Terminology of Convert: What's the Right Term?

[Semipro]

My language is not English and i have got some problem in terminology .
In physics , what's the meaning of "convert" ?
Somewhere like Wikipedia claims that mass is not converted to energy since mass and energy can not be destroyed but Elsewhere claims that Energy can be converted into matter
According to above it's necessary to destroying energy to converted it into matter and this is a violate of energy conversation .
Hence , i think "matter can be converted into energy" is a right term since matter can be destroyed but "energy can be converted into matter" is a wrong term and is better to say "energy can be created matter" .
How off am i ?
In an academic view which of these are OK ?

 

[mfb]

Matter is a type of energy. You just transform one type of energy in another type of energy.
Energy is conserved in those processes.

 

[Semipro]

Matter is a type of energy. You just transform one type of energy in another type of energy.
Energy is conserved in those processes.

Also there are some problems in meaning of transform .
We know energy's got some forms like mass , kinetic , Nuclear and so on but matter is not form of energy . "transform" uses for forms of energy
I think is better to say matter can be formed from energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forms_of_energy

 

[mfb]

We know energy's got some forms like mass , kinetic , Nuclear and so on but matter is not form of energy .

Matter has mass, so it is a form of energy.

 

[jtbell]

I would say rather that matter has (a form of) energy, that we call rest energy.