Jump to content

Talk:List of converts to Christianity/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Reliability of source, Re: Tal Brooke

[This section is reposted from Archive 7 Nick Graves 19:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)]

I don't really know who Tal Brooke is, but I wonder, is it really problematic to cite a person's own organization for evidence of conversion. It seems unlikely that a person would explicity state, through their organization, that they had converted to Christianity, if they hadn't. I'm asking, not because I have an opinion on this, but because I'm unsure. It may not be the most sterling of sources, and I wouldn't use it to base a claim of notability, but does this disqualify it as an indirect statement from the person himself, to the effect "I converted?" here's a dif.zadignose 15:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It's his personal site, so I don't think misinformation would be presented regarding his personal experiences. As far as I see it, things posted on the personal site of the individual in question have the assurance of factuality from the individual's perspective. I could be wrong, but I'm confused over this removal as well.--C.Logan 16:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Citing a person's own website as evidence for anything is problematic Lurker 16:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves, I think that that source probably qualifies as an acceptable source. The only provisions that I think might even remotely be invoked are "not contentious" and "not unduly self-serving", and I'm not sure if either of those provisions qualifies here. John Carter 17:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Names needing sources

I've moved the following names here until sources can be found documenting their conversion. Please strike them off as sources are found.

Quality sources

I have not surveyed the entire list, but in going through some of the entries in the Agnosticism/Atheism section, I have found some poor sources, such as a personal website, IMDB, a Wikipedia mirror, and another wiki site. We always want to find the most reliable sources possible, but since many of those listed here are living people, there's all the more reason to find reliable sources. Also, it would be helpful to find brief quotes from the sources cited to help confirm that the sources actually say that the person converted from X to Christianity. I'll be going through a few entries each day to improve the situation. Any help would be most appreciated. Nick Graves 19:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll help out as much as I can. Also, one of the archives should contain the remaining list of individuals who were previously removed by Sefringle for lack of sourcing (zealously as per the AfD result that came about a while ago). I'd re-sourced/re-added the whole Paganism section myself, but nearly all the other names removed have remained off the list. There should be 50 or so people there, if not more.--C.Logan 19:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I went through the article from the time of the last deletion debate, and couldn't find the list. Nick Graves 20:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The links showing the names removed can be found here and here. I'll try to find sources for some of them as well as soon as I finish the periodic reassessment of the Saints project. John Carter 20:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Side comment

My, is this talk page looking clean. :) You can delete this section, I just found it refreshing. Drumpler 23:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this section should really be here, but I was almost compelled to post the same sort of thing earlier. It actually feels like we can improve this article from this point on.--C.Logan 23:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
It'd be a shame for everyone to abandon the article after investing all that time in moving things forward. Let's all stick around and pitch in, eh? Nick Graves 03:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"Forced conversion"

There are some who are trying to add "forced covnersions" (in which not a single person is notable) to List of notable converts to Islam. Currently this is under dispute in that article.

I was wondering whether you guys agree that such generic topics of controversial conversion should be added to articles like List of notable converts to Islam and this one. For example, should we add Converso to this article?Bless sins 17:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if it is a notable conversion. But an explanatory note or footnote should be added. Drumpler 18:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Definently should be added--SefringleTalk 04:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh I'll pop in I guess. I'd prefer there not be forced conversions in either article. As with former converts I think it opens things up to a lot of meaningless "he was Christian for a weekend" type stuff, but it might even be worse than that. However if it stays in the Muslim article I guess it should be here too. I'll add some.--T. Anthony 04:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I see the "conquest/conversion" of the Edomites is mentioned is in the Jewish convert list as well. So I guess if it's standard to count forced/coerced conversions it should be here too.--T. Anthony 04:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

There's another point that you may have missed. Should we add wholescale events of conversions? For example, there are many periods in history when people converted en masse to a religion (forced or not).Bless sins 19:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking it out. None of the people lsited under "Forced Conversion" are notable people, that which this article is based on. If they are notable, they should be added in their respective categories of previous religion affiliation. I don't think it's right to have it in the Converts to Islam article either. I honestly believe that it was a POV thing. For instance, Edgardo Mortara doesn't have mention of being force as being Roman Catholic, regardless of his kidnapping. The Horapollo article does not even mention forced conversion. IronCrow (talk) 03:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

To be sourced

I have pasted this from the archives, as these are names which are absent from the list only for lack of sources. I took it upon myself to source all the pagans some time ago, but a few remain which I couldn't find any sources for. As names are sourced, strike them rather then removing them so that the names are not somehow lost if the sources provided are found to be insufficient and an individual does not take care to re-add the name here.

I have debolded referenced names of living people to make the search for sources easier. Note:Red links are bolded because I'm not sure if they are alive or not.

(John- perhaps we should strike-out each name from the block list that is sourced below- or remove them, although I think it would be good to keep the block list in tact. If you don't mind, I'll strike-out referenced names now.)--C.Logan 23:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Brother Andrew, Marie Dähnhardt, Zhang Guotao, Gabriel Marcel, Alfred Moisiu, Malcolm Muggeridge, Benito Mussolini, John Newton, Blaise Pascal, Enoch Powell, George R. Price, Richard Wagner, Keith Ward, Bảo Đại, Chiang Kai-shek, Stephen Kaung, Talduwe Somarama, Yang Xiuqing, Feng Yuxiang, Ling-Sheng Zhang, Sun Yat Sen, Mariamma NChedathy, Bobby Jindal, Devasahayam Pillai, Ramesh Ponnuru, Pandita Ramabai, Gabriel Sharma, Michael Madhusudan Dutt, Anak Agung Pandji Tisna, Sobron Aidit (?) , Martin Bashir, Alexander Bekovich-Cherkassky, Emir Caner (?), Ergun Caner (?), Eldridge Cleaver, Djibril Cissé, Jeremiah Fard Muhammad (?), Akbar Gbaja-Biamila, Alexander Kazembek, Yadegar Moxammat of Kazan, Michael Nazir-Ali, Emily Ruete, Amir Sjarifuddin, Hossein Soodmand (?), Patrick Sookhdeo, Saye Zerbo, Saint Angelus, Yahia Ben Bakr, Boris Berezovsky, Anthony Bloom, Otto Maria Carpeaux, Morris Cerullo, Marcel Dassault, Robert Debré, Egon Friedell, Fritz Haber, Kurt Hahn, Edmund Husserl, Fritz Kohn, Lawrence Kudlow, Steve Levicoff, Gustav Mahler, Osip Mandelstam, Friedrich Mandl, Sidney Myer, Barry Minkow, Judah Monis, Edgardo Mortara, Rich Nathan, Bernard Nathanson, Robert Novak, Harry Oppenheimer, Howard Phillips, Maria Ratisbonne, Astruc Remoch, Fernando de Rojas, Daniel Rona, Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, Joe Rosenthal, Hans Rothfels, Oswald Rufeisen, Epiphanius of Salamis, Yitzhak Salkinsohn, Allan Sandage, Max Scheler, James R. Schlesinger, Alfred Schnittke, Jay Sekulow, Israel Shamir, Helen Shapiro, Juan de Valladolid, Mordechai Vanunu, Heinrich von Friedberg, John von Neumann, Simone Weil, Mieczysław Weinberg, Richard Wurmbrand, The Twelve Apostles, Judy Mowatt, Bob Marley, Mitsuo Fuchida, Matsunaga Hisahide, Chika Honda, Oda Nagamasu, Gurmit Singh, Lim Bo Seng. John Carter (not bolded - died 200 years - us vampires are really hard to get rid of) 19:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

From Paganism

I've gone through and re-added most of the listings under Paganism with sources (and I've added a few new ones, as well). I've removed the sourced names from the above text. The following are names which I was not able to find sources for.

