Talk:John Todd (conspiracy theorist)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

This title should be changed to "Christian Fundamentalist". As the alleged sources indicating that in his later life he went back into occultism cannot be verified. Which makes this title hersay, the article bias and against Wikipedias editorial guidelines. AnthonyMark00 (talk) 04:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
Cornerstone is a reliable source, btw, right? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)

If you are going to keep this article in it's current state them you must also change William Schnoebelen page to match his, as they have almost identical backgrounds & both talk about the same subject matter. The only difference between these two people is that William Schnoebelen is still around today! It is heavily biased and has been this way for a while. I first came across this page in 2010 when I was researching a video; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqAMKQxfaOI As you can see back then there was people putting false infromation on this page, nothings changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonyMark00 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Youtube is not a reliable source, and please see WP:PRIMARY. Schnoebelen claims to have come from a similar (and impossible) background because he's the same brand of charlatan. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Neither our points of view matter! Thats the point! It needs to be in the same format as his! Or you can go sabo his page as well! AnthonyMark00 (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Please assume good faith from other editors. Your referring to me keeping the page within the neutrality guidelines instead of turning it into a puff piece praising a compulsive liar and rapist as "sabo"-(taging) the page borders on a personal attack, especially since you have no evidence. Secondary sources, especially those by folks who don't engage in Simony using Todd's name, are used in this article, and they do document him as a charlatan. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The category of this article is based on the assumtion that "Occultist" was his last known or self given designation. John Todd testified on tape to being a born again Christian and his last public self designation is also noted on the article page itself. I assume that this is based on the addition of a link to a PDF file that is said to give enidence that he no longer gave himself that designation AFTER his last known public appearrance. I should point out that good faith works both ways. But if you do not believe me you can check through the edits and see that other editors have verified this...

Well I cant find the conversation that I had with one about JT's video testimony. But that was when he agreed that the title off occultist should be changed. I think he watched the lecture. So he changed it to "American speaker and conspiracy theorist." But actually... I'm a little confused as I just saw that you wrote "::::I'd support that change. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)" I can see from the timestamp you wrote that to RL0919 AFTER you wrote this.

So I can assume you had a change of heart (And that your not about to stalk me). But my continuing point is that it's still incomplete, as it has "Occultist" in the overall page title with no direct evidence in the article that he actually was an occultist. The only thing I could find was on this talk page..

"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)"

There is no court case file on that link! And the website itself cannot be trusted. I think I can create a document there saying JT was Superman & upload it! And that is the only basis we have for this categorisation?... Unless you have something we have not seen?

"a puff piece praising a compulsive liar and rapist as" If you listen to JT he does talk extensivley about being smeared & persecuted by the authorities and also by occultist groups he formally accociated with. So this would go a long way to explain why he is still reffered to by Christian researchers today.

And also the fact of the details of his criminal records actually appear and mostly reffer to a time after he dissapeared out of the spotlight and after he was publicly seen calling himself a Christian. And that would also explain why many in the Christian world look at his criminal background skeptically.

Most Christians who know about him tend to use what he has said as a point of refference. So I dont really know where you get that personal venom from... being an Atheist. Or his image in public at the time being a "compulsive liar and rapist"?! Can you show us something to that effect? Because what I discoverd was when he was in public it was the contorary(to what Christian Churches where saying about him at the time).. Thats why so many Churches allowed him to come & speak to them.

So I'll ask anyone, what is the basis for the "Occultist" category of this articles? AnthonyMark00 (talk) 01:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

"Being an atheist" -- You've received no indication that anyone here is an atheist. I'm Baptist. Have you read Matthew 7, recently?
And if you tried reading what RLRL0919 wrote, you'd see that the change I'd support is to "John Todd (conspiracy theorist)." RL0919 suggested changing the article title based on what most of the reliable sources in this article. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Could have fooled me! And your not going to believe this but I was just thinking of scripture writing to you just now! And your gonna freak when I tell you which one! Matthew 7:6. I think that means something.. So from your response I see that your agree I was right! Thats good! Now good luck to you! AnthonyMark00 (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

How do you not get that your remarks are inflammatory and insulting? Ian.thomson (talk) 01:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

What? AnthonyMark00 (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

"Could have fooled me!" and your other constant treatment of me as some inferior based on your prideful and mistaken assumption that you're the only true Christian around. It's insulting and uncivil. How do you begin to think that's how Christ would want you to act? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to read back through these comments & ask yourself honestly WHO has been "prideful and mistaken".. I have repeatedly tried to keep this discussion on topic. And yet repeatedly you keep resorting to ad-homnein personal attacks.. I'm not impressed & it shows up your intellect!

