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 2.55.19.137 (talk) at 12:48, 13 February 2024 (Recent POV edit). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 opinion pieces

@Iskandar323:

One is an article by 'moderndiplomacy.eu'. You fail to show 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]

Modern diplomacy has been discussed a few times at WP:RSN, and the discussion has never ruled in its favour as far as I can tell. Of the key points noted is that it is not a news source, and does not claim to be one, but is an advocacy platform that publishes opinions, often fairly dubious ones. So that leaves us with opinion pieces from two authors, neither of whom are obviously by subject matter experts either generally, by any specific metric, or specifically with respect to this subject - not that I can see. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent POV edit

user 220.255.242.109 added new content that lack neutrality, with strong POV language, some examples of his POV new content:

Indian-origin religions, such as Hinduism,[40] Buddhism,[41] Jainism[42] and Sikhism.[43] In this aspect, Indian religions are very different from the foreign-origin proselytising religions, specially Islam and Christianity which have core tenents (like Dawah and Christian missions)[44] requiring followers to persecute[45] and actively convert[46][47][48][49] others including with the use of violent jihad,[50][51][52][53][54][55] Islamic invasions, Christian colonisations,[56][57][58] and inquisitions to earn spiritual merit. Both Islam and Christianity have very long history of violent forced conversions[59][60] and genocide[61] of people belonging to the Indian-origin religions. In some regions, almost all of a colony's population was forcibly turned away from its traditional belief systems and forcibly turned towards the Christian faith, which colonizers used as a justification for their extermination of adherents of other faiths, their enslavement of natives, and their exploitation of lands and seas.[61][62][63][64][65]

Considering Christianity and Islam as foreign religions in India, is a Hindu nationalist claim. The history of Christianity in India goes back to the early times of Christianity, and the history of Islam in India goes back 1,400 years. Considering them foreign religions is is a Hindu nationalist claim. Also the claims that both Islam and Christianity have core tenents to requiring followers to persecute and comitt genocide is POV. 2.55.19.137 (talk) 12:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]