Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Mormonism


 * 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. --Yannismarou 20:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Mormonism

 * - (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete I am a home-grown Mormon and I just think that this article downright stirrs up trouble. If you want to know about a cow, do you ask a cow, or do you ask a duck? If you want to know about Mormons, are you going to ask a Mormon, or are you going to ask a scientist who doesn't believe in any religion at all? Look, if people want to know about Mormons, they should ask Mormons. Please delete this article, as I and many others believe that this just causes unnecessary trouble.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.225.56.155 (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC). — 69.225.56.155 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete I believe that this article violates several Wikipedia policies and should be deleted. This article violates POV forking, NPOV, Reliable Sources, and Neutrality. I do not believe that this article can be consistent with Wikipedia's policy that that articles that cannot conform to Verifiability, No Original Research and Neutral Point of View as the article was created as a criticism of Mormonism. The issues addressed here would best be discussed in other articles where editor consensus can be reached and POV be limited or otherwise eliminated. I also believe that Administrators should delete articles that cannot (and definately will not) conform to all three of these policies which this article does not.Edward Lalone | (Talk) 22:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis of precedent. (See Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Judaism, Criticism of Islam, etc.). If you do not believe it meets WP:NPOV work to clean it up and make the article NPOV; it should not simply be deleted. Soltak | Talk 23:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My assertion isn't that it does not meet WP:NPOV but that it cannot meet that standard. It would be like me creating an article Criticism of George W. Bush as a POV fork on George W. Bush where I can control the content of the article and make it conform to a POV about him. Also the articles on Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Judaism and Criticism of Islam are best dealt with in other articles as well and these articles are also POV forking. They have as much place on Wikipedia as an article titled Praises of Mormonism, Praises of Christianity and Praises of Judaism created in place of the articles about these religions in an effort to avoid having to build consensus on an article about these religions and that is exactly what these articles seek to do. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 23:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * These criticism of X articles have survived AFD, so there is no class precedent. They are not forks, they are subarticles. Of course it's possible for it to meet NPOV, and it should. To the extent it does not, it needs to be tagged or worked out in Talk. Keep. And to be clear, keep all. --Dhartung | Talk 00:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep because AfD is not the forum to discuss merging topics. See similarly Articles for deletion/Criticism of George W. Bush. This page is especially needed, as are the criticisms pages that represent more than one religious group (like Christianity). Basically, there is no single article for this to be merged into. Criticisms span the whole Latter Day Saint movement. It's moreover not a fork. The page does not purport to tell the history of Mormonism from an anti-Mormon perspective. It discusses some history in relation to criticisms because that's the topic of this article. Cool Hand Luke 00:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not discussing merging the articles. I am nominating the article for deletion and suggesting that all such articles that are created by editors who advocate keeping these articles be deleted as well. Nor is the talk page of the article the appropriate place for this discussion as it's not a discussion of whether the article is NPOV but whether such POV articles should exist in the first place. Nor has community consensus ever been reached on this topic but those of us who disagree with those who have responded so far in favor of keeping the articles are driven to leave Wikipedia. Everytime we try to challenge those who advance POV and POV forks we tend to be left with two choices. Be civil and leave or be civil and let these POV advocates prevail and move on to other articles but that is also inappropriate. It's time that Wikipedia drew the line and made it clear the POV will not be tolerated. I also see that from the other articles that have been nominated of this kind that this point has been made by other editors but those who disagree with this point tend to prevail because those of us who disagree with them tend to be civil (even pass to the point of saying, "please don't jump all over me." Edward Lalone | (Talk) 00:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Consensus has indeed be reached on the issue. You only argue that it has not because you disagree with the result. The numerous Criticism of X articles would not exist if such a consensus had not be reached. Your proposal to delete all of these articles is unreasonable. Nonetheless, the result of this afd should determine consensus on the issue. In addition, disagreeing with someone and pointing out the absurdity of their arguments does not constitute a violation of WP:CIVIL. Soltak | Talk 00:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Further note that precedent does not exist only in the form of other Criticism of X articles but also due to the following: Sections of articles are permitted to be spun off into their own articles if they grow too long. Many articles have "Criticisms" sections. Do you propose eliminating all of those as well? Soltak | Talk 00:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What is absurd is your argument Soltak and not only will I not back down from you and the other editors here who agree with your POV but I don't recognize that a