Talk:Religious conversion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
To-do list for Religious conversion: edit · history · watch · refresh
  1. describe Lofland-Stark model for conversion
  2. Summarize (or merge?) deathbed conversion.

Contents

[edit] The intro in not NPOV

It is the farthest thing from NPOV from any article I've read on Wikipedia. Why is there so much emphasis on Christianity in it?

[edit] King Moab

"King David was descended from the convert Ruth a princess from Moab". This may be a new idea for many readers. Is there any (extra-Biblical) tradition that Ruth was a princess? - S.

[edit] Apostasy and the Qu'ran

I am removing the line where it states that apostasy in Islam is a capital punishment. As mentioned in the "Apostasy" article the Quran is silent on the issue of apostasy and the faith of apostates.

66.42.111.214 10:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Marcus

Hi, Let me quote you verbatim from the Artscroll commentary (Artscroll Inc. 1976) on Ruth, p.67:

"... The sages tell us that Machlon and Killion (married to Ruth and Orpah), were wealthy and distinguished, rose to such prominence while living in Moab that Eglon King of Moab, offered them his daughters' hands in marriage. Ruth and Orpah were the daughters of Eglon, as it is written in the book of Judges 3:19 ;(When Ehud came to Eglon to deliver God's message)'..and Ehud said:I have a message from God to you. And (Eglon) arose from his throne.' The Holy One , blessed be He,said of him:'You stood up from your throne in My honor, I will cause to emerge from you a descendent who will sit upon My throne' ..." MIDRASH.

Now, ofcourse one can quible and say that the Midrash is not reliable. But what other records can be relied upon ? Since the books of the Bible, such as the Scroll of Ruth ( attributed to the prophet Samuel ) are the original and primary sources for this information, they are very reliable. After all we are talking here about religious and spiritual ideas..not just "commercial marketing" which is downright silly. Judaism has had the WORST marketing possible ("Buy this product and you are persecuted??? Makes no sense") So we can safely rely on the record as handed down thru the ages by the Jewish sages of the Torah who were meticulous in reporting and recording only the TRUTH. And it is not necessary for some archeologist to dig up an obilisk in Iraq and tell us wow, see what it says here guys...that too is downright silly. If it happens, nice! But we don't hold our breath waiting for a historian to confirm Jewish history in it's primary location, otherwise , why bother with these "stories" altogether?; just skip the sections on religion and move on to the science lessonsIZAK

I don't understand, the Midrash is not the Bible. The Bible is a primary source, and you have some nice arguments for the reliability of the Midrash as well, but the Midrash is still not a primary source. You quote the Midrash and then act as if you quoted the Bible. Jdavidb 21:58, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Midrash Ruth Rabba 2:9: "Ruth and Orpah were the daughters of Eglon, king of Moab." Eglon, when visited by the judge Ehud, stood up from his throne. In reward, the Midrash states, his decendants (through Ruth, Obed, etc. to David) would merit the Holy throne of the Jewish people.
Babylonian Talmud, tractate Nazir 23b: "Ruth was the daughter of Eglon's son". This was a reward to Bileam who, although his 42 sacrifices were insincere, he merited that Ruth should decend from him.
Similar expressions on Sotah 47a, Sanhedrin 105b, Horiot 10b. This should do it, really, shouldn't it?
I agree that Midrashic sources should be properly referenced, and not blended in with Biblical narrative. Although the section is on Judaism, and Jewish sources should have the last word there, it bears repeating that the words of the Bible can be understood on a number of levels (traditionally four). Midrashic interpretation is one of those. JFW 18:21, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thought reform

What is the difference between thought reform and religious conversion? Is the only difference that thought reform is not desired and conversion a more neutral term? Or are there any objective standards, like religious conversion can never mean accpting a cult belief system but only a belief system of a mainstream religion. If the difference is only subjective then this should be stated. Shouldn't it be a reciprocal link? Andries

