in co-creating" the [Dungeons tract], as well as [against halloween, Catholicism, and rock music]. Let's say that the general public was not particularly aware of Scheopenhaur, but fans and critics of Nietzsche were (OK, this actually isn't all hard to imagine). A Scheopenhaur article would exist because of Scheopenhaur's influence on Nietzsche on this same principle. I have provided evidence for notability and significance, and you have not provided any evidence to the contrary. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The big problem I see with this article is not so much notability as the reliability of the citations. Assuming the online (possibly copyvio) reprints of articles from Christianity Today, etc., are all legitimate, then I would be satisfied as to notability. But this should be verified by something more reliable than ideological websites. Also, there are currently no sources for the claim that he is a convicted rapist, which is a serious accusation that absolutely must be supported with a reliable source if it is to stay in the article. --RL0919 (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just couldn't leave the rape accusation in there unsupported, so I did a news search and found an article describing at least one conviction. I reworded to take out the references to additional criminal activities pending additional sources being found to support those. --RL0919 (talk) 00:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reprints are a bit more verified than just a citing the issue, which would be acceptable. Looking at the other end of the ideological spectrum, this site which admit that Christianity Today and Cornerstone did print articles exposing Todd. I have found a reprint of the Christianity Today article which was reprinted with permission, I'll go and replace the links. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cornerstone is a reliable source, btw, right? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Sources

Obviously the sourcing for this article still has a lot of issues. Many of the citations simply don't meet the reliable sources guidelines (e.g., the "James Japan" website, HolySmoke.org). However, Google searches suggest that much better sources are available. I'm creating this talk page section as a waystation for listing potential sources that could be used for the article:

  • Burack, Cynthia (2008). Sin, Sex, and Democracy: Antigay Rhetoric and the Christian Right. Albany, New York: SUNY Press. p. 49. ISBN 978-0-7914-7405-1. preview available: [1]
  • Johnson, George (1983). Architects of Fear: Conspiracy Theories and Paranoia in American Politics. Los Angeles: J.P. Tarcher. pp. 98–99. ISBN 0-87477-275-3.
  • Barkun, Michael (2006). A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-24812-0. - Todd is discussed on a number of different pages, previews available [2]
  • Medway, Gareth J. (2001). Lure of the Sinister: The Unnatural History of Satanism. New York: NYU Press. pp. 169–174. ISBN 0-8147-5645-X. preview available: [3]

Whole book on him, used as a source by Barkun - Darryl E. Hicks and David A. Lewis, The Todd Phenomenon - ex-Grand Druid vs. the Illuminati, Fact or Fantasy?. I'm going to check to see if I have this Barkun book on my SD card, as the title is oddly familiar to me. If I have it, I can help - still a little annoyed that the Schnoebelen article was canned, and I've got some free time this weekend. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have the Barkun book, but found a copy on a certain notable Swedish website whose name rhymes with the phrase "fire at bay". It's certainly a notable author and Google Books suggests it could be a very good source. Note, Bill Ellis' book Raising the Devil also mentions Todd. Anyone got that one? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it okay for a source that is not proven reliable to be used? Doesn't that completely undermine the credibility of an article, deeming it worse than useless? Someone please tell me how this link (the first source) is reliable, seeing as there are NO citations for it's numerous claims which from the outset you realize are there for negative light. Unreliable sources should not be used, period. Misinformation is worse than no information.Zhulia (talk) 04:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITE applies to articles here, not articles used as sources. The neutrality guidelines do not say that Wikipedia has to pretend that everyone is a good person, either (I mean, consider what sources the sources for the Hitler article would be if we did). Especially if they're dead. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point isn't 'pretending he is a good person' but NOT using an unreliable source 'pretending' he is a bad person. That article makes outrageous and bold claims riddled with insults with nothing to support itself. Key words: no reliability. You are talking motives (which sheds light on where you stand), I am talking about keeping the page legitimate.Zhulia (talk) 02:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Articles published in generally reputable publications (such as Christianity Today, which is the source you are questioning) are presumed to be reliable sources unless there is a good reason to believe otherwise. Merely lacking source citations is not a good reason, since it is common for articles in popular magazines to lack such citations. Moreover, the article was published during Todd's lifetime, so he had ample opportunity to respond or even sue for libel if the article was defamatory, but there is no indication that he did either. --RL0919 (talk) 02:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Court cases

