Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Mormon sacred texts


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   Keep In the context of WP:SS there are probably some legitimate concerns related to this article and the current hierarchy of articles related to LDS. On the other hand, an evaluation of this article on its individual merits clearly supports a KEEP on the the basis of WP:GNG and WP:V. My recommendation is that members of the LDS Project and other relevant projects develop some consensus on the best approach to covering all aspects of LDS (pro and con) in a logical way.--Mike Cline (talk) 01:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Mormon sacred texts

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article strikes me as being uneeded in regards to criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement here on wikipedia. Despite being a page using cited context, everything discussed on this page in regards to criticism of the Book of Mormon is already found in these articles; Criticism of the Book of Mormon, Origin of the Book of Mormon, Archaeology and the Book of Mormon, Linguistics and the Book of Mormon, we must consider that there are too many critical pages on this topic as it is. The content in this page also seems to have been merely cut+pasted from the pages I have listed and not wrote in an original style. Hence there is nothing on this page about the Book of Mormon, which cant already be found in greater detail on the following pages to which I have listed. Once you take out the Book of Mormon content which is already repeated, you are left with a tiny bit about the Doctrine & Convenants which is thin in detail and simply relies on the Book of Mormon criticism to be valid. The book of Abraham criticism is well documented and in a high quality detail in the Book of Abraham article, and also again, the "critical" content has been cut and pasted from the parent page. The article then goes into an almost irrelevant explaination of the KJV version of the bible being used by the church and the LDS views on the KJV version. So really to summarise, is this article really worthful? Considering its content has been simply cut and pasted from parent articles already covering the subject, and has no new critical content or purpose to contribute? Routerone (talk) 16:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article is best understood in the context of the Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement article.  That article is a WP:Summary Style article and has a key section Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement, which is a summary of the article under discussion: Criticism of Mormon sacred texts (and has a "main" link to it).  There is a very natural hierarchy here:
 * Latter-day Saint Movement
 * Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement
 * Criticism of Mormon sacred texts
 * Criticism of the Book of Mormon
 * Origin of the Book of Mormon, Archaeology and the Book of Mormon, etc
 * This hierarchy of articles is natural, and helpful to readers.   Eliminating this article would cut-out a critical level of that hierarchy. and presumably its content would get pushed up into the Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement article - but that action would make that article very unwieldy.   A key fact is that there are several major religious text in the LDS movement, in addition to the Book of Mormon (such as the Pearl of Great Price, Book of Abraham, Doctrine and Covenants, etc).   I do agree that Criticism of Mormon sacred texts is rather poorly written, and duplicates too much text.  But the remedy for that is to clean it up, not delete it. --Noleander (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I should point out that before this article existed, its content was in Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement article - and a year or two ago there was a big push to clean up  that article because it was large and ugly.  As part of that clean-up effort, one of the decisions was to take all the content about the religious texts and put it into its own article.  That was done, and thus Criticism of Mormon sacred texts was created.  That did indeed make the  Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement article cleaner and nicer.  Deleting this article now would just push the content back into  Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement and we would just be flip-flopping.  --Noleander (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  —meco (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not find the concept of keeping an article for the sake of preserving a hierarchy/pattern a very sufficient argument. We should be evaluating the article on the basis of its own content and not using other pages to support it, this is about quality not a mere quantity. However I would like to remind you that because the content is already a cut/paste from an already excessive and unnecessary amount of critical articles it is not going to make the slightest difference if it is missed. We can avoid "squahing" content together by simply providing links on the main Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement article to each page critical of the texts, rather than have a bulk duplicate such as this which seems to be existing for the purposes of presentation over information, which to me represents just another cheap excuse for a dig at Mormonism. It firmly serves no useful purpose attributed to the core concepts of this encyclopedia. Routerone (talk) 07:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Routerone: please do not misrepresent what I said.  I did not say "keeping an article for the sake of preserving a hierarchy/pattern".  Instead I said the hierarchy was "useful to readers".  There are two problems with deleting the article and putting its content back into Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement (where it used to be a year ago):  (1) A couple of the sacred texts do not have dedicated articles on the criticisms (Book of Abr and D&C);  (2) If this content were put into Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement that article would be very imbalanced (e.g. the size of the textual crit section would dwarf the "Criticism of Joseph Smith Jr." section).  