References

As the article is no longer protected, any sources should simply be added into the article. The above list of 'sourced names' will not be added to by me, nor removed, as I don't know if anyone may find it useful. --C.Logan 04:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The article is protected again, so adding references below is probably a good idea. FWIW, I note that Marie Dahnhardt is actually categorized as a convert to Roman Catholicism, not to Christianity. As I can't find any direct links to this page, I wonder whether we should actively try to reference that party or not. John Carter 16:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Additions: (Charlie Soong - The Chinese Revolution and Chinese Communism]

The above referenced listings may or may not be in the article; I haven't checked yet. It's merely a holdover from one of the protected periods.--C.Logan 00:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the inclusion of groups.

I'm unsure about the inclusion of groups. Currently, the List of notable converts to Islam is having a similar conflict, but it seems that the majority of editors are in favor of the inclusion.

I see no great conflict with including such individuals, but I don't really care much either way. Lets just consider this a pointless comment which doesn't sway either way.--C.Logan 00:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As this is a list of people who converted, it seems inappropriate to try to broaden the scope to include groups. I've previously removed one item because it was a group, which was very much out of place in the context of the larger article. Generally, besides the issues surrounding group conversions, we should try not to let this article spin out of control by broadening to include topics of forced conversions, statistics, interpretations or raw data that seems to have some broader implication relating to the subject of conversion. This is not a conversion article... it's simply a list. Or that's how I see it, anyway.zadignose 12:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of statistics on Muslims converted

Following the lead by two other editors, I've removed the text that purports to relate how many people have converted from Islam to Christianity. Here is the text:

The World Christian Encyclopedia estimates that, within the United States, there may be as many as twenty thousand converts from Islam to Christianity every year.[1] Additionally, Ahmad Al-Katani suggests in an interview on Aljazeera that in Africa, 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity every year.[2] Furthermore, although there are Christian converts in the Middle East, there are currently no definitive figures available as Christian converts are usually persecuted in this region (and may keep their conversion hidden from society), and therefore can not be reliably numbered.[3]

This is problematic for many reasons.

Firstly, it's not clear how any of this is relevant to a list of individual converts. This is not an overarching article about the subject of conversion. I know that similar info exists on the muslim converts page, but I think it's problematic there too... I just don't want to get embroiled in another highly contentious page with its own history right now.

Secondly, we don't have sufficient statistics on the various other religions listed on the page.

Thirdly, this text contains three questionable factoids. One is supported only by a broken link for a reference. One is from a questionable source who does seem potentially biased, and we should really have a well sourced study for this kind of information... besides which, this is only used to prop up an assertion of what one person has suggested the number of converts to be. The third factoid is actually just an indication of what we don't know about the Middle East, loaded with accusations as to why we don't know.

I'd also like to point out that it's inappropriate to make reference to "vandalism" when reverting this kind of edit. Vandalism is when someone replaces the page with "F**K ALL OF YOUS" or "MUSLIMS ARE GAY." Making an edit that one disagrees with, with a supporting argument as to why the edit is being made, is a good faith edit even if it's wrong.zadignose 00:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Acually, I should add that, just reading the text, without even being concerned with the sources, one can see how un-encyclopedic it is: "... estimates that... there there may be as many as..." "(such and such an individual) suggests in an interview..." "there are currently no definitive figures available..." "...can not be reliably numbered..." Who was asking for a number in the first place?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zadignose (talk • contribs)
Well, I wouldn't call it "unencyclopedic", just "speculative". Viewpoints and assertions presented in reliable sources warrant a mention, though not here, necessarily.--C.Logan 00:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know where the accusation of vandalism came from, in all honesty. It is my fault, though, because I noticed large portions of text by an anon-IP being removed without any rationale. I didn't check the links either. Drumpler 00:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm torn over the inclusion of statistics. I do agree with your first point, although I believe the text here could be replaced with something a little more useful and relevant, and subsequently could be added to all sections. I guess that something along the lines of the pagan section's intro is what I'm speaking of. Informative statements which actually help the user to understand the listings themselves. However, I believe it is important to note that conversion from a religion like Islam is often plagued by threats and antagonism from unsavory characters who operate with a medieval mindset. I'm not too sure about the relevance of those statistics, as they essentially outline conversions in general, whereas this list deals mainly with the conversions of notable individuals. I propose that each section should contain some sort of introduction with clarification of the listings and relevant information.--C.Logan 00:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
First of all persecution og Muslims converting to Christianity is not relevant to this article, considering the fact that for many centuries people converting from Christianity to other religions such as Islam have also been persecuted, put to death, or burned to the stake for witchcraft and herecy, such as the Inqusition. Even today when a person converts from Christianity to Islam, they often face stygma and opposition from their family and society, although its not as harsh today as it used to be, because of secular democratic trends in western society. Anyways that is not relevant to this article considering it is only a list, that information can be included in another article if u wish. Secondly those statistics are biased and unreliable, one of them comes from a Christian source, another comes from an Anti-Islam ex Muslim website, that wants to use someone elses speculation as propaganda. They are not relevant for this article and must be deleted. Also whenever statistics of Conversions to Islam is added to that page, it gets deleted immediatley even though they come from nonbiased and reliable sources, I wonder if that is a double standard?Wraith12 02:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Wraith12
Let's not fool ourselves concerning the reliability of the sources within the text you so vehemently wish to add to the List of notable converts to Islam. I wouldn't say that the sources for this statistical set are very reliable either, but the statistics given by CAIR are notably dubious. So no, it isn't a double standard, sorry. Let's not make any assumptions concerning how editors determine what stays in and what gets removed.
Additionally, let's not ride any sort of bullshit train by comparing the stigma of converts to Islam to converts from Islam. Nearly all Christians have dropped that medieval mentality which you speak of, and it's a little offensive to have someone comparing the plight of an individual who wasn't invited to the neighborhood cook-off to an individual who receives death threats for his or her personal beliefs.--C.Logan 02:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
As i have stated before the social penalties aren't harsh as they were a a long time ago, because of of secular democratic trends, if western society were run by Christian fundementalists such as Pat Robertson (who still holds considerable influence in American Politics and have a huge following), there would obviously be harsh penalties for Christians converting to other religions especially Islam, and Muslims would be put into Concentration camps. There would also be a new wave of Christian imperialism by the likes of Ann Coulter, who said "We should invade all Muslim countries, kill their leaders and convert them all to Christianity" which is what Christians have done before.Wraith12 02:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Wraith12
You have a very interesting imagination, either way.--C.Logan 02:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It definently does not belong in the article. It just makes the article into Islamist propaganda, and adds bias. There is nothing encyclopediac about it.--SefringleTalk 03:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I may disagree. If Anusim of Meshhad belongs is relevent to the Muslim counterpart of this article, then these statistics warrant a mention in this article. Either we restrict both article to "notable persons" only, or we allow content about groups of people (in which not many are notable).Bless sins 19:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Given the current title of this article, it could be said that "group" figures wouldn't qualify. Having said that, I can see that it would make sense to perhaps include a rough guestimate of converts to any group in articles of this type, as it does give an impression of the current strength of the faith in question, at least in terms of drawing converts. And, considering a lot of these are living people, I can see such content being added to all such articles. Probably in the beginning of the section, and hopefully not very long, though. John Carter 21:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
The strength is based on the rate of change not an absolute figure. Africa has around 900 Million or so people, thus the figure of 6 Million converts every year is less than 0.7 % of the population. Thus it would take over 150 years to convert all that population assuming no rate changes. Now in a 150 years using an average lifetime of say 50 years that would be 3 generations turnover in people or around 2.7 Billion people (using todays figure as a base). Thus that conversion rate means nothing as it is barely replacing the existing Christians (which are ?) !. It is thus statistical noise. Though the figures sound great, unless we have studies/meta-studies with rates of change they are meaningless statistics fit for soundbits. Ttiotsw 10:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Barret, David, cited in Duin, Julia. "Daring Leaps of Faith". The Washington Times. Retrieved 2006-08-13..
  2. ^ [1] , [2](Video) for english translation, see [3], [4]
  3. ^ [5]

