Talk:Religious conversion

message: 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?
The entire article is extremely biased.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.28.249 (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: The intro in not NPOV

message: 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)
thread_title: Apostasy and the Qu'ran

message: :"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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Tanakh on converts 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proselytism == Christianity? 

message: :"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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Higer taxes for non-Muslims in Islamist states, give current examples

message: :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? 
::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)
thread_title: Mikvah

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Cause these days Catholics aren't really in the conversion business (the Vatican officially announced that it would no longer proselytize Jews, and "live and let live" is increasingly their policy towards Muslims, other Christians and other religions).  By contrast Protestants are arguably the most activist (though not the most successful) religious group when it comes to proselytizing and evangelizing, thanks to the number of American missions worldwide. 90.15.14.30 (talk) 09:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversion to Catholicism 

message: 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:  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: . 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Islam

message: "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. 
::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)
thread_title:  Not Verified 

message: I think that this article and the one on proselytism cover exactly the same issue.--Greece666 02:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, the issue of stupid people. Fatalis 00:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging 

message: 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"). 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, 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)
thread_title:  Conversion Exodus? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: You would not be considered a convert, but an apostate, for you've renounced your religion. Some may consider that pejorative, but it is a fact. 69.169.132.34 (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atheism 

message: I agree with most of the above. The question here regarding conversion is not if you consider yourself a Hindu, but if other people consider you to be one! I am a Westerner who lived in India, and you can believe anything you want to believe in - but it does not mean that other people will be conviced you are a Hindu by "conversion". The caste system is definitley part of the history of Hinduism. A key point here that must be mentioned is that Hindus are not really individualistic - and Hindus see people as groups. Social consensus is also important. 
The only point I disagree with is whether ISKON is considered by Hindus to be Hindu. This is because with globalization, this kind of thing is a bit of a grey area to some extent and society is changing. Some Hindus I have met do believe ISKON is part of Hinduism, then again some Hindus are convinced that it is not. In any case it is a group of people. 
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.125.160 (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Hinduism, ISKON, Conversion, and Society

message: 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)
thread_title: Buddhism

message: I know from experience that Theravada Buddhism has missionaries and that missionary activity in Buddhism is called "Dhammaduta". 
Buddhists only provide information on Buddhism and welcome people to Buddhism only if people actually seek it out
-in other words Buddhists freely provide information and welcome potential converts only if people come to them. 
From what I have seen it is mainly Sri Lankan monks who are active in this and Sri Lankan Buddhists publish a lot of free booklets for free distribution on buddhism such as the BPS series. The Buddha said that spreading Buddhism around the world is like taking leaves and scattering them to the wind. Some people will choose to take up Buddhism.
In ancient times, in India with the support of emperor Asoka, missionaries spread out from India and converted many people such as Asian Greeks, East Asians, South East Asians, and so on.
Sri Lankan missionary monks go to Malaysia and Taiwan to teach their Branch of Buddhism to people who may be from other schools of Buddhism, or to reinforce Buddhism in people who dont really follow it much, and also go to Western countries to teach Westerners. Sri Lankan monks will often speak out about morality in Sri Lanka and around the world, I am not sure if other kinds of monks do this since there are national differences. 
Again, I would like to point out that all this is done very indirectly and in a fairly quiet way, so it is not your typical "proselytism." One of the most important tenents of Buddhism is to be inoffensive. Buddhism is a path and is also a question of degree.  There is also some disagreement as to whether Buddhism actually qualifies as a "religion" or an "ethic".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.121.45 (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So would you please edit the article and add the information?Jimhoward72 (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Buddhist Missionaries

message: I would like to see some citation for the statement: "The Reform and Conservative movements are lenient in their acceptance of converts" . 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)
thread_title:  Fact tag: Conservative Jewish leniency 

message: Does anyone know of any studies that have been done on the reasons behind a person leaving one's faith?  I'm not talking so much about the positive aspects of a new religion that drew the person in, but rather what it was about their previously held faith that they were unable to accept or left them feeling unsatisfied.  I've always thought that research on this kind of information would be quite interesting, especially if any common themes were found, but I've never really seen much on it, so I was wondering if anyone here had ever stumbled upon any. —MearsMan talk 14:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons for leaving one's faith

message: Do not merge with religious conversion. Conversion to Judaism article is too particular for such a general topic.204.15.6.99 (talk) 12:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Two reasons I think they should be merged: Context and Overlap. The entire Conversion to Judaism article is appropriate under the broader category of Religious conversion. In addition, the content in the  section of Religious conversion that talks about Judaism and the Conversion to Judaism article are a complete overlap! Think of it from an individual's perspective. If someone wanted to find out about conversion in Judaism, chances are they will get to only one of these articles. Even if we put a link on each page to the other, users should not have to go to two different pages to see the same exact material. Shirulashem (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not there is overlap, the article for conversion to Judaism is far too long to merge (especially to an article that is already rather lengthy to begin with). Guidelines also state that if a single section begins to overtake an article (which would happen with a merger), it should be moved to its own article with a short description on the original article and a link to the longer article (see WP:SPLIT). A lot of extremely important and detailed information would be lost with a merger. There is just too much information regarding conversion to Judaism to try to slim it down to only a short blurb about it. I'm removing the suggested merger tags as I think they were added too hastily without any consideration to the amount and detail of the information contained in the separate article for conversion to Judaism. --132 18:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

text: And it is NOT the exact same material on both pages. This page contains a short synopsis of the longer page. Simply looking at the sizes of the article versus the section here shows that there is much more information contained on the full article than there is here. You're more than welcome to edit the section here to make it even more concise, but to claim that they are a "complete overlap" is to not actually look at the article you suggest to merge or it is a blatant misrepresentation of the information. --132 18:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Um hey on this note I notice about half the external links appear to be how-to pages on converting to Judaism, is there a good reason for this? 67.117.30.226 (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Conversion to Judaism

