Talk:Moby/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3


His religion

Moby say's he believes Jesus to have been "divine" now aside from Muslims and a few random micro-religions the only people who would say that are Christians so he's a Christian. --Protostan (talk) 02:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"i don't even really think of myself as a christian" (http://www.moby.com/journal/2001-02-09/religion.html). If he doesnt consider himself a Christian, he isn't a Christian. Also please note the comment at the top of the categories (Ive moved it to make it more obvious) - it says "Religious categories are not to be included unless relevant to the person's public life Category:American Episcopalians". Thanks. Metao (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
At the drop of a hat I was able to find that he's given an interview to Sojourners Magazine, talked about his religion with the BBC, and does talk about the teaching of Jesus on his blog.

And there's more: check this out "I can't really know anything. Having said that, though, on a very subjective level I love Christ. I perceive Christ to be God, but I predicate that with the knowledge that I'm small and not nearly as old as the universe that I live in. I take my beliefs seriously for myself, but I would be very uncomfortable trying to tell anyone that I was right." [1].

He sees to be a humble guy who doesn't identify with the media's portrayal of what a Christian is yet he believes deeply. --Protostan (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, he is definitely a believer, I dont dispute that. What I dispute is twofold. First, he isn't a Christian in the sense that he doesn't (appear to) belong to any particular denomination, and he clearly doesn't identify himself as Christian. Second, I dispute that his faith is not relevant enough to his public image to warrant categorisation. Regarding the latter point, I could see myself being convinced otherwise - that his faith (or rather, the level of media attention given to his faith) does warrant categorisation, but how can we categorise someone who does not categorise himself? If sources contradict the man himself, we have to go with the man, right? Although we 'could' talk in the article about how his faith is reported vs how he describes it himself, as long as we are careful not to get into OR. Metao (talk) 05:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Not all Christians belong to a denomination and amazon.com has identified him as a Christian as has Christianity Today. 71.142.250.117 (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Amazon is not a reliable source. Christianity Today is arguably a biased source. In any case, you have not provided evidence that his faith is relevant to his public image. Even if you had, Moby does not consider himself Christian. Metao (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Let's agree if he is a Christian or not first. If necessary, we can come to relevance and whether he is Episcopalian or something else later. I agree with Metao that Moby's own descriptions override what Amazon and Christianity Today say. However this makes it difficult because Moby is ambiguous - he says "I perceive Christ to be God" but also "I don't even really think of myself as a Christian". I think there is enough doubt that we have to remove the categorisation as "Christian". Similarly, if someone tried to categorise him as "Non-Christian" there is enough doubt that we would have to remove that too. (Chorleypie (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC))