Definition of "Convert"

I think the term "convert" is being used here without really thinking about a strict definition. Babies aren't born believing that Jesus was the Messiah, so isn't every Christian a convert either from atheism or from another religion? Certainly the word has currency but we need to ask whether the popular usage really makes for an encyclopaedic list.

I see two possible options: We define "convert" to mean "someone who accepted Christianity and rejected another religion" and delete the converts from atheism section. But, given the inclusion of atheism, I think the term is being used at the moment to mean something more like "somone who embraced a religion to which their parents did not subscribe".

This latter definition is how the term is widely used but such a category doesn't really belong in an encyclopaedia. I think the best option is to merge this list with a list of all prominent Christians, placing all 'non converts' in the "converts from atheism" category and explaining that they were converted by their parents in childhood. Or, just delete the list. Nick 13:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Individuals are included in the agnosticism or atheism list when a reliable source claims that this was their prior belief. It's a simple process. If there are any individuals present within that section which do not make prior beliefs fairly clear, we should move them to the undetermined religion section. As of now, however, I don't see any problems with that section, save for the fact that we have a large number of names which need sources to be re-added to it.
Concerning your two 'options', I'm not sure what the difficulty is with the current arrangement, as I've already explained how items are included. Additionally, even though the term "no religion", is included in the introduction to refer directly to atheism and agnosticism, both technically qualify as "religions" by the definition of A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. We must remember that not all belief systems are entirely interchangeable, and such beliefs as Buddhism or Judaism also have special cases with which we must be mindful, where an individual may certainly be a member of the religion, but without any theistic belief whatsoever. For example, an individual may become a Christian from being a Buddhist, but as Buddhist can be theistic or atheistic, he can also remain Buddhist. Would such an individual be listed under "Buddhism" or "Atheism" (assuming that he had been an atheistic Buddhist in this case, previously)?
Again, the arrangement is simple, and problematic listings are decided amongst the editors involved with the page. Individuals are listed as former atheists if a source describes them as being atheists in the past, or something along those lines. Therefore, there is no need for 'options', as the current arrangement is not problematic, really.--C.Logan 15:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
That's a rather strange definition of religion. I would say that some belief in the supernatural is necessary. Buddhism would still count because there is a belief in souls etc, it would just be an atheistic religion. But if we grant it for argument's sake we still find that, while some atheists do meet your criterion, an agnostic cannot "pursue with zeal" or "conscientiously devote" herself to a cause that she doesn't believe in. You really can't be dogmatically uncertain.
Here's the problem with the current arrangement: hundreds of people are left off the list because their conversion happened as such a young age, at the behest of their parents, ie they converted from a childish agnostism. The problem is that they don't identify themselves as converts because they are not adult converts. Nevertheless, no one is born believing that Jesus is the Messiah; they must come to accept this belief at some point in their life, even if we don't know when that was.
I'm suggesting that if we continue to exclude these people from our definition of convert we must have a rationale for doing so. Is it because Christianity was not the faith of their parents? Or simply because they were adults when they embraced it? Either way we should state our criterion. We should also make it explicit that we are following the norm that exists in English-speaking countries of assuming that children will follow their parents' religion and people who do so do not usually consider themselves converts.
My only other worry with this "self-identification" use of the word "convert" is that most of the agnostics who embrace Christianity in adulthood probably don't consider themselves converts either. We might have to look for quotes where they explicitly identify as such. Nick 18:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a point here. Maybe we could change to include specifically only those conversions which take place after the age of reason? That would effectively remove the infant baptisms and the like, which could be problematic because unfortunately they probably would count as "forced conversions". John Carter 18:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, no, I don't see any relevant point being presented here; at least not one which we would need to discuss within the foreseeable future. As far as we should be concerned (in accordance with WP policies and guidelines), an individual is a convert to Christianity from another religion or non-religion if a source identifies them as such. Can you give any examples of conversions listed here before the age of reason (which is 7, by the way)? I don't seem to see any, but if you do, please bring it to everyone's attention.
If no such names are present, then I don't see what the problem is. As far as I'm aware, we've never listed individuals who have made "youth conversions" (nor do children convert from "atheism" or "agnosticism" anyway). As children, they simply convert from a non-religious state to a religious one. Saying that they convert from "atheism" makes as much sense as saying that children are born "Hindu"- either one is an ideology to which you must ascribe first, and children typically float in that impressionable gray area.
I am unaware of any individuals which are disputable under this topic. If there are no examples present, then it would appear that we are setting up a convoluted situation from which we could attempt to form some sort of article guideline, when in reality we will likely never run into such a problem. If any individuals converted before the age of reason, they should not be included on the list, and this is how I believe the list currently functions. Ultimately, however, we base what conclusions we do arrive at on what the sources say concerning conversion and prior religion; therefore, the judgment of reliable sources overrides our own in the end, if it comes to that point.--C.Logan 08:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I acknowledge that there aren't any infant conversion in the article yet. Unfortunately, the introduction as it is currently worded would not rule out inclusion of such persons later. All I was really, apparently badly, trying to say was that adding such a parameter to the introduction would rule out any further such disputes in the future, and would hopefully prevent such questions from arising again. John Carter 14:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I think John understands what my original point was, to define the criteria for inclusion a little better because, as he says, there is nothing in the current intro to rule out the addition of people who have embraced a religion in their youth, converting from a non religious state. (This is the same as converting from agnosticism in adulthood.)
