![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
What? AnthonyMark00 ( talk) 02:06, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
What? AnthonyMark00 ( talk) 02:06, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)