message: There doesn't seem to be anything on Wikipedia yet about political or philosophical conversion; perhaps this article is the place to include such information?Shanoman  (talk) 02:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean, say, "converting" from a Democrat to a Republican in the US? Or something else? If it's the former, then no, it should not be included on this page, unless the reason for changing one's personal religion was politically motivated. If it's the latter, I'd need to get more clarity from you before I made any suggestions. --132 19:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Other different (but similar) kinds of conversion

message: I noted that all the conversions seem to be 'sociological' conversions--marital, secondary and so on. It leaves out conversion because of genuine belief. I converted to Catholocism, my friend to Judaism because of genuine belief. Aside from the fact that it makes some fun discussions, there was no marriage, relationship, or force involved. Just sayin' this article comes across a little too mechanical and fails to acknowledge religious conversion as an act of faith.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.221.240 (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: =

message: Why does the intro discuss Christianity -- seems to be POV.  Then it speaks about Zoroastrianism, which seems to be a move by its followers to establish itself as as much of a religion as Christianity, which gets to be mentioned as well.  Why don't we cut this intro and put the respective views of the religions within their respective sections? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 20:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and I have done so. --132 22:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro paragraph 

message: :...when this involves a felt change of identity rather than other reasons such as convenience.
What does this mean? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 03:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: The text regarding the Creativity Movement and their having ministers keeps being deleted. Let's discuss this.
Zeit Totzuschlagen (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a tiny, recently invented sect. Please review WP:UNDUE. And let's leave it out until the discussion is concluded, and there's consensus on including the material. Jayjg (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there secondary sources independent of the movement that support the claim that they are notable with respect to the subject matter of this page? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is probably moot, Zeit Totzuschlagen has since been banned. Jayjg (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Woops! Never mind! --Tryptofish (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creativity Movement 

message: Please note that all external link from 38 on are dead. --
Stefano. 84.222.223.249 (talk) 11:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I removed them. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  dead links 

message: There were a few disagreements in the edit history regarding whether Sikhs proselytize, with people removing and adding it. I have included two references which support the view that they do not. ItsZippy (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sikhism and Proselytizing 

message: Thank you Desione, for challenging my edit. I have considered your edit summary, and added some text with sources to address your concern. However, your blanket reversal feels improper because you ended up adding back text that pushes a point of view rather than striving for an NPOV summary. You also added back text that was tagged, unsourced, as well as from improper/incomplete sources such as Hoiberg 2001 and hinduexistence.org. Please clarify your actions and concerns. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hinduism section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Religious conversion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120209125201/http://www.cephas-library.com/na/buddhism_dalai_lama_against_prosylitizing.html to http://www.cephas-library.com/na/buddhism_dalai_lama_against_prosylitizing.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: We have an edit war among several individuals over the image and caption concerning Islamic penalty for apostasy.  I happen to agree with those who want to remove it -- it is not properly sourced and it is irrelevant to the article.  But my point in bringing it here is edit wars are not in accordance with the Way of Wiki.  You should be discussing it, not just pushing and shoving.  If you won't, I will raise an alarm for admin attention. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I second. 17:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: , please state the case for your edit of .  , please join the discussion with your statement. 96.246.99.90 should create a user name or login to participate. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Leaving aside whether the image is relevant are you, Sfarney, saying that the Library of Congress and the Pew Research Centre are not valid sources? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll strike that because it is confusing.  Deuteronomy 23 requires whole towns to be burnt to the ground if they deviate from Judaism.  Including such material on one religion only, and not all, violates WP:NPOV.  But that is only my opinion, and I am not trying to enforce that on the article.  I am not a part of that see-saw.  I want the participants in that 5-iteration edit war to come and discuss like Wikipedians, not just trash the database with re-re-re-reversions.  Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

text:  not trying Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The map is not just for islam, but for any religion the map holds true. No other country of any other religion in the world has any punishment for religions conversion or religious abandonment. So it is very relevant to this article. Trotting cove (talk) 03:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Pardon, but you state a contradiction. First, the map is about "Muslim countries" only. Not any other religion, not any other countries.  Second: "No other country ..."  Interesting opinion, but you have no RS.  Third, religious apostasy is big time problem in Israel.  A Jew who adopts Christianity loses the right to "return" to Israel -- and is pronounced "not a Jew."  Banishment and disinheritance.  That is big punishment. If we make the statement about "Muslim countries" but staying silent on Israel, we violates WP:NPOV.  Communist countries had big penalties for becoming Christian.  How is North Korea on the subject right now?  China tried to wipe out the [Fulun Gong]] -- Yessir, death penalty.  No mention here.  But I want to hear from the other editors who were involved in this edit see-saw. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

text: Though I say that in terms of religious conversion it certainly is relevant that laws make it difficult or impossible. It should probably not be in the Islam section and include things like Israel and the right of return, Indian states banning proselytisation, and countries only treating certain religions favourably in tax affairs (I believe that Sikhism is not recognised in Italy and Scientology in a number of countries). -- Q Chris (talk) 12:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried, but I could not understand.  Religious conversion is punishable in many countries of the world, and from other religions than Islam.  Either we draw a comprehensive picture, or we leave it alone. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Indian states dont ban proselytisation as told by Q Chris above. But they only ban proselytisation by inducement using money or coercion. Trotting cove (talk) 06:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: , Please explain your position in the slow edit war on the topic page. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apostacy and Islam