I suggest if you dont like it! You shouldn't try to give it! AnthonyMark00 (talk) 02:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You came to this site with a combative attitude, making mistaken and rather insulting accusations about article editors and sources. When your mistakes were pointed out, you ignored the corrections and often insulted those who corrected you ("being an atheist," "could have fooled me," "pearls before swine"). When your arguments were deflected, you would either ignore it or pretend to have had a different argument all along. When you get into trouble, you outright lie about others' actions.
I politely asked you to assume good faith and pointed your errors in hopes that you would be a sane and rational person and learn from your mistakes. I did not address your character until well after you started insulting others. I still have not throw a direct insult, but pointed out some rather abusive and arrogant behavior on your part. If you think I'm wrong, cite ONE THING I have said that was an outright assault on you and not your behavior.
I have had it. I don't care if I get into trouble for this, but you are a waste to this site. We do not need your unloving superiority complex, we do not need your insulting hatred, we do not need your psychotic lack of human respect for others, we do not need your immature inability to handle correction. Take your spiritual sadism elsewhere, hypocrite. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

If your definition of my behaviour was such then I would not be writing to you now. Everything is on the Admin Noticeboard for all to see. You like to site the rules while you flout them "I don't care if I get into trouble for this", but I should also point out that all the while I was making the edits. You & others were failing to repond to me on the talk page. It was only when others informed me as to where the feedback was being placed that I even knew about it. And I didnt have a problem once someone was giving me some feedback.. which is the way it's supposed to be done. And your double standards are quite incredible. Take now!! Read back through the comments "Have you read Matthew 7, recently" THATS WHAT YOU WROTE! And you claim that you are not attacking me or somehow you commenting on my behaviour to me (like I would want to know) is NOT something personal? And that I am so wrong for giving you scripture back! Wake up!

This has now gone too far! I wont respond anymore to a immature attitude like yours as I see that your only motivation is to try and make things difficult for me while I'm using this website. I guess I was right about the stalking then. Have it your way! AnthonyMark00 (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Matthew 7 begins with "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." I've pointed out mistakes you've made in hopes that you would correct them and become a productive editor. I was trying to help you become a better editor, in the hopes that you would have anything useful to contribute to the site. All you've done is judge others to be vandals (despite repeated explanation of what this site considers vandalism), non-Christians (despite the rather obvious citation of Cornerstone and Christianity Today), and corporate shills, all without evidence. You've judged to be racists who accused you of sexism, without evidence. And now you accuse me of stalking, when you came back to a page I've been editing for years, as if I wouldn't be here? This, after, saying you're done with me, before coming back to respond to things I said?
Not once did you apologize. Not once did you even consider forgiving others for what you imagine are misdeeds. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

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)

Please that is not the point. It's nothing to do with YouTube. But I will say again. Both men have almost identical backgrounds and simillar messages. Furthurmore this article has been based on information provided that does not exist. As I have checked the link & could not find any pdf file detailing him turning away from Christianity after his last public recorded statement of faith.

It is also worth noting is that link is to an interview with the man himself. So his own words do qualify as a primary source of information if I wanted to use it as such. If you cannot create these pages without lies & fabrication then you should not try at all. Or IF you do have the evidence please show it. As I have never seen nor heard of it in my studies! AnthonyMark00 (talk) 23:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Thats an unacceptable conclusion. The sources listed in the article DO in fact reffer to him as a fundamentalist on his audio tapes given from Oneness Pentecostal. The host does indeed afirm his belief in Mr Todds faith. It's a leap to go from "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." to saying "so that means he was an occultist". And atheist or not do any of you believe Christian Churches would allow Wiccans to openly come and talk to their congregations. So many Christians wouldnt listen to what he has to say today if they thought of him as an occultist. Cmon people that dont make sense does it!