Andries, your message is insulting to all sincere converts. For the articles to have any parallels one would have to equate cults with established religions and the conversion process with the brainwashing that cults often have to resort to in order to ensnare impressionable people. Actually, I'm forcefully against the reciprocal link as well. Please reconsider your statement. (Yes, this was POV.) JFW 18:40, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Agreed, the comparison of conversion to thought reform is quite insulting. According to the article on thought reform, it occurs because of outside manipulation and is synonymous with brainwashing and mind control. The person who implied there was no difference is implying that there is never a single instance of a sincere religious convert who simply considered the issues and decided another religion was right and his former belief system was wrong.
I recognize it's pretty hard for someone who is areligious to accept, but there are many people who belong to their religion because they sincerely believe it to be true. Thus people sometimes change religions voluntarily because they have been convinced. Religious conversions are not solely the result of what you would call brainwashing, and to imply otherwise is to imply that all religious converts are simpleminded and believe only what they are told.
So, dignifying the question with an answer, the difference between religious conversion and thought reform is that conversion is voluntary while thought reform is coerced. Jdavidb 14:09, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thank you, Jdavidb, I totally agree. You will have noticed that I removed the link in question. JFW | T@lk 15:03, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I agree that a large number of conversions are voluntary, and in no way can be compared with thought reforms. But, what would some of the techniques that evangalists use in poor third world countries like allurement by money, faking miracles, i.e. fraud etc. to convert illiterate, poor people called? Would that be conversion, or would that be something else? Would that be any different from cultists preying on vulnurable people? If you agree, that they cannot be called conversions, I would encourage you to find out more about the work of any evangalist organization involved in thirld world countries that you may support.
I continue to disagree, thought reform is voluntary too. I added a NPOV message to the article. Unfortunately, it is difficult to know whether a conversion has been manipulated or not. If it weren't difficult to know then how come thousands of normal people join cults (or are recruited by cults)? I have no doubts both about about the sincerity of religious converts and about the people who are recruited by cults. Unfortunately I know all this from my personal experience. Andries 09:29, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I generally find this whole line of conversation distateful and condescending. Conversion is a spiritual process for the individual who obviously is seeking for additional truth, finding it, and implementing it into their lives. To even infer, as this article does, that all conversion to anything but orthodoxy is brainwashing. Who developed this hypothesis and who supports it? It is the type of drivel that cultists use to "scare the faithful" and to cause all to beware the evil missionaries/teachers of other faiths. And for goodness sake, if one is going to use the word cult, define it. Everytime I hear a cultist define cult it gets wider and wider so that everything is cult except their belief system. Storm Rider 20:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tanakh on converts

"The Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) states that converts deserve special attention."

Can anyone offer a source on this? To my knowledge, the Tanakh does not address conversion directly (although Ruth is evidently an example of a convert, and there are statements about how to treat a stranger within the land of Israel). Is it possible the author meant the Talmud or some other source? Jdavidb 21:54, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hello Jdavidb. There is no specific instruction in Tanakh to give special attention to converts. Nor would they like that. However, it is mentioned in numerous places (starting with Exodus 23:9) that it is a sin to oppress the stranger (ger, generally taken to refer to converts), partially because the Jews themselves were strangers in Egypt. Maimonides is reputed to have said to his converted pupil Obadiah that there are 36 instances of this prohibition in Tanakh, although most conventional counts arrive at lower numbers. JFW 18:21, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
On second thought, I found a source of "loving the stranger" (Deuteronomy 10:19). In that respect, converts deserve special (loving) attention. JFW | T@lk 15:07, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Proselytism == Christianity?

Why is the article on Proselytism put under the Christianity heading? According to that article, proselytism referred orginally to Jewish converts. What does it have to do, specifically, with Christianity? Jdavidb 19:58, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Higer taxes for non-Muslims in Islamist states, give current examples

"States controlled by Islamists sometimes practice a different set of laws for Muslims and non-Muslims. For example, taxation of non-Muslims may be higher to account for "protection" provided by Muslims. As such, a financial incentive may exist to convert to Islam."

Are there any current examples? It used to be that way, I thought. Thanks Andries 20:15, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I thought the amounts were the same but the names of it were not. Muslims payed zakat (or khums) and non-muslims payed jizya. Only Muslims would then be obliged to bear arms and defend the nation. That is of course assuming that the muslim establishment was observing Islamic law at the time (rarely the case!). 68.165.17.108 22:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

No, the muslims pay zakat, which is a land-tax. The infidels pay both jizya and zakat. The jizya is to be paid in a humiliating ceremony to remind the infidel that he is below all muslims. Jizya is can be as much as 180% of the kafir's whole income! Imagine the debt. This is so that the kafir converts willingly after he has run into tremendous debt. Also, specific dress codes have been enforced. Of today's countries, I do not know; however, in Saudi-Arabia and possibly in Iran, christianity is strictly forbidden. Because this article states a clear lie in Islam having "no compulsion in religion", I labeled it with a factual dispute. Should you need any "proof" of this well known fact, read up: http://southasia.net/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=672 --Absent 12:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely 100% incorrect. Zakat is tax that is given to the poor and is 2.5% of income and savings. It is not a land tax, I don't know where on earth you got that information from. In the Ottoman times, jizya was paid instead of zakat by Christians, Zoroastrins etc. and this money would go to neighborhood and community development within non-Islamic areas. I will not bother looking at that site, southasia.net is not a reliable source for information about Islam. There are Christians in Iran, it is not banned, that statement is ridiculous. "There is no compulsion in religion" is a quote from the Qur'an, that is a fact. If you don't like Islam, that is your right. I don't know if you are intentionally misstating facts or just do not know, but either way you should know about a subject before commenting on it.138.88.129.87 23:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable means limited to Christinity?

Under the heading 'Conversion to Christianity' the following text is given:

"It [spreading the faith] is used even today as an excuse by evangelists to convert people of other faiths, on some occasions even by questionable means.".