Sources With DuckDuckGo, half a dozen clicks, and three minutes, I found this and this. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 17:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Both of those sources state that he is wary of calling himself a Christian, so I'm removing the categories. The content you added was very good, thank you for that. Metao (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Categorization We don't categorize based on current affiliation, thus someone who is dead still has categories. If he has been a Christian (and these sources explicitly state that he is) and it's a part of his public persona, then it should be included. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 18:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Someone who is Christian and dies remains a Christian. Someone who is Christian and changes their mind does not. He used to be a Christian. Now he isn't. Here's a photo of him from 2008 wearing a Flying Spaghetti Monster t-shirt - www.venganza.org/2008/04/moby. I think we should remove the categories. (Chorleypie (talk) 08:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC))
Chorley makes a good point - do we have a more recent source re: his faith? Faith is fluid, after all. Per http://www.moby.com/journal/2006-11-27/truly_insane.html and http://www.moby.com/journal/2006-12-21/i_think_its_odd_funny_when_people_come_m.html I don't think he would like to be categorised as an American Christian. Per http://www.moby.com/journal/2006-12-26/merry_post_christmas.html and several other pages, he dabbles in the idea of non-Christian faiths. He is certainly non-denominational. He just believes in Jesus, basically. Is that enough to be categorised as a Christian? Or are Christians serving some sort of agenda where they are trying to "file" as many celebrities as possible under their umbrella? My personal opinion is that he's a musician who happens to be interested in religion. He self-identifies as a non-Christian sort of Christian (he's basically a deist), but his faith, while interesting, is incidental. He is a musician. His faith is worth mentioning, but not categorising. Metao (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, the converts category certainly requires direct evidence of a conversion. Was the guy raised non-Christian? He's a white American. Forgive me for stereotyping, but I think it's safe to assume he was raised Christian. Please provide a source to indicate that he converted to Christianity, and then provide another source to demonstrate that his conversion to Christianity forms a relevant part of his public persona (he hasn't discussed religion much on his website since about '06, far as I can tell, so please make sure that the latter source is a recent one). Metao (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Identification It's not up to us to determine if someone is really a Christian based on his t-shirts or his interest in non-Christian religion--his public statements make it clear that he has identified as one. We don't categorize based on what you die as being, except for causes, places, and years of death. His public expressions of faith have been explicit enough to be in his liner notes, so it's pretty clearly been a part of his public persona, even if it hasn't lately. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 09:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
There's just too much doubt for us to categorically say now he is a Christian. Last year: "I did have a period 20-odd some years ago when I was quite a serious Christian. I taught Bible study and I went to Christian retreats. But that changed quite a long time ago." http://read.mtvhive.com/2011/05/16/interview-moby (Chorleypie (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC))
Sure And that's my point--we don't have to determine what he is now only what he has been. That's how categories work. If someone was born in Paris, lived in Rome for 15 years, and then became an American citizen in Los Angeles, he would be in Category:People from Paris, Category:People from Rome, and Category:People from Los Angeles. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 18:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
How about the category "Former Christians"? (Chorleypie (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC))
Citations If we can establish with sources that he is not one, then that can (and should) be added. Saying "I'm reluctant to use the word 'Christian'" or "I'm a peculiar type of Christian" are not sources that justify inclusion in that category. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 04:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I completely disagree. That person would be born in Paris. They would have lived in Rome. They would be currently living in Los Angeles. They would not be "from" any of those places. This is why we use explicit naming in categories. If someone was a Christian, and became a Buddhist, we would not categorise them as a Christian and a Buddhist. They would be a former Christian, and a Buddhist. In the case of Moby, he himself seems unclear on his position - which would be fine, since we should be using third-party sources anyway... but, since HE is ambiguous, so are the sources. There is no consensus amongst the sources. So we cannot categorise that he is or isn't a Christian, because there are sources that indicate both ways, and no side of the issue carries more weight than any other. It is not correct to say he is. It is not correct to say he isn't. The most correct path is to not categorise. Metao (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Categorization We don't categorize based on current affiliation with a handful of exceptions. We do categorize based on someone being "from" somewhere by any of those criteria that I mentioned (birth or long-term residence.) We can (and do) categorize people based on their self-affiliation. It would be inappropriate to categorize someone's religious affiliation based on what a third party says... How would that make any sense? As you can see here, that is the only criterion to use: "Categories regarding religious beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question." Simply and frankly put, you seem ignorant of how we categorize biographies. If you disagree with these criteria (and apparently you do) then you can definitely take it up at the relevant documentation pages rather than using this as a kind of test case. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 04:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Now this is interesting. I've always assumed that to be a Christian you must believe in a god. I've read Metao's "I think its odd..." link and it seems to me that Moby is someone who tries to follow the morals of Christ, but doesn't believe in God. So does that count as a Christian? Many Buddhists try to follow Buddha's teachings but don't believe Buddha was a god. (This would also then have implications for subcategories; Moby was categorised as Episcopalian for a while, but I don't know what distinguishes them from other Christians.) (Chorleypie (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC))
Categorization For our purposes, one is a Christian if he identifies as such. See also Don Cuppit and Christian atheism. I don't know that Moby isn't a theist (source?) but even if he isn't, we will still classify him as a Christian because he has identified himself as such. It's not an encyclopedia's place to say he isn't. As for Episcopalians, that is a denomination with a central hierarchy and leadership (if a loose one), so if you belong to that church, you are an Episcopalian. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 04:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
"It's not an encyclopedia's place to say he isn't." Well, isn't it equally true that it's not an encyclopedia's place to say that he IS? If it's obviously (at a minimum) inconclusive? I propose a compromise. Someone create a category for "Persons of note who may or may not be Christian." *blush* Sorry for the sarcasm. I just don't understand why this debate has to happen. Patricia Meadows (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Right It's also not our place to say that he is a Christian--exactly my point. If he goes to church every Sunday, takes Communion, and wears a cross around his neck, that would not justify inclusion in a category about Christians. If he says publicly as a part of his persona, "I am a Christian" (which he has) then we categorize him as such irrespective of church attendance. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 07:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Admittedly, the rules seem to have changed slightly since I last checked them, so I apologise for acting along slightly misinformed lines. The rule as quoted is correct. And, thankfully, only goes on to prove my point. The links you provided are from '97 and '03. I provided links from '06 and someone else provided one from '11. In your '03, he identifies, simultaneously, as both a Christian and a non-Christian. In my '06 articles, he refuses the classification. You seem to be interpreting the Wikipedia policy as meaning that, if at any time someone identifies as a particular faith, that they can be forever categorised as that faith (reminds me of baptism... once baptised, always a Christian...). Is this correct? Because I think this is wrong. If someone recants or chooses another identification, that is notable and should be discussed in their article, but surely this removes the justification for categorisation. My previous point stands: if the waters are muddy, we cannot be the arbiters on truth. We cannot classify. Metao (talk) 07:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Metao. Yes, of course that's right. I've actually lost track of what, exactly, is the category that's being disputed in this article. Unless it's something like "Possible Christians" I'm not sure why we're having a debate.Patricia Meadows (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrote for Smashing Pumpkins?

Please consider revising one of the opening statements, where it suggests he wrote music for Smashing Pumpkins. I accessed the cited interview and didn't find any mention of them or Billy Corgan, for example. Perhaps you could include another citation or rephrase so it doesn't sound like he cowrote anything for the Pumpkins. -- Newagelink (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The Limo (How I Met Your Mother)

Moby appeared in an episode of How I Met Your Mother called The Limo. I feel that this is important enough to be noted somewhere in section 1.6 2005–2008: Hotel, Last Night, and other work under the heading 1 Biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.194.4 (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)