I have checked out ths above source & found it to be false. There is no pdf document on that link. The Occultist in the title appears to be based on this evidence. Where are my other comments I left here in the talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonyMark00 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore if this source http://www.websupp.org/data/DSC/022862-DSC.pdf (which is a dead link) In not eeven linked at the bottom of the article!? But yet it's information has such an influence on the title?

I didnt know Wikipeadia was so shabby! AnthonyMark00 (talk) 03:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

AnthonyMark00 (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Which source do you mean by "audio tapes given from Oneness Pentecostal"? None of the cited sources mentions Oneness Pentecostal in its description, although there is a mention of him being involved with that sect, so perhaps you mean one of the YouTube-hosted recordings? There is a cited reliable source (Medway's Lure of the Sinister, published by a university press) that says at one point he ran an occult bookstore and recruited for a coven, which seems to justify "occultist" as one of his many descriptors. --RL0919 (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

And if anyone has watched his lectures he testifies to this, just like William Schnoebelen. When you look at his page he is not given that title. And he has testified to being involved in as much as or even more occult activity than JT.

But what is most conerning of all is that you seem to be ignoring the fact that the title of occultist was given to JT due to a link to a PDF alleging he converted away from Christianity. And the fact you are trying to ignore the fact that link does not exist, I think you actually get a 401 when you follow it. Makes me more than suspicious.

But not only are you ignoring the lack of evidence, but you are also reverting the article when I try and correct it. And I have even seen some of my comments & reasons why I made the changes deleted from the talk page.

Furthermore & I will be looking to follow this up, is that you claim the video of his lecture where testimony is given by his peers about him is not available?! I put that video up myself and as I write this it is available to view at;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqAMKQxfaOI Listen at 1:16 - This entire prespective of JT from this article is skewed to represent only what a small number of people thought of him. And none of them are Christians!

I have gone though Wikis guidelines, and from what I have witnessed being, and what has been done to this article, is deceptive! This is wrong.

AnthonyMark00 (talk) 02:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The PDF link given above has nothing to do with the article name. The article was created with the name it has now back in October 2009. The comments with the PDF link were made by Kevinkor2 in June 2010, as shown in the timestamp at the end of his comments. So it really has nothing to do with the article name. Kevinkor2's complaint was that the article had been put into a category for "Christian fundamentalists" when the court document he linked to (which can still be obtained at a different URL) had Todd (under one of his numerous aliases) referring to himself as a "Wiccan". Since there was no source calling Todd a "fundamentalist", the category was removed. There still isn't a source calling him that as far as I know. The YouTube clip you link to has some unidentified person talking about Todd as "a genuinely converted man, saved by the grace of God", but doesn't say which of the numerous Christian sects he might have been converted to. So even if we accepted it as a rock solid source, it still doesn't address the relevant issue. --RL0919 (talk) 03:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

So I assume you can provide the link to this. Because as someone who has researched JT I find that a very rare peice of information indeed. If Kevinkor2's complaint was that the article had been put into a category for "Christian fundamentalists" then I am countering that as STILL I have not seen the evidence in question.

And it is obvious what you do not know as that audio clip is taken from a much longer one (4hrs I beleive taken from within a Church, which you cannot deny) I am not a supporter of JT either way. But until you actualy produce the evidence that says he converted away from Christianity and went back into occultism, it is against wikis guidelines for you to keep reverting the article to show this FALSE information.