Are "questionable means" limited only to the spreading of Christianity? The example for today is a declaration made by Vikings in the year 1000. Perhaps other examples such as the USSR's (etc) decision to adopt Atheism (and prohibit all religions) should be included, and the peculiar role of religion in state politics could be moved to a general section.

Reply-- But you must understand that Christianity and Islam are the only two religions that encourage evangelists and support converting so you will see much more questionable means when there is converting going on. So you must be impartial and see it in a neutral way. And Christianty is byfar one of the most converted religions and all of them weren't by peaceful means, and history provides us with ample proof of this, the many crusades that they used God as a simple excuse and the Vikings and much more. If you are to find an example that involves Islam then you might be able to keep it on both those two religions but it shouldn't be put under General because the questionable means doesn't refer to Hinduism or Buddhism at all. You should keep it under the headings to keep content specific.

[edit] Jfdwolff revert

What's the excuse for the revert on the definition of Proselyte found in Acts of Pilate?

It's completely out of context, and POV. Information from the New Testament is only of interest in the Christianity section. Also, never preface a section with "interestingly" when you can be quite sure most readers will not find it interesting. JFW | T@lk 18:29, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
It's a definition of Proselyte from the time period when the term was most used. How is that out of context? It's not from the New Testament. And true, you may not find it interesting, but since when are you "most readers". You my friend are the one with the non-npov.
Oh, pleased to hear we're friends. You may consider adding a section called "Etymology" or "Origins", and not insist that your addition becomes part of the article intro. This has nothing to do with POV, so I removed the tag you unwisely inserted. JFW | T@lk 13:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Added definition of Proselyte section to end, happy now? I want to make sure you are happy because only you can determine what is and isn't npov. I certainly wouldn't want to mar the article intro because that belongs to you.

[edit] I nominate this article for neutrality check, it clearly is under dispute, see above

from Wikipedia: "Often, authors can view their articles as being NPOV, while others disagree. That an article is in an NPOV dispute does not necessarily mean it is not NPOV, only that someone (with the tact and wit to properly link to this page from it) considers it to be not NPOV."

Aaargh, can't you even get a username? I am certainly not doubting the veracity of the statement. My only concern was that you gave it too much prominence. That is not NPOV, that is a normal disagreement on emphasis. Before you go slapping POV tags on articles, just enter into a dialogue! JFW | T@lk 22:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What's the point of entering into a dialogue with someone who routinely deletes new additions and deletes requests for neutrality check? Do you understand that I don't want you to do a neutrality check (for reasons that should be obvious), I want others to do that. I request a neutrality check, why do you delete it? You feel you have that right? As far as you are concerned the article is neutral and not under dispute therefore no need for a neutrality check? Do you understand the word neutrality? Do you understand the Wikipedia position on neutrality? Do you understand POV? Do you understand the concept of neutral POV?
The only thing you have so far disputed was the inclusion of material on the history of proselytism, which has now been included. I think I understand the word neutrality better than you do, and I also understand that you are making a ridiculous fuss. What exactly strikes you as biased in this article? Unless you clearly delineate what bothers you, the POV check request is unfounded, and I shall have to remove your cherished tag.
Again I must encourage you to get a Wikipedia username. If you care for the project and its unbiased coverage so much, why should your edits remain anonymous? JFW | T@lk 13:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't see any neutrality conflict here. The material has been included, what else is there to talk: about? Jayjg (talk) 15:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Fine, next issue then: The first section is called "The convert/proselyte" Wouldn't you expect to find definitions of proselyte in that section? If the word proselyte is so important to this article to be mentioned in section one, wouldn't the definitions also be important? I suppose, if you want to be technical, Acts of Pilate represents a Christian definition from the first couple of centuries. The first thing that jumps out at me is: why does the word have to be defined in Acts of Pilate? My answer to that question is that proselyte was understood in a Jewish context but not in the greater Greco-Roman context. Is the definition found in Acts of Pilate incorrect? I don't believe it is, perhaps others disagree, those who disagree should present their evidence.
Conversion to Judaism obviously predates Pilate, and a Talmudic definition would be more appropriate. It is definitely useful as an extraneous source. How about you make some neutral edits and see if these hold out? I can't imagine you'd like to carry on arguing until we're all blue in the face. JFW | T@lk 00:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I initially placed it in section 1 "The convert/proselyte" and you deleted it, see discussion above. As for the Talmud, it didn't exist in Pilate's time. If you look up proselutos in Bauer you will find a number of early references: Apollon. Rhod., LXX, Philo, Roman grave inscriptions, Isis cult, Matt23:15, Acts 2:11,6:5. Related are the sebomenoi ton theon or God-fearers of Josephus, Acts 13:43 mixes both in sebomenon proseluton.
Of course the Talmud was not around, but the oral traditions that form the Talmud go back to 200 BCE. Can you please tell me what is still bothering you? I haven't stopped you making additions to the page in any way! JFW | T@lk 22:23, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
How do you explain this then.
The last time I reverted you is a week ago. I have worked with you constructively. You appear to be seeking a conflict where there is none. End of discussion, as far as I'm concerned. JFW | T@lk 00:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In that case, I'll merge sections 1 and 10.
Cool. Happy now? JFW | T@lk 04:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mikvah