In the spirit of compromise: what if you create a draft copy of the Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement article (for example, you can just create a sub-page under this page Articles for deletion/Criticism of Mormon sacred texts/draft ) - and you could edit that copy of Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement and show roughly how would look if this Deletion proposal was carried out. If your proposed version looks good for readers, I would be happy to change my !vote.  --Noleander (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous! Have you read the Book of Abraham article?  It is more of a criticism page than NPOV.  Searching for "Criticism of the Book of Abraham" leads to the BoA article (which I find ironic).  You have admitted that there is a lot of duplication in this article- which is another reason this article should be deleted.  EVERY single criticism in this article can be traced to another article!!  Forget about hierarchy, and focus on specifics.  Why should this page stand on its own?   -- CABEGOD  01:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete Repetition adnauseam benefits no one and LDS topics do seem to particularly repetitive. If there is anything novel in the article, then keep it and change the title to fit the new topic, i.e. Criticism of the Doctrine and Covenants. A hierarchy for hierarchy's sake is meaningless unless the progression results in a cumulative addition of new information. Simply repeating what already exists elsewhere is aggrandizement. -- Storm  Rider  18:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The nomination seems to have come about because the nominator doesn't like the article. That is not relevant. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 23:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Every single Mormon sacred text has it's own article with criticisms. This article is overkill and meets the qualifications to be deleted.  --Suplemental (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Regent of the Seatopians and Noleander's arguments. --Europe22 (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete In the List_of_policies_and_guidelines_to_cite_in_deletion_debates, this article violates the following policies:
 * #1Case Study: In several cases assumptions are made with no sources associated with them.
 * #2Internal Links: The article contains two links which have nothing to do with the specific article.
 * #3Opinions: The Book of Moses section (for example) does not have citations - which means one can only assume it is the opinion of the editor.
 * #4Soapbox: Read the entire article and you tell me this isn't a soapbox. Where's the balance?
 * #5This article violates the duplicate rationale.
 * #6This article violates the overlap rationale.
 * -- CABEGOD 00:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, all the points you raised, even if true, can be solved by a simple edition, not deletion. You misrepresent some of the policies you cite: for example, WP:LINKFARM says "Exclusive collections of internal links, except for allowable lists and disambiguation pages" but this becomes "the article contains two links which have nothing to do with the specific article" when you refers to. It is not the same thing! It smells like a strong WP:IDONTLIKE... -- Europe22 (talk) 08:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of the points I raised can be resolved by a simple edit, but not "all" as you have stated. Regardless, ALL of the points I made are within List_of_policies_and_guidelines_to_cite_in_deletion_debates, which means I can use them as arguments for deletion.  Secondly, every argument in this article (i.e. Origin, Book of Abraham, KJV, etc) has its own article.  This article doesn't need to be here.  Lastly, your sense of smell must be off.  Please don't accuse me of bias.  It's not appropriate, nor does it do you any good.  -- CABEGOD  22:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you refer to WP policies, but this is not the proof of their validity here, mostly if you actually misused them. I'm sorry, but the fact that you listed rules of WP while distorting them indicates your clear will to see this page deleted, although you fail to provide good reasons. So I think this falls under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And your second point is contradicted by Noleander's argument. Regards, -- Europe22 (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How have I distorted the rules of WP? Until you can provide clear specifics on why you believe this article should stand on its own two feet, your opinion does not hold water.  Have a pleasant evening, -- CABEGOD  01:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * :#1Case Study: In several cases assumptions are made with no sources associated with them => WP:NOTCASE : this page is not an instruction manual, nor a travel guide, an Internet guide, a textbook and annotated text, a scientific journal and research paper, or a case studie ("Many topics are based on the relationship of factor X to factor Y, resulting in one or more full articles. For example, this could refer to situation X in location Y, or version X of item Y. This is perfectly acceptable when the two variables put together represent some culturally significant phenomenon or some otherwise notable interest."). In addition, you can't say the article is a cade study and in the meantime, asserting that "every argument in this article (i.e. Origin, Book of Abraham, KJV, etc) has its own article". It is contradictory or it means that these article also fall under "case study". => Irrelevant
 * : #2Internal Links: The article contains two links which have nothing to do with the specific article => WP:LINKFARM : Irrelevant, I already responded
 * : #3Opinions: The Book of Moses section (for example) does not have citations - which means one can only assume it is the opinion of the editor => WP:NOTOPINION : this article does not fall under advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment, opinion pieces, scandal mongering, self-promotion or advertising. If some sentences are unsourced, you can add ref, but it is not a ground for deletion, as the full article is not an OR => Irrelevant
 * : #4Soapbox: Read the entire article and you tell me this isn't a soapbox. Where's the balance? => WP:SOAPBOX : same page. In addition, the article contains views from LDS apologetics. Even if it is not enough, a POV issue can be solved by editing => Irrelevant
 * : #5This article violates the duplicate rationale => I found nothing on the page...
 * : #6This article violates the overlap rationale => WP:OC : this argument is for "categories" => Irrelevant