So please correct it with evidence. Or leave it! AnthonyMark00 (talk) 03:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Todd was by his own account an occultist who converted to Christianity. Third-party accounts indicate that he "backslid" at some point in the mid-1970s. One source for this is cited in the article, and I referred to it in my comments above. If you can't be bothered to find the in-article citation link then I'm sorry, but I'm not required to spoon feed it to you. He subsequently began speaking in Christian churches again later in the 1970s. This is all documented in magazine articles and books, which are accepted hereabouts above YouTube audio clips that someone edited together from unspecified sources and put with some photos to make a "video". Even if we accept the YouTube material as legitimate, it doesn't deny that Todd was once an occultist (indeed his message was premised on him having once been one), nor does it refer to him as a Christian apologist, as you would prefer to label him.
I do think there is a legitimate question as to whether the term 'occultist' is the best one to use in the title. No one has ever complained about it before, but as I think about it, it is a bit odd. Not so much because Todd claimed to be a convert to Christianity, but because most sources believe his claims of prior occultism are bunk, and his mid-70s occult dalliance seems to have been brief. Whether he was or wasn't a "Wiccan" later is almost beside the point, since by then he was out of the public eye and no reliable secondary source bases their description of him on that period. --RL0919 (talk) 04:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
In response to "This entire prespective of JT from this article is skewed to represent only what a small number of people thought of him."
Wrong, it's from the perspective of everyone who wasn't drinking his Kool-aid.
"And none of them are Christians!?" AnthonyMark00, even if you weren't completely without evidence to claim that the all authors cited in this article are somehow a statistical anomaly that somehow doesn't include at least one Christian, you're wrong because Cornerstone and Christianity Today are both Christian publications run by Christians, written by Christians, and targeted to Christians (and without whoring off additional books and movies they own, like some other publishing companies). Even if they weren't cited, the claim that none of the sources cited are Christian still wouldn't matter: Wikipedia does not engage in religion-based bigotry.
As for the dead link you mentioned in your "shabby" comment, do you think that Wikipedia is responsible for maintaining other sites? Do you think that every editor sites around constantly checking any link they post on talk pages two years later, just to update their talk page posts if necessary? I have 2,419 pages on my watchlist, and that's not an usually large amount for dedicated editors. I have updated the link in the article, and as you can see here, Todd filed a case "alleging constitutional violations by defendants regarding his Wiccan religious beliefs." In 2005, he was Wiccan. He could've converted some time after.
John Todd was noted by the military to be an emotionally unstable compulsive liar who had trouble telling the difference between reality and fantasy. Anything he says is an unreliable source unless verified by a secondary source, in particular those that do not make a profit off of assuming that any lie he speaks is really somehow true.
As for the article title, I did not support the original change, and I do think that he is more notable as an evangelist, but "I want to believe Todd was a Christian to the end" is not a reason to change the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if John Todd (conspiracy theorist) would be better than the current title? There are a couple of sources that would support that, and his Illuminati conspiracy theories seem to be the most distinct thing about him. --RL0919 (talk) 07:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd support that change. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

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)

Any information on his death is unknown, for all we know he could be alive, though personally, i highly doubt it 24.9.32.185 (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Try clicking the numbers after the statements, they're links to the sources. In the case of the Kennedy warlock claim, there's a [1] 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. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

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. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.32.185 (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that Christianity Today is unreliable? The guidelines do not say we have to kiss anyone's arse and hide crazy stuff they've done or said just to make them look nice for their fans. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

When did i say i wanted to hide anything, all im saying is that it may or may not be true that he said that, and i have found no tapes which prove that he did so, there is only the word of a website which claims that he did so. Once again, perhaps we could show that this is disputable whether or not he said it? Putting something off as fact when we are not sure whether or not it is true is illogical, and it dosen't mean im kissing ass. Also, the christianity article claims that he said he was the Kennedy family's personal Warlock, not just John F Kennedy in particular 24.9.32.185 (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Christianity Today quotes him saying "John F. Kennedy was not really killed; I just came back from a visit with him on his yacht." I've added another source that supports his claims of being a warlock for Kennedy, a book published by the New York University Press. Also, we primarily rely on secondary sources to avoid issues of interpretation. But, to satisfy you, I've found a collection of his tapes and am going through them right now. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Ian Johnson, if you can find solid proof that John Todd did say that, i will gladly give in to it. Should you be unable to find this, i suggest we emphasize that it IS disputable whether or not he said those words. Either way, im sorry that you are annoyed that i have fought hard to question the sources, but it is the duty of anyone trying to edit wikipedia to make sure it is reliable as possible, even in articles which may seem as irrelevant as this one 24.9.32.185 (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The sources given by Ian.thomson above appear to be sufficient for the claim. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true" (emphasis in original) WP:V. No sources have been presented, so far as I can see above, regarding whether the quote is disputable. "Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources" (emphasis in original) WP:OR Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Who the hell is Ian Johnson? Edit: Also, it's gonna take some time, each file is about an hour, and I actually do stuff here besides this article, and I do stuff besides Wikipedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Going through those tapes is actually not necessary, for the reasons I stated above, unless you're really interested to do it. However, there are a couple attendant problems. kt70.com is a WP:SPS. Even if it weren't, finding a primary source where Todd says what the RSes ascribe to him may be a problem of WP:Original research, unless perhaps the secondary source has a citation to it. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