As for John's earlier comment that infant baptisms would count as forced conversions, I don't see how that's an unfortunate result of the definition. I think it would be a bizzare definition of forced conversion that didn't include infant baptisms. If we want to exclude them from this list we would have to say that no forced conversion counts as a conversion because it is not sincere. I think everyone will agree with that (although there may then be calls for a list of forced conversions). I think we're all in agreement that only conversions over the age or reason give true membership to a faith. The problem then becomes deciding who really belonged to those former religions attributed to them. Who knows how many of these converts were actually practising the religion attributed before the conversion! Nick 15:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
We can't know if they practiced their former religion, nor can we know if they practice their current religion! We're not in the business of judging "piety" or "sincerity", as both require a judgment from us, which is original research. One good thing we learned from the recent "big" discussion was that we are supposed to incorporate what sources say robotically. If the source says a man is an atheist or a Muslim, then I shouldn't be asking, "but was he sincere? Did he hold to his belief? Did he go through all the practices?"- of course, one can feel free to question this for themselves, but such a judgment shouldn't be applied here.
I always get a little irked when someone enforces the idea of infant baptism or a religious upbringing as "forced conversion". I don't want to get into it, but most people who claim as such really don't understand the practice they're criticizing (as I can say because I once criticized it myself). Raising a child as an atheist is likewise a "forced conversion" by such logic, although some may like to imagine that we're naturally atheists. Either way, there is a difference between teaching a child a certain view or philosophy (equal to raising a child as a vegetarian or as an animal-lover) and forcing someone above the age of reason to change an ingrained or desired belief. I don't think the two scenario are comparable unless the comparer is tending to stretch concepts.
In any case, the main list as-is appears to include only voluntary adult conversions in which the sources clarify the former religion and the religion of conversion. The recently added forced conversions section only includes individuals who were forced to convert to another religion in their adult life, and who may or may not have sincerely accepted the religion later, or simply practiced their own religion in secrecy. I'm not strongly decided on whether or not we should include such conversion, but we have to again remember that we aren't adding piety or sincerity judgments to any conversions here, so in this special section we should follow suit and merely report what the sources claim. I don't believe anyone's trying to trick the reader into thinking that forced conversions are "sincere movements into the faith"- it's clear that they aren't, but the instances of forced conversion are no less notable than those of voluntary conversion (in fact, even more so, I think). The inclusion of such information makes it clear that religion can be a bully at times when we make it as such; additionally, the inclusion of the quasi-unfavorable listings counteracts the unfortunate agenda of some users to proselytize (although this seems to be a problem on List of notable converts to Islam rather than here).
One thing we should remember is that not every policy we make concerning this or any other article has to be written within the article itself. The editors who watch the article form the consensus concerning what's in and what's out, and can explain the concepts to any green user who happens to come along and change a format which was agreed upon. In this case, the concept seems common sense, so I'm still a little uncertain why it's being treated as a hot issue. We simply don't include individuals who didn't "convert" after the age of reason (and I believe only a few individuals even come close to that age, anyway), whether it was a voluntary or involuntary conversion. Let's not push definitions of "forced conversion" which complicate things by regarding infant baptisms or religious upbringings as such, as it is very offensive to some, and it is a comparison which is a stretch to begin with.--C.Logan 16:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
My apologies that it seemed we were trying to make this a "hot issue", because I know at least in my case I wasn't. I only see the proposed change to the introduction to specifically only include converts past the age of reason as being a preventative measure, to with luck preclude any later real "discussions" (being polite) like those in the recent past. John Carter 16:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I suppose I operate with the same discussion in mind, but as I doubt we'll ever run into an editor so disruptive to consensus, I don't see why something so "duh"-esque even needs to be placed in. Not every policy has to be printed, because the community upholds it. I do believe there have been instances where individuals who had converted from, say, Judaism to Christianity from familial influence around the age of 5 have been added by users once in a blue moon (I can't even think of an example, actually), but it's not enough to ever warrant an addition to the introduction, in my opinion. There are certainly a lot of other unimportant possibilities which could be catered to, but aren't, because they simply don't warrant a change. I'm a little bit more confused by Nick's drastic suggestions for change; the introduction addition is a small one, but one that I find really unnecessary. I'm not saying that we shouldn't discuss these things, but I'm a little on guard against pointless conversations and empty arguments from the last discussion.--C.Logan 18:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I raised some similar concerns here when I wrote: 

 In the context of this article, a "convert" is a noun, and it refers to a person who converted from one 
 religion to another... that is, they changed their religious faith... I think a religious "convert" 
 (which is what this list is all about) must be a person who has turned away from a previous religious 
 faith, which casts serious doubt on the inclusion of former "athiests," "agnostics," or "irreligious persons" 
 on the list. Presumably all humans are born without faith or religion, so if we include all people who came 
 to Christianity from a state of "no faith," then we would have to include everyone who ever embraced 
 Christianity, even if they did it at the age of two, in a household led by a Baptist Minister. I'd say, 
 if a person once identified themselves as a member of some religion, then later embraced a different 
 religious faith, then they are the clear and classic case of a "convert."

However, I don't think deleting the list or merging it is at all appropriate (the latter especially, in light of the fact that we established this is not a "list of Christians"). I also know my opinion on this matter may well be in the minority, and all I hope for is clarity and consistency.

We certainly don't want this list to be populated by every person who "found God," or "found Jesus" late in life, as many of these people may have simply had an unclear notion, or lacked any particular conviction before their later embrace of the Christian faith.

I think the most appropriate people to include in the Athiests Etc. section are the people who publicly expressed their athiesm, and later turned to a Christian faith. This is a "conversion" to the extent that such a person has made a radical change of faith with respect to theism.

I can also see the argument in favor of including agnostics who were truly agnostics. That is, not the ones who said "I don't know if there's a God," or "I'm not so sure what to believe," but those who said "We can't know if there is a God," but later converted to a Christian faith. If someone fits one of these categories, and a reliable source has referred to their conversion, then I wouldn't argue against their inclusion. I was happy to see that this is largely the case for those listed here now. I think the people who put this list together generally did a good job to limit its scope.