I don't know if there is a reliable secondary source that discusses this, but Google searching on the name Kristopher Kollyns reveals a significant number of jailhouse legal cases by Todd/Kollyns, apparently all handled pro se. Most of them were rejected, of course, but they do show he was incarcerated in South Carolina for an extended period, and they also show that he was committed to a mental institution after his release from prison. They also reveal additional name variations: Johnnie W. Todd, Kris Sarayn Kollyns, Christopher S. Kollins and Kristopher S. Kollins. I don't think most of these will be of any direct use in the article without it becoming original research, but I wanted to mention it here both to affirm the basic soundness of the article's content and to bring up the additional names in case it helps anyone else searching for source material. --RL0919 (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Todd & Kennedy

It is highly doubtful that John Todd ever claimed he was John F. Kennedy's "personal warlock". Anyone who has heard Todd's sermons knows that he hated the term "warlock" and used "witch" or "wizard" to describe himself. Furthermore, Todd claimed that Kennedy had converted to Christianity several months prior to his death and that it was the cause of his assassination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.114.33 (talk) 07:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Todd a Wiccan

Hi,

One source, a court case filed by John Todd (ref: http://www.websupp.org/data/DSC/022862-DSC.pdf) on January 28, 2005, has him stating he is a member of the Wiccan religion. Also, John Todd took offense when Christian services were held in the open area and he overheard them when he was locked down in his cell.

I suggest that this indicates that John Todd does not belong to Category:Christian fundamentalists.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 03:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belief-based categories are always problematic, because it is very common for people to change their beliefs over time. If Todd was a Christian fundamentalist at one time, and then later wasn't, then you could argue either way for whether the category applies. So in keeping with Wikipedia's fundamental policies, the normal way to resolve this is to look at what reliable secondary sources say about the subject. Looking at the sources used in the article, they talk about his reception in fundamentalist churches, but none seem to specifically label him as a fundamentalist. So on that basis (not just because of what a court document says), I would agree that the category should be removed. --RL0919 (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His death

Does anybody know how how he died? It says that he died in the institute he was in, but it doesn't say how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.136.190 (talk) 08:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His life preceding the 1970s

There is a distinct lack of information regarding John Todd's life before the 1970s. Perhaps research efforts could be focused in that direction some more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.168.120 (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are welcome to help, too. Here are the guidelines on identifying reliable sources, here are the guidelines on citing those sources, and here are the guidelines on writing with a neutral point of view. Basically, we need newspaper or magazine articles, or books that don't have an agenda (basically, avoid stuff that says "the Illuminati and Satanists are out to get you!"). Todd's claims about his life before then (and sources based on them) are contentious, libellous, and unverified. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Todd on JFK

Previously this article claims that John Todd said he was JFK's personal Warlock, untill someone can provide proof that he actually said this, i am deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.32.185 (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try clicking the numbers after the statements, they're links to the sources. In the case of the Kennedy warlock claim, there's a <nowiki>[1]<nowiki> after it, and if you click that, you'll see that the first reference is "Plowman, Edward E. (February 2, 1979). "The Legend(s) of John Todd". Christianity Today." In there, it says "He claimed that the Illuminati were financing some fundamentalist churches, that he had been the Kennedy family's personal warlock..." As for the other stuff you removed without justification, those too were sourced. ~~~~

They may have been sourced but they are unreliable, the article was obviously biased againist John Todd, and the quote they gave may or may not be legitimate, we could keep it in, but emphasize that he MAY or may not have said it, if you so wish. But i have no intention of giving information off as confirmed, without justification, which you claim i do not have. ~~~~ {{subst:UnsignedIP|1=24.9.32.185|2=22:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)}}

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Todd_(occultist)&diff=411462719&oldid=411462510

Leave a Reply