So your willing to just give a quote that may or may not have been true, which could be misleading to people who may want to learn about him. Which means you are admiting that alot of what is being said could be outright lies? That destroys the credibility of wikipedia in my eyes. 24.9.32.185 (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

By such a standard, no information except what you experience yourself is reliable. There is no reason to suspect the Christianity Today article. It would have been easy to call them out on it, and it fits with his other claims. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

So your saying that even if it isn't true that it dosen't really matter because he was a complete whacko? Thats not a very "neutral" point of view, as the wikipedia code of conduct says we are supposed to have. It is not our place to judge people, only to put in the facts...if you don't want to do it i will gladly look through them. I've also been looking through alot of his videos and tapes, and whenever he talks about JFK, he emphasizes that the reason he was killed was because he betrayed the "illuminati" but i never heard him speak of being a Warlock so far. As for the Verifibility rule, i must admit i am a bit defeated on that, seems as if that one was made specifically to cut people like me down.24.9.32.185 (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the mental health of Todd. If reliable sources say Person X said Quote Y, that satisfies Wikipedia's WP:V policy ("verifiability, not truth" dates back there at least to August 25, 2005 diff), and is NPOV. NPOV states "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." It is not required that the reliable sources not make judgments. The idea that the quote might not be true amounts to original research and is POV in nature. As far as the credibility of Wikipedia goes, you might read Wikipedia:About to understand more about the nature of Wikipedia, perhaps particularly sections 2.3-2.5.
There actually is a problem of sorts with the Christianity Today citation in its current form, though. CT is a reliable source. smwane.dk may not be. WP should be citing to the article, not to smwane.dk's reproduction of it. I might be able to check it tomorrow and sub in the correct full citation. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 01:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

If we cannot do original research, what research CAN be done to prove otherwise? Because that just makes wikipedia hypocritical for misleading people with potentially false information 67.173.246.167 (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm tired of this axe-grinding. WP:NOTCENSORED. WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Deal with it. We've reported what matches our pretty damn reasonable standards for reliable sources (they're much higher standards than most news networks). I've listened to the guy's sermons, and he does indeed makes claims about being Kennedy's warlock. Unless you can bring in a reliable source that features anything of Todd countering the Christianity Today article in any way, it stays. Just because you don't want to believe it is no reason to whitewash the article. If you don't like it, you don't have to edit here. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't like it, and it seems i have no choice. But yea, your a liar. I listened to them all and he mentions nowhere that he was Kennedy's Warlock, but if you would be kind enough to point me to the one where he did, i would be very happy to hear it 67.173.246.167 (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Does it matter? Todd was born in 1950, so by the time JFK was killed, Todd would have been no older than 13! That puts it all to rest right there! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.8.197.169 (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, from what I can see, the quote says that Todd says he was a consultant to the Kennedy family, which includes more than simply JFK himself. And, from previous discussion of the source Christianity Today elsewhere, I have seen that it is, by at least some other sources, regarded as a peer-reviewed academic source, and that on that basis and others it in general does meet our minimal standards for reliable sources as per WP:RS. As an individual, I am astonished by this view of the source in question, which I hold in rather lower esteem than other sources which are more clearly and universally regarded as academic journals, but that is my own personal reaction. I can see no objections to the statement being included, perhaps with a statement in the text that it comes from CT, unless other sources closer to Todd indicate that he has personally refuted them. John Carter (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think CT is peer reviewed, but it appears to be a legitimate journalistic source, and peer-reviewed sources have accepted claims from it as being factual. Also, it is important to realize that the purported comments from Todd included a claim that JFK was not killed in 1963, so Todd's age at that time was irrelevant. The claim probably strikes many people as implausible, but in the context of other claims that Todd is documented as making, it isn't particularly more implausible than his norm. Some claims that a disinterested observer would find equally or more implausible (Jimmy Carter is the Antichrist, etc.) are even better documented as coming from Todd's mouth. So in the absence of a reliable source that denies he made this claim, I see no reason to exclude it. --RL0919 (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Todd_(conspiracy_theorist)/Archive_1&oldid=596961487"