Talk:Deathbed conversion

Suggestion
This article should be summarized in death and religious conversion. As a form of conversion, it could possibly be merged into the latter. I just watched my husband, both of us long time atheists, die on March 4, 2009. He was 41. His death was painful and drawn out. He never spoke of god.Trulynolan (talk) 08:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Christian Orientation== This is all so opinionated and Christian-oriented that it's hard to take seriously. The topic exists, for sure, but someone needs to improve this and stand OUTSIDE of a particular religion to do so.

i love the fact that the 'variety' of reasons to convert are limited to a fear of hell or a want to go to heaven.


 * Deathbed conversions historically are not significant in implications and/or debate as they are in Christianity. This was largely due to the great influence of the Catholic church but the reasons are irrelevent as this orientation makes the most sense given the nature of the topic. Also, the reasons for conversion in general may not be limited to going to heaven or hell, but it typically, those are the reasons. It is also one of the criticisms of deathbed conversions.

159.242.10.215 12:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is "visitations by an angel" included, as if this is something that is objectively known to happen? -69.47.186.226 00:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * PLEASE. A deathbed conversion "suggests one has believed in the religion's tenets for a long time but did not wish to follow its laws" is straight out of the atheist's handbook. The person who put/allows that in the article: "I'LL never have a deathbed conversion because I never believed in a religion's 'tenets' EVER, man." Give me a break....Christian orientation??? This is Wikipedia you're talking about here. I've known 100% hardcore atheists who despised religion, and then wept like little girls at the end of their lives, praying to any god out of sheer desperation.


 * And what the hell does the picture of that monument have to do with deathbed conversions? Wikipedia you've done it again!

POV fork

 * "Unless supported by evidence, these stories are almost invariably false and created to lend credence to one's own religious beliefs"


 * Well, yes, the ones not supported by evidence are often false, but what about the ones that are? Are we supposed to restrict this article to false claims of deathbed conversions? Is there a non-POV-pushing reason for this article? Why shouldn't this material just go into the respective articles for each person? Djcastel 18:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Constantine
It is doubtful that Constantine had a deathbed conversion. While he didn't go as far as later Emperors would (e.g., Theodosius making Christianity the official state religion), he clearly preferred some form of Christianity (though often semi-arianism) throughout his reign. The reason for his being baptized on his deathbed (by a semi-arian) was because that was a common practice in those times, especially for those in, shall we say, professions that required getting your hands dirty. Even in the mid to late 4th century, Christians like Gregory the Theologian (Oration 40) were still pleading with people to get baptized early (Gregory himself, whose father was a bishop, only decided to get baptized after he almost died at sea). If a "deathbed conversion" is about accepting a religion/philosophy when you are about to die, when you had previously rejected that religion/philosophy, then Constantine doesn't really fit the bill.

Jesus
Wouldn't the words "Father, Father why have you forsaken me?" indicate the possibility that Christ himself converted away from Judaism on his deathbed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.240.134.230 (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but this is not what Jesus said. An more correct translation of his famous words "Eli, Eli, lamá sabactâni?" is: "Father, father, why glorifies me so much?". It's the speach of any initiate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.76.238.152 (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Not a good translation.— Kan8eDie (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The Gospels, whether you believe them to be divinely inspired or not, were undeniably written by human beings and are undeniably works of literature. Thus, they have tropes--such as allusion in them. "Eli, Eli, lamá sabactâni?" is the first line of Psalm 22, which thematically parallels Matthew's account of the Crucifixion. It is a literary device, don't read more into it than is really there.

Inconsistencies with Main Voltaire Article
The main article on Voltaire shows that his last words were "For God's sake, please let me die in peace", but this article quotes it as "This is no time to be making new enemies." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.148.38.225 (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's all a bit apocryphal. Well spotted though.