The origin of Christian Baptism in water is derived from the Jewish law requiring a convert to submerge themselves in pure water (of a mikvah) to cleanse themselves because Gentiles were considered ritually unclean.

where does that come from? 64.169.2.153 (talk · contribs)

It is partially incorrect. All Jews immersed in a ritual pool before receiving the Torah at Mount Sinai, the event with "made" them Jews. The Talmud therefore requires this from a convert as well; the concept of uncleanliness, although this is the normal use of the ritual pool, is not actually invoked. JFW | T@lk 11:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conversion to Catholicism

We have a section detailing Catholic conversion to Protestanism, so why not the reverse. (I'd put it in myself but I don't know anything about Catholic conversion.)--HistoricalPisces 18:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I deleted much of the church specific information. That information is more appropriately listed in each churches main article or its subarticles. If we allow a few Christian churches to mention their specific process, then we must allow for all Christian churches to list their process if there is dissimilarities. It is more in keeping with NPOV policy to keep it broad. Storm Rider (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bahá'í card

I removed the statement on the need to sign a card to become Bahá'í because while it's true that most people do such a thing, you don't need to sign the card to become Bahá'í, but it is used as a method to track statistics. The requirements as stated by Bahá'u'lláh is to believe in Bahá'u'lláh as the prophet of God for this age and to follow his laws.

[edit] Islam

It is POV to claim that 2:256 implies that, "...no nation can coerce another nation or individuals to change their religion, and so on..." There is many Muslims that has a different understanding of that particular verse. Try to read this excellent article on the subject: [1] which among other thing says: This verse is known as Ayat al-Sayf (the verse of the sword). These and similar verses abrogate the verses which say that there is no compulsion to become Muslim. And this one is also worth reading: [2]. I suggest that we present both POVs regarding these issues or remove the whole thing from this article. -- Karl Meier 08:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It isn't pov and there is no reason to remove the whole thing. The verse is an actual verse and if interpretations of it vary does not mean that it should be removed. Besides the verse should be included as is with material about differing interpretations left up to the reader. However right now it gives the actual verse. I will add extra words to it however that shows that the nation thing is just one interpretation. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay then. It'll stay. I started by adding some of the views that was expressed in the article that I mentioned, and I do look forward to you adding more information about the different views re this issue. -- Karl Meier 20:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay good, I don't want to add views. I just want to indicate what you said: that the nation thing is just one interpretation. That should solve the dispute. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I strongly agree. As long as we present all the views in a fair and reasonable way, it's perfectly NPOV. -- Karl Meier 21:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
However, we do not need additions which refute the verse. That will be pov. Just presenting the facts. The spouse material however is very clear in Islam and one who marries a non-Muslim can not force them to become Muslim. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
What I have added to the article is a valid Muslim view regarding the verse/issue that is being discussed. To remove valid and referenced POVs is very clear POV editing, so you shouldn't do that. You say that we should stick to the facts, but it's seems you remove that facts regarding the different Muslim understandings of this verse. Really, I think you should rather find some sources to back up the interpretation that you insist on including. -- Karl Meier 21:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Look Karl, if you don't know what the verse means, then why insert new interpretations of it? I know this verse well and that is what it says. The info you want to add is POV. Now I have tried to NPOV to show that a large interpretation of the verse is applied as stated, but that one is only an interpretation as you also argued. The basic meaning of the verse does not change; only the nation's part is interpretation and I indicated that. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


What the article says now is that "One of the important doctrines of Islam is "la ikraha fiddeen" (Quran, 2:256), meaning "no compulsion (or coercion) in religion". This implies individuals must not be forced to change their religion to Islam.". That is of course as POV as it get. Why don't you educate yourself and read the articles regarding this issue that I provided? It's very clear that there are different understandings of this particular verse that you claim to "know very well". Some Muslims believe that the verse was abrogated by later verses, and others believe that it was only about dhimmis that is paying their Jizya tax to the Muslims. I don't understand why you refuse these views to be presented in the article? To me that look like plain POV editing. -- Karl Meier 21:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with your observation. Anonymous Editor is not motivating his excessive reverts and clearly fails to distinguish between well-sourced NPOV information and POV information. --130.89.24.49 13:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there that quote that says "If anyone changes his religion, kill him?" - CronoDAS 22:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not Verified

"Nowadays, conversions to Christianity in majority non-Christian countries are on the rise, alarming the governments of Iran, Algeria and China. According to some estimates, over a million Iranian Muslims have converted to Christianity." Needs to be verified, as well as other historical claims in the "Conversion to Christianity" section. Exfacior (talk · contribs)