I think the most potentially problematic case is those people supposedly coming from "no faith," or "indeterminate faith." That's far to broad, and too far from the notion of conversion, which is about a change of faith. It really is true that every Christian came from another faith, or no faith, or indeterminate faith. However, the stronger a person's prior faith which they abandoned, the more notable their conversion really is. So for this reason, I think everyone listed should have a clear indication of what their prior faith was, to qualify as converts. Otherwise, we might even find ourselves with a bunch of people raised in Christian households, who had little personal faith in God, but had a late life awakening... that's great for them, but it doesn't make them converts.zadignose 15:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't agree here. This generally assumes that only individuals with a strong prior belief in "whatever" can be termed "converts". Again, to judge conversion in such a manner, we have to exercise a POV muscle, and that can cause problems. When diminishing the idea of conversions from "no faith" or an undetermined faith, we have to realize that we are placing all the eggs in other ideological baskets. Essentially, a conversion is a conversion. We have to remember that this concept oversimplifies belief- there are various levels of interest in every religion, different forms of worship and belief. There is as much a difference in beliefs (and how one believes) between two minor Christian denominations as there is between Richard Dawkins and an ex-highschool football player who "never really thought about religion much". While I find an angry-atheist turned Christian story as intriguing as anyone else might, we're not here to assess conversions by the drama of the change.
In this same train of thought, we have to remember that the sources have a monopoly on what is what. If a notable individual is claimed to have converted to Christianity, we need not exercise that muscle and say "well... he didn't really hold to anything before, so his movement from this to that is invalid". Additionally, we must remember that we only know what the sources feel is worth mentioning- for all we know, the non-religious person could have been a philosophical secular humanist or a yoga devotee in his or her private time. There are many possibilities which complicate the story, so we need to keep the criterion as simple as possible.
I think we can trust most reliable sources to not call an individual who became a Christian at the age of 6 as a "convert". As long as we simply incorporate the terminology and information presented by the sources, we are doing fine. There is no further need for judgment of sincerity, for drama, for magnitude of conversion or for (gulp) assessment of continued belief. If I were to convert to a religion tomorrow, it would be in every way as valid as a conversion of yours, or of Mr. ex-Footballer above. We have to be mindful of instituting article policies that lead to the incorporation of value judgments.--C.Logan 15:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
So, would it be fair to refer to pretty much every Born Again Christian as a "convert," even if they converted from Christianity to more Christianity? Should we include every person who receives some form of baptism as an adult, regardless of background, if by some chance they or another individual used the word "convert," correctly or incorrectly, and that was quoted in a mainstream newspaper or magazine? If a Seventh Day Adventist marries an Eastern Orthodox Christian, and decides to convert to his wife's religion, should he be referred to as a convert "to Christianity" simply because the religion he has newly embraced is a Christian religion, regardless of the fact that he was already a Christian to begin with?zadignose 00:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
No, because they are changing denominations within a single faith. What I'm saying is that we shouldn't be attaching value judgments based on magnitude of belief because a) we can't really measure such a concept consistently and objectively, and because b) it is utterly POV to dismiss an individual's conversion because you or I don't find their previous belief system to be of any strong conviction. It is our personal opinion which adds more value (or whatever word fits) to a conversion to Christianity by a hardline atheist than by a generally non-religious individual.--C.Logan 04:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Probably not. As someoe who is emphatically not a BAC, I'm not entirely surely that they're "more" Christian than those of us who don't use that term. Also, for what it's worth, almost all the Christian sects acknowledge baptism is only effective once, so they try not to duplicate it, barring unusual cases, like converting from Mormonism, which some churches don't consider really Christian in the first place. Also, I acknowledge that there probably have been some kids who converted to Christianity from something else before the age of reason. I'm virtually certain there'll be at least one possibly legendary saint who did so, although I can't think of one right now. And the fact of the existing lists of converts to specific faith X should be appropriate for "in-house" Christian conversions anyway. The question of how or whether to include those who were maybe "lazy" agnostics or atheists who just never paid any attention to religion and the like is a good one. Technically, I guess it could be said that they converted to Christianity, but I don't know if someone who just "never thought of it" could really be called an agnostic, or just a non-thinker. John Carter 01:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I just wanted to point out that I don't want to imply Born Agains are "more" Christain than any other people, but only that, from their own perspective, they are "more" Christian than they personally had been previously. They may have been very lax Christians who have embraced a more active faith.zadignose 03:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that I'm not the first to raise this issue. zadignose's original comment is exactly what I was trying to say. And I think now I've found the nub of the disagreement between myself and C.Logan. Let's see if we can make it explicit:
Either conversion is the switch between two different religions (never mind just how different) OR conversion is any embrace of religion, even from no religious belief. (If you want to consider positive atheism as a "negative religious belief", at least grant me that apathetic agnostics truly lack religious beliefs.)
If the former is the case, we must exclude all agnostics and all but the most outspoken atheists.
If the set of all converts does include those who had no prior religious beliefs (as the list does at present), then we must include conversions before the age of reason.
Did you catch the tacit premise? One has to assume that children have no religious beliefs until they are taught to believe something. So long as we exclude hard atheism and restrict ourselves to an absence of religious belief, then I think this is true. Including "conversions" from no religion means including children raised in that faith. As John points out, this makes infant baptism forced conversion. The only way out is to deny that anyone can ever be absent of religious beliefs. This is Logan's tacit assumption when he compares a religious upbrining to a vegetarian upbringing. I think there's a difference. A parent doesn't have to instruct their children in any particular belief system; they can stay perfectly silent, not arguing for or against any religious beliefs. But, while a parent can feed children meat or not, he must feed them something!
One more thought, Logan says "we're not here to assess conversions by the drama of the change". But maybe we should. We really don't want the list to snowball too much. Does the list have to include every notable person who has converted to Christianity, or could we restrict it to people whose conversions to Christianity have been notable? Not just notable people but notable qua convert. (Where notability is in the sources.) This is the only way I can think of to exclude those raised in religious environments from a list that doesn't want them. Nick 02:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, as the person most likely to be considering adding the names of those who would be counted as saints by one or more Christian churches, I've already indicated that what I think of as conversions which do not factually illustrated anything new will probably not be added to the list by me. And while I acknowledge I would maybe like to see the list limited to those who are specifically considered somewhat notable by sources themselves, it would probably be true that one non-trivial mention in one Christian publication would probably be enough to qualify in someone's eyes as verification of notability, so I'm not sure that additional qualification would really change anything. John Carter 17:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes Nick, I understood what was said, but I believe you're slightly misled when you assume above what my "tacit assumption" happens to be. "No religious beliefs" is the same as any other "No philosophy". When we are speaking about events which occur prior to the age of reason, we need to remember that these children and their easily impressed thoughts can, in no way, be compared to the personal philosophies and convictions of an adult, or even a 10-year-old.
The concept of an individual being "forced" to become a Christian because they were raised as such since birth is the same as saying that we are "forced" to accept the most popular scientific views as these are the only one's being taught in school. The mentors and guides which surround an individual in their formative stages teach what they themselves believe to be true- if you took the time to explain to your child that the Earth is round, you aren't "forcing" this belief into them. There is a large difference between teaching and raising a child with any variety of philosophies and taking an adult Human who understands fully what they believe and why they believe it who cries out in protest when coerced into accepting an alien religion.
Interestingly, judging from how most children react to vegetables, there's a stronger parallel in the act of coercing a child to eat their peas than in teaching them the religious philosophy to which you ascribe. Of course, a pea is a simpler concept to swallow, pun perhaps intended, than any sort of religious concept, and therefore we have to again remember that kids simply don't understand what they're dealing with. If they did, and they could object, then they are being forced.
Again, this is list of notable people who converted to Christianity. It seems you have a problem with this, and you would prefer to have the list have the criterion of "only notable conversions". That opinion is fine (though not viable), but you're reasoning behind it here is where I have a problem. The solution you propose is ridiculously beyond what the actual "problem" requires. That is, the list doesn't have the claimed problem- the age of reason is a generally universally accepted guideline for determining when the decisions of a human being can be considered, well, reasonable and worth consideration. Additionally, we should again remember to incorporate what the reliable sources say- and that's what we've been doing, so far. I understand what you're arguing, Nick, but I don't see why.--C.Logan 05:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the best way to strenghten the article, if one wants to retain a section on conversions from Athiesm, etc., would be to find more strong examples of avowed athiests who became Christians, and to remove some of the more questionable entries, for whom we can find no indication of their prior faith. I don't have any specific names in mind at the moment, but maybe those who strongly believe that this list should include converts from athiesm can improve the list in this way. If I come across any ideas, I'll suggest them.zadignose 04:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Zadignose: If this is what you're saying, then I don't know why we're arguing. The article already operates in this matter. Any listings with no support for prior religious/philosophical affiliation should be moved into the "prior religion undetermined" section, as they have been in the past.--C.Logan 04:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to be moderate, and reasonable, and I'm not calling for any revolutionary change, so I don't think we have a hot argument. But, we may have some points of disagreement, and in any event I want to see clarity in how to approach these issues. I don't agree that any listings with no support for prior religion/philosophy should be moved to "prior religion undetermined." In at least some cases, it's probably more reasonable to remove the individuals from the list altogether.
Looking in more detail at the current "undetermined section," I'd say including Kusturica is proper. We may not know his prior belief explicitly, but it is very probably either Muslim, or athiest, or athiest of Muslim decent, and almost certainly a non-Christian faith. His conversion is referred to explicitly as a conversion, and it is clearly notable as it brought about a public outcry against his conversion.
For René Girard, on the other hand, we have no indication of what he "converted" from, and the one reference to a "conversion to Christian faith" in the one source provided seems a bit ambiguous in its application, as it is compared to a "kind of intellectual conversion" which proceeded it. He could well have been a Christian of little faith who later "converted" to Christian faith. If that's the case, I'd say it's a misuse of the term "conversion" in the sense of religious conversion. I'd also say, lacking any indication of his prior faith, we should either find a better source to clarify the matter, or remove him rather than make a claim that's insupportable by evidence.
Tony Fontaine seems a rather confused/confusing case as well. He appears to be a Christian, who abandoned his Christian faith (either due to his father's excesses, or due to a feud with his family), and later "converted" to Christianity in his adulthood. It has in it's favor a clear indication of athiesm in the article, but this is itself currently unsourced. So, what to do, I'm unsure, but it's certainly in the realm of problematic cases.
Whatever we do with these three, I'd certainly hate to see the "undertermined" section increase in size and scope, taking in every case of a person who supposedly "converted," for whom we have no suggestion of what they "converted" from. In my ideal version of this article, I'd exclude anyone whose former faith is not indicated. But if that can't be agreed upon, then I'd hope that at least we could compromise and remove the most questionable/uncertain items, and strengthen the list with more stringent inclusion standards.zadignose 06:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd ultimately prefer not to have "undetermined former religion" here either, as it seems that placement in such a category is typically due to lack of effort in finding sources (i.e. not just on Google). However, a dearth of sources concerning former religion doesn't nullify the conversion. Unfortunately for us, not every individual enjoys the coverage of extensive personal details, and when such information exists, it isn't always easy to find. Ultimately, the focal point of this list is conversion, with former religion as a secondary (though still important) consideration, and we should probably consider sources respectively in this manner. If individuals are in such a section, it should probably be temporary, and efforts should be made to find any sources which specify the individual's former belief. I don't see a problem with removing such names, at least with the intention of working to find a source for the individual's former religion- not a simple "remove because we don't know and forget about it" mentality.
Concerning Fontane, I'd contacted the site director previously, and it would seem that he's actually publishing a Fontane biography with the consultation of Fontane's family. So, interestingly, we may be dealing with pre-sourced information. Either way, until such a source arrives, this is the closest we'll come to a reliable source, as there appears to be a dearth of information on this subject (and a dearth of information on Fontane in general, with most accounts I've seen mirroring the one given in the source at hand).--C.Logan 07:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what all of the fuss is about. If a reliable source says someone converted to Christianity, then they belong on this list, even if we don't know what their prior beliefs were. As an aside, I want to point out that it's spelled "atheist", not "athiest." The latter is a common misspelling. Nick Graves 20:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"Martyr"