An more correct translation of his famous words "Eli, Eli, lamá sabactâni?" is: "Father, father, why glorifies me so much?". It's the speach of a type of initiate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.76.238.152 (talk) 22:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No. OR at the least.— Kan8eDie (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Disputed Claims
The paragraph describing the "disputed claim" of Sartre's deathbed conversion specifically states that it wasn't a deathbed conversion, and was actually just an expression of interest in the "ethical and metaphysical character of the Jewish religion...". Either this paragraph is biased in it's statement that his position is clear and needs to be rewritten or Sartre should be placed under the "Disproven" header. ThsTorturedSoul (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

As there's been no comment on this for over a year, I'm going to move Sartre, since it doesn't really make sense where it is. Eldamorie (talk) 20:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV removed
I've removed the NPOV template, please use for sections or  for sentences, then detail issues here. This will help address them in a timely manner. On the matter of this being a POV fork, I disagree. If one is so inclined, individual stories can be summarized and redirected to the sections of those people; however, this article is the logical place to link to from deathbed and other articles. - RoyBoy 02:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

WTF?
"He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A. The whole story has no foundation whatever.and was almost centennially made up on wikipidea."

This vandal cannot even spell Wikipedia.69.250.147.209 (talk) 05:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)stealstrash

Ridiculously long footnotes
Can someone shorten the ridiculously long footnotes? We typically don't put the whole text we are citing in the footnote itself. TIA - 69.157.244.158 (talk) 06:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Gramsci
Gramsci must be removed. This an insult to his memory, to his family and to the man himself. This conversion to Catholicism is an unsubstantiated claim by one Catholic Archbishop. Even the referenced article cited on the page says...


 * "Several historians who specialize in Gramsci's legacy, however, cast doubt on de Magistris' account. They argue that there’s no mention of any such conversion either in private letters written by Gramsci’s family members chronicling his last days, which have only recently been published, or in regular police reports about Gramsci prepared for Mussolini’s fascist regime." "there’s been no independent confirmation." "Angelo D’Orsi, a historian and a member of the Gramsci Foundation, said that “we don’t have any trace, or any indication, of a conversion by Gramsci.”" (Garageland66 (talk) 09:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC))


 * I do not see a problem with how it was worded before you made the change. Bearing in mind that the seciton is titled "Suggested deathbed conversions", the previous version provided the reader with a suggested conversion, and a response that called it into question. The original article detailing the Archbishop's claim mentioned it being "confirmed"; he obviously was not there, but he must have a reason for making the claim.
 * The version of the text you have currently inserted jumps straight into a passionate rebuttal of an "unsubstantiated claim" without giving any clue about who made it or what the claim even is. For that reason alone, the current version is of almost no use to the reader. The final three paragraphs of the article cited above contain reasoning by another party about why the claim could be accepted. (I'm not saying it must be accepted; just that it is a response to the rebuttal)
 * I have no objection to including quotes to expand the rebuttal, but without giving the reader any inclination about what is being rebutted, the entire section becomes pointless. For that reason, I am reverting to the version which includes what the claim is and who made it; from there, we can work on expanding the rebuttal suitably. I believe this is the proper way to approach it per WP:BRD. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 10:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "he must have a reason for making the claim". Yes his reason was to discredit a respected Italian who had opposed the Catholic church throughout his life. But he's no longer alive and unable to defend himself. It's disgraceful that such a smear is even on a Wikipedia page. I've moved it. But it should be removed altogether. (Garageland66 (talk) 11:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC))


 * , you have made more changes to the section which still does not mention who the archbishop is and his position in the church, you have now also removed the wikilink to Gramsci making it harder for the reader to find out who he is. I don't wish to sound condescending, but did you read WP:BRD. You are obviously passionate about this subject, but you can't be making significant changes unilaterally while the matter is under discussion. You have said your piece, and I have said mine. We need more opinions here. In the meantime, I think maintaining the status quo of the article so that any other participants here can at least see the full details of the story. So I am going to revert again. I'd also like to draw your attention to WP:3RR. I don't want to get into an argument about this. If we look for more sources I am sure we can expand the story properly, so there is no need to rush. There's bound to be more information in Italian, so other opinions will be very valuable. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * can I try and get a compromise. Keep the name of the archbishop (but no need for a description as there's the hyperlink) keep the name of Gramsci with hyperlink. But put this one under the heading Spurious deathbed conversions (I still think this should say 'unsubstantiated') this is, after all, only the claim of one individual. That hardly merits inclusion on a Wikipedia page and it is still insulting to Gramsci and his family who totally reject the claim. Any chance of a compromise? At least until others join the discussion? (Garageland66 (talk) 09:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC))

Assessment comment
Substituted at 13:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Deathbed conversion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706190407/http://nelsonking.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=79&Itemid=37 to http://nelsonking.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=79&Itemid=37

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)