Note, however, that several other claims in this article, such as in the islam section are not sourced as well. Anonymous Editor removed valid and well-sourced information. His reasons are not clear as he quotes bigoted pro-islamic sources as proof. --130.89.24.49 14:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

user:Anonymous_editor seems to embark in a mission of reverting every change which is at odds with his Sunni Islamic religious views. He is kindly advised to desist from this abuse of Wikipedia facilities, as an administrator is expected to have the general well-being and informational quality of Wikipedia facilities in mind and should not involve in petty edit wars. --130.89.24.171 09:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

If there is anything he has reverted that you would like to add, pleae list it here and explain why this article is lacking from its' omission. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Additions do not need to be motivated. Reversions do, as per Wikipedia guidelines.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 12:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Any non-verifiable, non-sourced information may be deleted at will. Anonymous editor his an upstanding editor and good admin. Besmirching his name, even coming from an anon without a stellar editing record, is pretty low.⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 12:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The added information is well-sourced and less POV as the version AE is trying to push, as you can see. I am stating the facts. I suggest you refer to the admin request for AE to get a more accurate impression of his rap sheet.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 13:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm familiar with both you and AE. Guess which one of you is on the counter-vandalism blacklist? hint: it's not AE. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 13:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I am not aware of the existence of such a list. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 13:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not vandalism

These are not considered to be vandalism, and should be dealt with in other ways.

  • NPOV violations - Violations of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. Revert once, and talk to the user on the talk page for the article (or user, if appropriate). Get further input from the community if needed on IRC or as a Request for Comment. See This example of a NPOV violation
  • Revert wars - Repetitive changes between versions of an article by multiple editors, often in violation of the 3 revert rule. Seek assistance on IRC or from an administrator. If you are an administrator, read relevant policy if unsure.
  • Copyright violations - Inserting content that we have no license to or cannot use the license for. Revert the changes if there is an old version of the article that is not a copyvio, otherwise blank the article and put the copyvio tag on it. See Copyright problems.
Germen, can you please give proper sources for any of your edits and stop using IP addresses to revert? I am trying to be as fair as possible but your edits just insert more pov into the article everytime. Stuff like this Tax evasion. Non-Muslims under Islamic administration have to pay the jizya tax, while Muslims have to pay the lower zakat religious tax instead. clearly shows POV, especially when Zakat and Jizya are two very different things and you know that. And much of your edits are things a Christian fundamentalist would say too like inserting lines about people converting to christianity. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I am well aware of the difference between jizya and zakat. The functional difference, however, is that only non-Muslims pay jizya and only Muslims pay zakat. Paying zakat at this moment is up to personal preference, but in the past it was mostly a state-run affair, compare the church tax in Germany. Jizya tax used to be quite crushing (12 dirhams = 36 grams of silver for the poorest, rich people paid 4 times as much) and humiliating likewise and therefore there was a major impetus for e.g. Moroccan Berbers to convert to Islam. Tax evasion is of all times. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 13:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Are your forgetting what this article is about? It's an article meant to have short sections about each section. Using biased sources to insert huge pro-Christian arguments is pov. Jizya has nothing to do with Zakat at all. Zakat is not a tax. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
1. At least sources are included, which are painfully missing from your edits. 2. Your sources, e.g. al-hewar are biased as well. 3. Wikiquette is to verify the sources and add your own, more reliable sources ratherthan simply revert which is bordering on vandalism. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 16:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Germen, none of that is factually correct and you are using biased sources. Al Hewar is not a source that I used at all. Wikiquette is also not to use nonsensical arguments like Jizya is the same as Zakat or that there are Islamic clerics on Al Jazeera. I find this very pov especially because if I used Al Jazeera to support the arguement of people converting to Islam, you would be there to revert it first. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
It is not my style to revert, rather to add and prove by more reliable sources. My reverts are an reaction to reverts of users which consider Wikiquette not worth the effort. I would like to suggest you to embrace this more cooperative and productive approach. I have to correct your statement about not including Al Hewar as a source as well; qoute:"Today, in many western countries, conversions to Islam are on the rise. In the United States, for instance, Muslims estimate conversion rates at 25,000 per year or higher as of 2001, [3]" --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 17:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Good, then both povs can be removed. Not making the article worse by adding nonsense statements that give very fundamentalist arguments on why people convert or using biased sites for the christian pov. And Germen, all you do is revert, and on every article you've edited including with IPs. It has become your style and is very counterproductive. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
You state that I just revert. That is as far from the truth as it can be. I just restore my additions and sources, while you and your fellow Irishpunk Tom keep deleting them. My sources are all neutral or Islamist with one exception (and two back-ups of disappeared articles). --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 17:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
You DO just revert. It's not about the sources, it's about NPOV. If only problem you had here is with the conversion numbers then I will remove them for both religions to make it fair. After that you should have no reason to revert. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
AE, I am OK with whatever number you fill in as long as those facts are well-sourced. Only reliable sources can safeguard NPOV. If Islamist sources claim that droves of Muslims are converting to Christianity, who am I to contradict them? Again, I am not reverting, just adding my sources and texts. I see for the first time you not just reverted but edited. My compliments. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 10:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to fill in numbers at all. I want to be fair and remove the disputed numbers from both religions. Going one by one and adding your edits again is still pov and it's a revert even if you don't think so.1 But I see that even after I dealt with the problem that you had, that you still added the same biased nonsense.2 You are clearly after this for own personal reasons and these edits like all your other ones still show the same behavior that you've always had.3 No Islamist sources are claiming anything and I bet if I did use those kind of "sources" to say that Christians were converting to Islam, which have very high estimates too, you would be there first to revert it.4 So stop adding nonsense including the completely original section that you added about why "infidels" convert to Islam.5 There is a lot of nonsense on the internet. But this is an encyclopedia. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • ad 1. You seem to be ignorant of Wikipedia policy. Reversion is a conplete overturn of changes by other users. I just salvage vandalised sections and try to improve on other users'editions, like good-faith users do with my additions. You are kindlyu advised to refresh your knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines.
  • ad 2. As long as you don't source and I do, your point is moot.
  • ad 3. Bad-faith remark, unbecoming of an administrator.
  • ad 4. Incorrect statements. Islamist sources are claiming that about six million African Muslims are converting to Christianity, which I prove with an Al Jazeera link. This number probably is at the high side, as Islamist like to exaggerate to state their points but they acknowledge this statement.
  • ad 5. If I add reputable sources to support my statements it is not nonsens or OR, t is encyclopedic writing. You are kindly advised to study applicable guidelines. As the Chinese say: first check out your own house three times before you try to improve the world. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 08:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to take a middle road in this revert war. There is some verifiable information in German's edits, and I've kept those, but some of the links did not exist, and others don't state what they were being used to cite, so I've taken those out. Also the arabic references, I think they should be translated by a editor, placed here, and then we can see if they are sources for the statements, and we can at that time decide to include them. Also the section about non-religious reasons to convert to Islam, while some statements had sources (i.e. have to pay tax), they weren't sources that said that people were using that reason to convert, and thus while they may be true, until a verifiable and reliable source states it, they can't be included. -- Jeff3000 23:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Info Removal