 * : Do not reverse the "burden of proof". It is you who must prove why this article should be deleted, and your arguments are based on a misinterpretation of WP policies as I just demonstrated. For my part, I think this article should be kept as it passes WP:N and it is a WP:Summary Style. Regards, -- Europe22 (talk) 09:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You have missed some key points. Let me explain:


 * 1)“Articles examining the relationship between factor A and factor B when not found in any sources.” One example of this is in the 2nd paragraph of the Origin section.  Where are the sources??  Without sources, it is practically the definition of a case study.
 * 2) Links – How does having a link to Jacob Weisberg, and a link to StayLDS have anything to do with the specifics in the article?
 * 3) I can use anything within the guidelines as a cause for deletion. Further, without sourcing – the article reeks of opinion.    Read the Book of Moses section.
 * 4) As far as the SOAPBOX issue is concerned: A quick read of the entire article will indicate a POV.  Yes, you’re right in saying this can be fixed with an edit – but it can still be used as a cause for deletion.
 * 5) I didn’t explain this one as well as I could have. I believe you should check out Content Forking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CFORK#Redundant_content_forks
 * 6) Overlap – “ There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.”
 * - -- CABEGOD 03:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The article serves as a useful summary for the topic for those who do not have the time to read twelve other pages to learn about the subject. Heywood J2 (talk) 04:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete All of the content in this article can be found elsewhere. It needs to go.  --71.199.50.34 (talk) 04:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, but the whole hierarchy needs to be reviewed. I don't mean to cast aspersions but have you guys looked at this so called hierarchy? It's a shambles and it serves no purpose at all. Noleander says this is the summary article for Criticism of the Book of Mormon, have you looked at that article? It's empty! If anything Criticism of the Book of Mormon should be deleted. as an article it's useless. This whole series needs to be rewritten to follow this supposed hierarchy and to deal with the repetitive nature of the criticisms. To be honest, the current article under discussion does a moderately OK job of covering the salient points of each text. If we're looking to get rid of extraneous articles then get rid of the Criticism of the Book of Mormon article. Oh, and Noleander? If you take a good look at the articles in question you'll see the hierarchy actually goes like this:
 * Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement
 * Criticism of Mormon sacred texts
 * Origin of the Book of Mormon
 * Criticism of the Book of Mormon
 * Origin of the Book of Mormon
 * Criticism of Mormon sacred texts
 * Origin of the Book of Mormon
 * Criticism of the Book of Mormon
 * Origin of the Book of Mormon
 * ad infinitum...

Not really that useful when you come right down to it. The whole hierarchy needs to be reviewed and dealt with accordingly. If there is a hierarchy then it needs to be relevant and obvious... and it needs to exist, not just mask the promulgation of more "Criticism of..." articles. Padillah (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Padillah: I believe you are mistaken.  How did you build that hierarchy you show above?  The Origin of the Book of Mormon article has no mention whatsoever of Criticism of the Book of Mormon or Origin of the Book of Mormon articles. --Noleander (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you'll have to forgive me for confusing the Origin of the Book of Mormon with Criticism of the Book of Mormon. The contents of those articles are kind of hard to tell apart. The correct hierarchy should be ...