Shoudl this article really contain words like "martyr" (like those in the Islam section)? Isn't that not neutral? Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Islam-related_articles)#Martyrs deems the usage inappropriate.Vice regent 19:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think so. Remember, the Islamic sense of a "martyr" has a more disagreeable definition, and the problem is that some Muslims might call martyrs what the rest of us would call "terrorists".
I don't believe that the Christian (i.e., the general) usage of the term has the same stigma, at all really. Calling an individual who straps a bomb to himself and blows up a cafe a "martyr" is walking on serious eggshells- calling an individual who willingly accepts torture and dies rather than renounces their faith a "martyr" is not POV at all, and is actually in line with the word's definition: One who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious principles.--C.Logan 19:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The former bomb-strapped "martyr" would be a misapplication of the word, as generally not placing a bomb on yourself is not regarded as violating religious principles. Those individuals are going beyond not renouncing religious principles by actively going at least one step beyond it. And I do think that it is appropriate in these lists to indicate those people who not only converted, but sacrificed their lives for their new faith.John Carter 19:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Then perhaps [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28Islam-

related_articles%29#Martyrs]] should be modified to say that this only applies to "terrorists". Because I'm sure there are Muslims who have sacrificed their lives for their new faith.Vice regent 19:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I would agree, as long as we wouldn't include in those numbers those people who actively brought about their own deaths by placing explosives on themselves and suchlike. Maybe it could be rewritten to indicate that the term should only apply to those individuals whose death had been actively brought about by the actions of one or more other people, and/or in cases when the only action the individual martyr took to bring about his/her death was a simple acknowledgement of their faith in Islam? That's more or less one of the qualifiers of being a Christian martyr. John Carter 19:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
It agree as well. Although Husayn ibn Ali isn't my traditional picture of a martyr (to me, he simply died a noble death in battle against "heretics"), the usage of the term in such a case is fair and generally applied.
Honestly, I'd be intrigued to read about Muslim martyrs who died in the same manner as many Christian ones-- under torture. I've never seen such a thing, and unless memory fails me, I do believe I've read that there is a clause amongst Islamic scripture which allows one to lie in order to escape such a fate. Of course, there would certainly be dissenting views about the interpretation of such a verse.--C.Logan 19:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Why do you have a pre-conceived notion of martyrs? It doesn't have to be under torture. A martyr is someone who dies for he/she believes in. For example, Muslims died during the Battle of Badr protecting their community (in Medina) from forced conversion back to polythiesm.Vice regent 18:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The preconceived notion in question is more or less the introductory sentence of the Martyr article. The definition there also seems, based on the Greek origins of the word, to be the original one. I don't see how using a word in its original, and still primary, definition, qualifies as a "pre-conceived notion". I do not deny that other uses exist, but they do not agree with the primary definition as used there. Having said that, I would not object to seeing people who died during the battle cited above listed as having died to "defend their faith". The fact that Islam has a much broader definition, as per the Martyr page, does not change the fact that that broader definition is both not the common one and is only used in that way, so far as I can tell, in an Isalmic context. I would not object to the use of the word "shahid" and a link to the Martyrdom in Islam page, but the less-than-universal, broad definition of the term in this context would I believe increase ambiguity, and that is something which we generally try to avoid. John Carter 18:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you guys kidding? Thousands of Muslims died for their belief. Even during the time of Mohammad people were tortured and killed by pagans in Mecca. Some were forced to emigrate to Ethiopia and a few years later, all -- including Mohammad -- left Mecca (due to persecution) to Medina. Also, when Christians re-conquered Spain, inquisition followed -- when Jews and Muslims were either forced to convert, killed or exiled. 24.166.188.29 22:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced about the presentation or even historicity of any of that. The Inquisition is the most certain thing you mention here, but then again, the issue is much more complicated than the POV'd oversimplification presented here (additionally, I'd learned that in Islam, one is allowed to falsely renounce their faith temporarily in order to escape such persecution- this may not, of course, be a universal viewpoint).--C.Logan 03:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
What part you are not certain about? Muslims were killed at the time of Mohammad in Mecca. This is not controversial. It's in all Islamic sources. Also, it was not just Spain -- EVERY single time that Christians took territory from Muslims (Spain, Southern Italy, Jerusalem and other areas during crusades), Muslims were WIPED out eventually by the Christians. I know of no exception during medieval time. And USSR had millions of centeral Asian Muslims under it's rule and many were killed OneGuy 16:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, you're making a few gross oversimplifications. I'm sure that there were "martyrs" in the normal sense of the term, of course- there are martyrs for any cause- but I'm afraid you can't oversimplify the issue as the anon has, above. We as humans tend to dumb things down into little bite-sized pieces- unfortunately, we like to have our brains tickled, so we tend to take a particular side and reduce it's claims. For many people, WWII was cause because "Hitler was evil and wanted to kill Jews and take over the world". That works for children, but with complicated periods of history like the Reconquista and the Crusades, you can't just gulp down every sensationalist simplification thrown at you by the History Channel. There was good and bad in all these events, heroes and villains, and numerous causes, consequences and what not. To say that Muslims were "wiped out" is an exaggeration, and while there were certainly cases like this, to claim it happened "every single time" tells me that you're only reading what you'd like to read, and not taking a look at things objectively. Just my take on things; I'm certainly not one to deny atrocities that happened by cause of my own ancestors, but I'll stand for things when defense is due- I've met one too many people who base their core philosophies on the things they learned in middle school, so forgive me if I'm misreading your comment. And finally, the USSR was certainly a martyr machine (when people blame religion for atrocities, they tend to forget that ideologies can kill unjustly as well), though I've actually read that they were much more tolerant to Muslims than they were to their very own Orthodox Christians- of course, that's not saying much.--C.Logan 19:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Once again, Muslim martyrs (shahids) died protecting the Muslim community from pagan attacks. But why are we still dicussing this? Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Islam-related_articles) no longer presents an objection against the use of the term "martyr". As of now, I'm not aware of any policy that discourages the usage of the term. If someone has a problem with the term "martyr", he/she should take it to Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid.Vice regent 14:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that anyone should pretend that Muslims don't sometimes misuse (or rather, use in a very POV manner) the term "martyr". Claiming an individual who decides to strap a bomb to himself and destroy a building full of people can not acceptably be called a "martyr"- I'm sure you can agree to that as well. These people are called "terrorists". The term can be used, of course, where it properly applies- that is, in line with the word's general definition. But there should be a restriction to any usage whatsoever in the case of terrorists- such a usage is extremely disrespectful to those whose lives were affected (or taken) by those misguided individuals who felt it was their religious duty to die in such a manner, and it is utterly POV. I don't think the Christian martyrs, from where we derive the word and its definition, have this same issue. Thus, the term is acceptable in the proper cases, but as I'm sure you know, there will be individuals who push their own misguided POV- and without a solid guideline to prevent them from doing so, we may run into some sort of problem later (possibly).--C.Logan 04:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Muslims misuse the term martyr. What I don't agree with is the idea that only Muslims misuse the word. To limit Muslims from using the term "martyr", but give Chrisitians unrestricted permission to use the word is unfair. Certainly there are cases of medieval suicidal Christians, who went around insulting Islam on purpose just to be executed (in their view martyred).Vice regent 18:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I acknowledge that there were several Egyptian saints in particular who "volunteered" to tell the government which killed Christians that they were Christians. However, there is still a major difference between someone professing a religious belief with the knowledge that such an action will likely result in their own death and someone who acts to kill not only themselves, but others in suicide bombings, etc. In that case, the person involved is also, possibly, acting to "martyr" others as well, and I have to think that a better, clearer word exists to cover such situations. And, in fact, it does:shahid, shaheed, or whatever other spelling you wish. Also, there is the matter that government in Islamic society has often been tied directly to religion. I think it would be useful to separate those who died for reasons which seriously overlapped political and social considerations from those who died directly for religious reasons. Of course, in the event of individuals who brought only their own deaths about by their words or deeds, I can see that such individuals could be called "martyrs" for whatever belief system they espouse. John Carter 20:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I know the argument is an old one, however, shouldn't we use the term martyr only with those who were officially considered martyrs int their church/religion/etc? I mean, there are other uses of the term, but what about the actual usage of the term? IronCrow (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Z list?