Nowadays, conversions to Christianity in majority non-Christian countries are on the rise. According to numbers provided by the World Christian Encyclopedia, about three times as much people convert to Christianity than they do to Islam (2,400,000 versus 900,000 between 1990 and 2000). [4]. The number of Christians on the African continent is expected to double in the period between 2005 and 2025 [5]. Several publications [6] as well as [7] and [8] [9] suggest that some American muslims are converting to Christianity.

The above text has now been removed by Irishpunktom twice. Once with the editorial comment "dubiousness" and then again with the editorial comment "-pov additions". I'm rather neutral to the information (and this page) but I do cringe when I see seemingly valid info being removed from an article. In an attempt to in good faith understand why Irishpunktom has decided to remove this info I'm going to re-insert it and invite him here to explain why it needs removal. Netscott 09:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Because it isn't valid information. Much of the sources are ones that should never be used for an encyclopedia because of bias. Some of them as Jeff3000 said don't even say what is written. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, that seems odd to see you blanket question validity when Washington Times is one of the sources. As well the other souces seem to be muslim themselves. No? Netscott 00:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
None of the sources do what they claim, and that itself is a reason to remove it. But of course if you have seen Germen's other edits, you will know that he's only doing this to insert pov. There are many numbers for Islam too which are as high but I know that if I add them, it will be biased and that was also something concerned germen so I removed that section. And we can't use bible.ca or any of the other small Christian personal webpages that were added any more that we can use an Islamic extremist website. And the section that says "Non-religious reasons for conversion" is definitely something that is biased and made up of nonsense on what Germen thinks are 'reasons'. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Well you've got no dispute from me on the small Christian sites... but that Washington Times one still tugs at me. Also, what's wrong with those seemingly muslim sources? As far as the non-religous reasons for conversion, I'm actually inclined to have some faith in it only due to the fact that the BBC four documentary entitled An Islamic History of Europe actually discussed such matters. Netscott 01:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I see why that source might move you on that, but still biased numbers and wouldn't be hard to find that for other faiths too and isn't reliable still. The other part is just POV. What Germen thinks are reasons for conversion to Islam should not to be inserted especially when much of it is nonsense like comparing zakat with jizya. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 01:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
It seems you are discussing an outdated version, which proves once more that you are not evaluating any new additions but just reverting them. I am maintaining a record on you. As almost half of your "contributions" to this and other articles involve reversions of the work of other users, you are kindly advised to CITE SOURCES and take a more constructive and good-faith approach towards other users which don't share your Islam-biased POV instead of (ab)using your administration powers and clout in order to press your POV.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 08:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
No it's the same version because you keep reverting to it. I have not used any powers at all and your edits are blatant bigotry. Please see that several people here have reverted you for good reasons and for the same things again. It's not only your sources that are biased but your edits themselves which are blatant pov. I have nothing to source because I haven't inserted anything besides small fixes, but you keep adding your own research and arguments about why people convert to Islam or using sources that don't even say what you are claiming. And don't violate anymore 3rr blocks. Just read over some of the reasons against your reverts, instead of adding more POV every time. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
The facts:
1. This is a blatant lie, as proven here. Your comment dates from 01:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC). The last version containing non-religious reasons for conversion to islam, which was active around that time, [10], did not compare zakat to jizya anymore.
2. You have complained with a fellow administrator in order to get me blocked. Because already several lies from your side have been proven beyond doubt, this does not surprise me at all.
3. People that reverted were mainly Irishpunktom and you, both known for their pro-islamic POV and regularly cooperating in edit warring (also regarding several other articles, such as Apostacy and dhimmi, for instance, in order to press pro-islamic POV. All this indicates a coordinated campaign in order to press Islamist viewpoints.
4. Prove it. The fact is, I have sources, you don't even try to source your POV OR and take resort to weasel wording instead. I will force you to source your statement in my next edit.
5. Prove it. I added sources for every statement I inserted, while you failed to do so.
I conclude that it is in Wikipedia interest you to withdraw from administratorship.
--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 08:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
The fact is that your edits are bigotry and nothing else. Editors have all explained that weasel arguments and original research over what you believe are reasons for converting to Islam is pov and not supported by sources. The statistics you added were sourced with completely different sources. As for the other concern "complaining to a fellow administrator" is not use of any admin power. What you did is disruptive and if you use any more IPs or proxies to evade blocks then you will be blocked again. This is really silly. Please read the edits before you submit them and don't complain when you get block for violating 3rr blocks. The admin who blocked you took it easy, you could have been blocked a lot longer for what you did.
And please don't call anyone who reverts you an "Islamist" or try to justify your edits because you have seen other editors act "badly" on articles that I haven't even edited before. There are many people who have, in the last few months that you reverted this article repeatedely, reverted your edits because even they know it's blatant pov. Any more of this and it will just get worse. I don't need to deal with these concerns over your sources again because I and other editors have said our reasons above. Your sources were either not even related to the edits you made or they were simply pov or unreliable. The source that was reliable was left in. As for the extremely biased and silly reasons why you believe people convert to Islam is clear original research. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Merging

I think that this article and the one on proselytism cover exactly the same issue.--Greece666 02:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, the issue of stupid people. Fatalis 00:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conversion Exodus?

The article refers to an organization called "Conversion Exodus", which is presented as being "one of the first anti-cult recovery groups associated with the Jewish religion". However, I have been unable to find any group by that name on the Net (for example, I Googled "Conversion Exodus" plus "Jewish|Judaism|Orthodox")[11]. The only external hits I've found for "conversion exodus" (without punctuation between the words) are in pages about real estate. If I add "-rent" to the search[12], the only real hit I get for the phrase is this Wikipedia article. Can a correction be made or some reference be provided? Paroche 10:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unnecessary and possibly offensive or incorrect phrase

I am removing the phrase "such as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" from this article at the following location:

Most branches of Christianity, such as Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, the Anglican Communion, and the Lutheran Churches, among others, encourage infant baptism, welcoming children into the Christian faith before they are aware of their status. In some post-Reformational and modern branches of Christianity such as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, one is considered to become a Christian by accepting the death and resurrection of Jesus as their personal Savior, and this choice is substantiated by the ritual of baptism- generally as an adult or at the age of accountability, which varies among the different denominations.

I admit that I am not an expert in their doctrine, but I think this phrase could cause problems. First of all I wonder if the sentence is inaccurate to start with (there may be non-post-reformational churches in the same boat). Secondly I wonder if this is the best example that can be used. I know that in my circles at least the mention of this group is frowned upon. I believe that there is a relatively large portion of people that will either be offended or possibly confused by this example in this context. I have nothing against this group and am not trying an agenda. Notice that I did not add another example in its place. I simply feel that this example compromises the neutrality of the article in a way that could be viewed as negative. I felt, however, that it would be wise to post here some explanation of why I did it in case others disagree. Lost puppies 01:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The facts bear review. To become a member of the LDS church one must be baptized by one having authority (a priesthood holder). The actual words used are, "Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen."
The purpose of the paragraph was to demonstrate the function of baptism in Christianity juxtaposing infant baptism and adult baptism. Whether or not your circle of friends is offended by LDS, Mormons, JWs, Unitarians, Quakers, or any other Christian church is completely irrelevant and in fact POV. To delete the phrase is not confusing; it is a fact. This article is not about debating who thinks who is a better Christian or which group is heretical or most orthodox. We just report facts. The sentence was correct, factual, and appropriate. If you wish to embellish the paragraph with additional examples, please do so; I think it would further improve the paragraph.
Also, thanks for explaining your position on the talk page; however, based upon the reasons above I will revert your deletion. Cheers. --Storm Rider (talk) 03:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
There are several times as many Baptists as Mormons, so why not cite them as an example instead? Peter jackson (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Atheism