Criticism of Mormon sacred texts
 * Origin of the Book of Mormon
 * Criticism of the Book of Mormon (almost empty)
 * Origin of the Book of Mormon (== Criticism of the Book of Mormon. Face it, it does.)
 * Book of Mormon
 * Criticism of the Book of Mormon
 * Origin of the Book of Mormon
 * Book of Mormon
 * Criticism of the Book of Mormon
 * etc.
 * Hope that helps. In any case, a quick glance will tell the most unobservant that the hierarchy you proposed, while a perfectly acceptable hierarchy, is not, in point of fact, what exists today. The Latter-day Saint Movement does not branch down anywhere in the article, nor does it make mention of the Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement article. There's also a question in my mind as to why a criticism article should lead to an informative article? Shouldn't the Origin of the Book of Mormon, Archaeology and the Book of Mormon lead to the Criticism, not the other way round? Meanwhile the Origin of the Book of Mormon article reads from the very beginning as a POV attack on the original claim of the Prophet. The entire list of articles you mentioned are disgraceful and need to be re-written in the worst way. It is really difficult seeing articles in this state and wonder why editors are wasting there time picking on AfD's like this when they need to be making meaningful changes to the entire series of articles to bring them in line with the collegial tone we are trying to set here in WP. Padillah (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears, from your confusion, that you are new to this set of articles. For instance, you are wrong when you say "The Latter-day Saint Movement does not ...  make mention of the Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement article."  Perhaps you are unaware that Criticism of Mormonism is a redirect to Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement?  After you review the articles a bit more, perhaps you could contribute some constructive ideas for  improvement.  Also, you may want to review the WP:Summary Style guideline, which is employed in the Criticism of the Book of Mormon article. --Noleander (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep has reliable sources and is a notable topic worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Also very similar to Criticism of the Bible. Many of the users here advocating deletion are obviously non-neutral as they ackowledge being affiliated with the LDS movement (which can be implied from their user pages' userboxes) Maashatra11 (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Religious affiliation equals an inability to be neutral? Do you have any references to support that position or is your own bias being demonstrated? I suggest you never repeat such a statement again. Does you affiliation with groups deny you the right to assume neutrality or should you always be excluded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storm Rider (talk • contribs) 00:37, 29 June 2010


 * Weak Delete The information in the article seems to be expressed in other articles critical of Mormonism. The article could be salvaged if it was entirely redone and devoted to a specific criticism.  Hierarchy, I believe, is meaningless.  --Atheisty (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC) — Atheisty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Only five edits, and already a vote by "Atheisty"... And just after Maashatra11's comment ("Many of the users here advocating deletion are obviously non-neutral as they ackowledge being affiliated with the LDS movement"). Curious... --Europe22 (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol. Good timing, Atheisty :) Europe22, Is there a policy describing which users are allowed to vote? Maashatra11 (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I haven't read the other hierarchy of articles so I'm unsure if a merge would be appropriate, but looking at this article alone it is well-sourced and passes WP:GNG. Removing duplicated criticisms shouldn't require deletion as details should simply be moved out of the summary articles and into the more detailed ones, down the hierarchy. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

◦At the bottom:
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Just checking in because someone else asked me to. For what it's worth I see the following considerations.

1. The article on Joseph Smith already contains a plethora of criticism to make the article 'balance.' Therefore a second page showing criticism of him is unfair unless there is a page somewhere which reflects the Mormon perspective or respect for Joseph Smith. I know, this discussion is not about Joseph Smith, but the same principle applies universally. In essence if an article which is balanced already exists (i.e. an article on the Book of Mormon) it is assumed that it will be framed by both criticisms and respect for the context of those who believe the text. Thus a criticism is redundant especially if there already exists links to criticism or further reading including criticism of the subject.

2. Including criticisms of a religious text (no need to call it sacred as that seems to be redundant) are fair form but I do not see the function of criticism of any religion, unless of course there is balance by allowing for a positive presentation or beliefs section of a faith group. In fact, here in Canada that might stray dangerously close to our hate speech language. I would qualify this by assuming that the religious intent of any text is treated respectfully somewhere, otherwise Wikipedia entertains unfair bias.

Also, consider this model. In my discussions on Smith I am not at all averse to the existence of criticism concerning him, I would ideally see a bare-bones neutral profile which would then link to both a critical and a contextual page so that those looking for either might find what they are looking for. Yeah, I'm not exactly sure what that would look like yet but if they'd let me at it I'd have a go. See having an article on Joseph Smith which allows criticism and shuns what Mormon critics call "Proselyting" and then also having an article dedicated to criticisms of Joseph Smith as well is not balanced in any way.

In short:

1. A criticism should not exist if there exists a previously neutral (i.e. respectful and fairly critical) article. 2. Criticism of texts (if not previously addressed) is fair game but dedicated criticism of a religious, ethnic, or cultural movement is not.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 04:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy