Jump to content

Talk:Forced conversion

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kleuske (talk | contribs) at 10:08, 9 September 2023 (Unreliable sources and opinionpieces: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Forced conversion to Islam

In the section on Africa, why no mention of Boko Haram, of the Chibok schoolgirl kidnappings and subsequent forced conversion of some if not all of the kidnapped girls, as well as instances of forced conversions of other people in the African subcontinent? Kathy wiki edit (talk) 02:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity

There is apparently a misunderstanding around an article which is being sourced here from the NYT entitled "Pope Concedes Unjustifiable Crimes in Converting South Americans". :https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/world/americas/24pope.html The title of this article is absolutely fictional, since nowhere in the article did Pope Benedict make ANY such assertion. The quote in the article is that it is “not possible to forget the suffering and the injustices inflicted by colonizers against the indigenous population, whose fundamental human rights were often trampled.” Nothing about Forced conversions. If someone has ANY materials where the Pope stated there were "forced conversions" or coercion or anything to that effect, then this source would be legitimate. As it stands, it is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:C401:6AC0:6956:5E18:D284:5F8B (talk) 06:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, glad to see you using the talk pages. I am following the protocol of wikipedia which is found here WP:BRD. I reverted your edits because in wikipedia you need to have sources for the claims. The source on the Americas is from the pope's concession of unjustifiable crimes in conversion of native people in line with other claims by other historians. It states "These leaders and groups cited the standard historical view that Spanish and Portuguese colonizers forced conversion by giving natives a choice between “the Cross and the sword.”" That source was relevant and the removal was not justified.
For the second source, I read the source and did not see the authors explicitly claiming that some forced conversion occurred. Can you provide a quote from the source that indicates so?Ramos1990 (talk) 07:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to use that source, then quote it appropriately, since the Pope NEVER mentioned forced conversions. You can us it to say "some South American Leaders stated..." etc. The Pope referred to "colonizers", which were the secular authorities. If you are going to say "According to Pope Benedict" then you have to quote him correctly. That is if you have a conscience...and apparently you do not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:C401:6AC0:6956:5E18:D284:5F8B (talk) 08:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The pope was apologizing broadly and recognized injustices including forced conversions by supposed Christians - which is what the piece addressed. The Pope has no reason to apologize for secular Spanish activity - only religious activity. Catholicism is not Spain or the Spanish so he was clearly apologizing for forced abuses of natives. BTW I removed your vandalism on my talk page as such racist nonsense does not belong on wikipedia (I am not Mexican by the way (no seas payaso/payasa) so I am immune to your anti-Mexican hatred - they are nice people though).

ADDED A BUDDHIST SECTION

ADDED THE ROHINGYA GENOCIDE

Bias

Please take a look at the lead for the Christian forced conversions and compare that to the one in Islam. The Islamic lead is practically a defense of the practice and an overemphasis on scholars who apparently claim that forced conversions weren't common. That is dubious and the lead needs to be reformatted or edited to clear it of blatant bias. 2600:4040:9012:1100:AD3F:6304:D37C:FCBB (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources and opinionpieces

@Iskandar323:

One is an article by 'moderndiplomacy.eu'. You fail to who how this is an unreliable source (which you claim). I have checked and It's not listed as such. The unreliablebility, hence, is an opnion. Poorly explained.

The other an opinion piece by a respected academic in the field, not some pundit with an opinion. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/china-islam-mental-illness-cured-181127135358356.html

Simply stating "opinion piece" and "unreliable" and leaving it at that qualifies as "poorly explained. Kleuske (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]