Based on what I could read thus far in this article, converting to Atheism is considered 'perversion'? That very strongly seems un-neutral to me. I was raised baptist but stopped believing when I realized all the questions I asked circled back to "accept it on faith" ... by the time I was 12, I stopped believing altogether and have been atheist ever since. Isn't that a form of religious conversion -- conversion from being religious to being atheist? Which definition/use of "conversion" is "correct?" --Chibiabos 17:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

So jump in and change it. The whole article has a POV pong to me. Maybe we can improve it. Rumiton 12:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dharmic religions

I'm not sure whose bias, misunderstanding, or agenda drives the dharmic religions section, but I am fairly certain it all needs to be rewritten. It seems to operate on the assumption things like ISKCON and 3HO are the only ways non-Indians can join Indian religions. As a convert to Sikhism who attends exclusively majority-Punjabi gurdwaras, I don't understand why this article claimed Sikhs only accepted those born in their number. I am certain that someone more learned than myself can add to that, as well as the ideas of Buddhist/Jain/Vedantist prosthelatism/conversion/objection to prosthelatism. Yeah, that whole section just reeks of "Unlike the Christians and the Muslims, Indian religions never try and convert others" which is an oversimplification.

I saw a report about 3HO on youtube yesterday, which made me check this page again. As to why people get this idea, I think it is because, in Britain, you never, ever get people converting to Sikhism. I think that conversion is a taboo subject in India; none of them go around doing missionary work. However, Sikhism must have preached conversion at some point, or else Sikhism would have never started in the first place, and it is not that old as far as religions go. Epa101 (talk) 14:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sikhism

At the moment, it seems that the little that there is on Sikhism in this article contradicts itself. The opening suggests that Sikhism does not generally approve of conversion whilst the section on Indian religions suggests that it is allowed. Neither section is referenced at all. I think that some research needs to be done on the Sikh attitude to conversion, although I must say that I have never known of a Sikh trying to convert anyone else to their faith. Epa101 (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Your previous statement was exaggerated. There's some very interesting data on conversions in the Scottish census 2001. I don't know whether anywhere else in the world asks people what religion they were brought up in as well as what they are now. They put people in the following classes:
  • Church of Scotland
  • Roman Catholic
  • Other Christian
  • Muslim
  • Hindu
  • Sikh
  • Jewish
  • Buddhist
  • Other
  • None
  • Not stated
On page 31 of the Registrar General's report to the Scottish Parliament there's a full cross-table, ie 11 by 11. There's not a single zero in it. All possible conversions happen. The smallest number is 1 Jew brought up Buddhist. All others are plural. So yes there are converts to Sikhism. There are Jews who become Sikhs & vice versa. &c
I seem to have omitted to sign the above. Peter jackson (talk) 10:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hinduism

I made some edits to explain just a little bit of Hindu philosophy so that followers of non-Indian religions can understand why the "concept of conversion" was never imagined within Hinduism and why it is non-applicable to Hinduism. If you really understand Hindu philosophy, you would see that conversion is futile or a waste of time. This does not mean that you can not practice Hindu and/or Sikh beliefs, but is it really going to help you in attaining salvation? Any Hindu will welcome you to realize the concept of "Sanathan Dharm" and if you delve deeper into this concept, you yourself will realize why "conversion" is a waste of time and a distraction away from your journey to salvation. Hindu's consider all paths to god as equal, so excuse us if we don't go around soliciting converts.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.120.23 (talk • contribs)

Soliciting nonwithstanding, Hinduism has welcomed conversion, which has been documented. SE Asia did not magically become Hindu, NE India didnt magically become Hindu, and the Kushans didnt magically become Hindu. Someone evangelized, and someone converted.Bakaman 02:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Baka, the current version was discussed in great detail, including the points you mentioned above, finely tuned word-by-word and phrase-by-phrase and you were actively involved in its development and final consensus. If you restart the debate, assuming that you find people to support your viewpoint, it may lead to a version that is more adverse to your personal viewpoint. Please keep that in mind. Desione (talk) 02:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
You can only be accepted as a Hindu by being a mmember of a caste or quasi-caste. Historically, whole societies, eg in SE Asia, were adopted into the caste system. I'm open to correction on this, but I don't think that's happened for centuries, tho' I agree it's still theoretically possible. the other way you can become a Hindu, recognized as such by the Hindu community as a whole, is by being adopted into one of the few sub-communities that accept conversions (& so are not castes in the strict sense, tho' their place in the wider Hindu community is similar), eg ISKCON. Peter jackson (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Buddhism

Of course Buddhism proselytizes. How do you think it got where it is today? Or does the word "proselytism" refer only to conversions one disapproves of? Peter jackson (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fact tag: Conservative Jewish leniency

I would like to see some citation for the statement: "The Reform and Conservative movements are lenient in their acceptance of converts" [13]. This statement seems to be POV but I would like to see proof of this that Conservative Judaism is lenient in acceptance of converts, requiring circumcision/tipat dam (of males) and immersion in a mikvah following months of rigorous study. Valley2city 05:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)