There are a few exceptions, but this would be a good list to call up to be on Big Brother! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike0001 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Needs updates

Forced conversion list should include mass forced baptism of Old Saxons, Norse, Mexicans, etc Aliibn (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, to an extent. Charlemagne required that many Old Saxons be baptized, and the Christianization of Scandinavia essentially ended the Viking Age. However, I think it would be difficult to broadly claim that the "Mexicans" or the "Norse" were forced to convert. If not carefully stated, it could imply that all members of those societies were forced into Christianity, which we know is not the case. Do you have any good references for events that affected subgroups of these populations? AlphaEta 19:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Forced Conversion - Quit adding

I don't care too much if one really adds it - it's the sources used. The source used is a biased source, Richard Dawkins. He claims pretty much anyone is a forced convert... but i don't need to go into that. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 05:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That was only used on Mortara. Still I think forced conversions sections are silly and that forced conversions "don't count" in most cases.--T. Anthony (talk) 06:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Still I'm putting one back as the other lists contain such a segment.--T. Anthony (talk) 06:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree, it is silly and ridiculous. But I just remvoed them without putting them in their proper segment. I don't mind at all if the people are up there, however, an entire section of "forced conversion" seems stupid. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 05:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Previous religions

I noticed that many of the converts here did not grow up following the religion listed as their former religion and were merely of that religion by name. The same situation occurred in the converts to Islam page and anyone who was not a practising Christian was moved to convert from nonreligious etc. Should that be done on this page as well? If not, should the converts to Islam page be reverted? For example, on the converts to Islam page, Cat Stevens is not mentioned as a convert from Christianity but under convert from nonreligious but in parenthesis it says he did grow up as a Christian. I was thinking that we should make it consistent across the board. Inf fg (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)]

It's hard to tell. Such as the case with changing religions for government/political reasons. I'd say leave them, because it can be quite difficult to know if someone was "Islam" by name only, especially if they died 50 years ago or whatnot. Also, you must remember that you can still be Christian and not be a practicing Christian, as well as being non religious while raised in a Christian home.¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 20:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Reorganize?

Should we reorganize this? I mean, there's two people in "From Satanism," Maybe we could merge the others into "From Other" or something similiar? ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 20:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:JomoKenyatta.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Fuchida

Perhaps instead of stating about Fuchida "involvement in...Pearl Harbor" it should be said that he "led the attack on..." since he was in fact the one who led the attack, and was not just "involved" in the attack.Prussian725 (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent Removals by Yasmine Hussein

I've undone all the recent removals until we can reach agreement here.

Some have been discussed before, e.g. Dylan, and the new past tense title of the page - "who converted" - allows us to include people like Dylan who may have reverted to their past religion or, indeed, moved on to something else.

I'm inclined to agree with Yasmine Hussein that people not raised in the Jewish faith are not converts from Judaism. However, she certainly shouldn't have deleted them, if we can agree that this article is about religious inclination (not race or ethnicity) then we should move those people to Converts from Agnosticism or Atheism. The problem is verifiability; just because their parents raised them agnostic doesn't mean they didn't spontaneously start believing in the Jewish God before converting to Christianity. If that sounds implausible and you think we have sufficient evidence to class them as agnostic, then let's move Simone Weil and Gillian Rose to the agnosticism section (with some comment about their ethnicity, as it's not completely irrelevant to religious definitions).

I don't think this applies to Disraeli. His article says, "His father had Benjamin baptised in 1817 following a dispute with their synagogue," which makes the young Benjamin 13 at the time. That suggests that he was raised Jewish for at least the first 13 years of his life. (It also sounds like a forced conversion but he did stick with the Anglicanism so we needn't get into that.)

Michael Solomon Alexander seems prominent enough. It's not everyday that a rabbi converts.

Juan Alfonso de Baena I don't have an opinion about. Nick (talk) 14:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Christian converts from Catholicism?

Um, I though "Catholicism" counted as a form of Christianity. If it does, what is the justification for the inclusion of the single entry under this new heading? John Carter (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of people who consider Catholicism outside the boundaries of Christianity. Just remove the section. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
This entry can stay as there is a page that is called, "List of People Who Converted to Catholicism. In this list, Evangelical Christians are mentioned as converting to Catholicism. Therefore, this entry is equally valid. Catholicism is view by Protestants as a Christian Cult, in the same vein as Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons. A conversion takes place whether it be from Christianity to Catholicism or vice-versa and that is why there is already a page existing, regarding "Converting to Catholicism" with Christian entries. Hope you will see the equality, now. [[8]] Rdsimoni (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
According to all authoritative, non-fringe sources, Catholicism is a form of Christianity. Converts from Catholicism to another form of Christianity do not belong here, because it is a list of people who converted to Christianity (from a non-Christian religion). Nick Graves (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
The word "convert" is sometimes used to indicate a change of denomination. That is why those converting from other denominations can be listed in List of people who converted to Catholicism. However if you do that you are not converting to Christianity. A page called "List of people who converted to Protestantism" could include those converting from Catholicism. It is the majority view, even among Protestants, that Catholicism is a form of Christianity. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I will grant you that. Most people today view Catholicism as a form of Christianity, as well as Jehovah Witnesses, Mormonism, Christian Scientists, etc. And I agree, it would probably be better suited to a page called "List of people who converted to Protestantism", since Catholicism could never be confused with Protestantism and differ so much in theology. Thank you.--Rdsimoni (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the "List of converts to Catholicism" may have been primarily created to reduce the length of this list. I myself wouldn't mind seeing lists of converts to other "brands" of Christianity being made myself, although, with the exception of some of the older churches, they might not be as long, and there might be some question in some cases as to whether they were primarily converting to whichever church or to Christianity in general, particularly in some of the Asian countries where the differences between the churches aren't always so obvious, or, in some cases, even exist. John Carter (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Josephine Bakhita was never a Muslim

Why is she listed as a convert from Islam to Christianity? She was always a Christian from Darfur. Just because she may have been owned in her period of slavery by Ottoman officers who may have forced her to at least feign adherence to Islam, that hardly makes her a "convert". I am removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.136.104.21 (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Muslims forced to convert to Christianity

Why are there so many forced conversions listed throughout this wiki portrayed as willing "converts"? For example all the Khanate rulers who were defeated by the Russian Tsars and forced to be Baptised and take Russian names are listed. Don't be so desperate to find converts where they don't exist. Be objective and fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.136.104.21 (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If they really were forced converts, then I agree, they should not be listed. However, I see no evidence that they were forced. Doesn't mean they weren't, of course; also doesn't mean that they merely converted for political purposes. Of course, the only source I'm looking at is their Wiki articles! So, I'd leave them unless a decent source can be given as to them being forced to convert. But, that's just me.Masternachos (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree that forced converts should be omitted from the list, but only if reliable sources confirm that it was forced. Nick Graves (talk) 00:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_converts_to_Christianity/Archive_8&oldid=1072320701"