consensus has been reached by anyone but those who agree with you. Those of us who don't are left standing waving our fists in the air as you decree that a consensus has been reached by you and other editors who agree with you but those of us who do not have not reached a consensus with those of you who accept your POV Nor will I leave Wikipedia as others have done in the past because of this kind of conduct on the part of editors. What is also unreasonable is that these articles are permitted and aren't deleted and your suggestion that this is unreasonable to delete them is itself unreasonable. What this afd will determine is that you and those who agree with you will prevail and those who don't can find that consensus is nothing more than editors such as Soltak and Cool Hand agreeing to ignore any real consensus with those of us who would like to see a more moderate Wikipedia policy on this issue. I also don't propose eliminating Criticism sections as those are part of the main article on a subject and are not POV forking. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 00:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Very well, then how about folding Criticism of Mormonism back into the main article? Soltak | Talk 00:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no reason to discuss whether there should be sections on the Criticisms of Mormonism in individual articles about Mormonism. That is outside of the scope of this discussion and would require far to much discussion to reach any conclusion that is agreeable to everyone. This is why we need to focus on whether such articles should exist. We aren't really discussing whether there should be criticism sections in individual articles or criticisms included in the text of articles because that can be dealt with on a NPOV basis as opposed to entire articles existing of a POV nature. So, putting aside whether this information should be included in other articles it comes down to whether this article and others like it should be deleted. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 00:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think your instincts are good, however, we're far from consensus on this issue. See Criticism. And again, I think criticisms of broad movements have even stronger justification for their own article than say, Criticism of George W. Bush. With a broad category like Mormonism, or especially Christianity, there's no way to merge relevent NPOV content into a single article. All of the articles would have criticism sections passages, and they would be massively redundant. As I see it, criticism articles are the only way to prevent forking for broad topics. Until we do reach consensus on this issue, take comfort that Mormonism is not alone. Cool Hand Luke
 * I believe that my position is correct and that such articles are inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Criticism of a topic should not be permissible (i.e., "Separate articles consisting entirely of criticism of a topic are not allowed"). It is further stated by others that "creating separate articles with the sole purpose of grouping the criticisms or to elaborate individual points of criticism on a certain topic would usually be considered a POV fork, per POV forking." I believe that this position is correct and that there is no reason that consensus on the length and content of a criticism section of an article cannot be reached by the editors of that topic and that attempts to create articles dedicated specifically to criticism of a topic are inappropriate and are best addressed in that article. We need to draw the line somewhere and I believe it is at POV forking. Also, some redundancy in articles is not a negative but a positive as people may not be able to read multiple articles on the same topic. If there is redundancy in articles than it is up to editors to reach a consensus on what is included and what is excluded from a specific article and to work within a Wikipedia Project to eliminate redundancy where bad while promoting redundancy that is positive and assists people in research. I believe that consensus on what constitutes a POV fork has been reached and that at some point it need to be adhered to when it comes to Neutrality. It brings me no comfort that Criticism of Mormonism is not alone but instead brings me even less comfort as my issue isn't specifically with the Criticism of Mormonism article as it is with these articles not being deleted when they are a violation of Wikipedia policy. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 01:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, you have a lot of good points. AfD is of two minds about this. Consider some debates over the last six months: CAIR critique needs to be broken off, but the patroleum industries criticisms were poorly written and need to be put back in. It's ok to criticize Hinduism, but forget unsourced Ghandhi. Criticism of The Subways is a fork, but Wikipedia is too damn long to squeeze in criticisms. World of Warcraft has referenced criticisms, while Marketing was an original research fork. Even poorly cited, we apparently need criticism of Judaism, but criticism on math education in the US is nonsense. We like criticizing corporations. The general trend seem to favor keeping this articles if (1) the subject article is already very long, and (2) the criticisms article is well-referenced. Cool Hand Luke 02:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. As long as the criticism can be verified and is itself notable, then a criticism section is warranted. If the article becomes too long, a subarticle about the criticism is warranted. In this case, the criticism article is well-written and contains enough references to be valid. -- Kesh 02:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The exact opposite is warranted. If the article becomes to long than there are two options 1) create an article for another section (i.e., history) of the topic, or 2) edit the content of the section and arrive at a consensus of what should and should not be included in the criticism section. Creating another article through POV forking is not acceptable and should not occur. Also, simply because a criticism can be verified does not mean that it deserves an article of its own. Wikipedia has sought to maintain a neutrality policy and these articles violate that neutrality and only brings ridicule of and criticism of Wikipedia. No professional encylopedia would have articles dealing specifically with the criticisms of a topic and for good reasons. These are best addressed as part of the article and if they are notable enough than they should be included in the text of the topic's article. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 03:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the premise that an article on a topic is long that articles should be created dealing specifically with criticisms of the topic. It makes just as much sense to create articles dealing with other areas of the topic as it does to create a article about the criticisms of the topic. If a new article needs to be created for length reasons than it should be from another section of the article with a Main Article reference and not with the criticisms of the topic as this only promote POV forking. I also do not agree that if the criticism article is well-written and contains references that the article becomes valid. POV articles do not become valid simply because someone is a good writer or is able to find sources that concur with their POV. It simply does not make sense to do so. POV forking is in my min inappropriate and is done to avoid consensus building. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 03:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Cool Hand Luke above. Well-written article with enough verifiable information to back it up. -- Kesh 02:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Those are not a good enough reasons to allow for the creation of POV articles through POV forking. It makes little to no sense to allow for the creation of such articles or to promote them. I can create a well-written article on just about any topic and include verifiable information to back up that POV but that does not warrant the creation of a new article dealing specifically with criticisms of a topic. Traditional encyclopdias do not have articles on criticisms and we should attempt to keep to that tradition of not creating articles dealing just with the criticisms of a topic. There are certain sections which can be expanded through the creation of sub-articles and it is urged that we do so but on the contrary it is against Wikipedia policy to be involved in POV forking. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 03:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you have it backwards. Wikipedia strives to maintian a neutral point of view. If there is significant, notable criticism of a topic, it deserves mention in a neutral manner here. If that criticism becomes too large to keep in the main article, creating a seperate article with it is valid. Claiming that criticism itself is POV is counter-intuitive. A POV-fork is when you create a seperate article specifically to promote a single view of the subject; these are not POV-forks, they are neutral sub-articles that happen to be focused on the criticism of their subjects.
 * Also, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There's going to be differences in how things work. You're free to disagree, but you're on the wrong side of this one per WP policies. -- Kesh 03:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You are free to disagree and so are other editors but you and them are on the wrong side of Wikipedia policy on this issue and your interpretations of those policies are wrong. These sort of articles are POV forking and they have been rejected and should be rejected. In fact, this issue comes down to what is acceptable and what is not on Wikipedia. If editors are allowed to control Wikipedia policies and to interpret them so that articles can violate NPOV it will self-destruct. The proliferation of these kinds of articles will ultimately lead to people not trusting Wikipedia as a reliable source. There are differences between how Wikipedia works and how paper encylopedia's work but it shouldn't be a difference between professionalism and POV amatuerism which these articles are. Any respected encylopedia would not include such articles in their editions because they would lose customers, and people would begin to see them as nothing but the proliferation of viewpoints. Wikipedia is not a blog, it is not a forum, it is not a newspaper, it is not an all-inclusive source of information available online or offline but it is an encylopedia and while it is not a paper encyclopedia similar standards do apply here. It is always best for Wikipedia to err on the side of caution when it comes to POV. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 03:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you've misunderstood Wikipedia's policies entirely. However, I've explained my position per policies already and will not be sidetracked at this point. I admire your zeal, but feel it is misplaced, and will no longer participate in your need to expound on your POV about how Wikipedia should operate. -- Kesh 03:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think I have misunderstood Wikipedia's policy. But apparently the discussion is finished on your part as you will not be sidetracked by my desire to discuss what I believe is your inaccurate interpretation of Wikipedia policy and you won't participate anymore as you don't want to be sidetracked by my need to expound my POV. I also don't need to be told that you are right and that consensus is essentially: "I am right and you are wrong and that's that." According to Wikipedia: "In disputes, the term consensus is often used as if it means anything from genuine consensus to majority rule to my position." Your POV may not be correct at all and that is what we are here to discuss.


 * I also don't appreciate your tone, or your attitude. That I have a sincere difference of opinion and am seeking to reach a consensus on this issue while you think that you are right and therefore can dismiss everyone elses viewpoint based on your POV about how Wikipedia policy should be interpreted only goes to show why this kind of article remains on Wikipedia. The currnet consensus on Wikipedia about POV forks isn't fixed and can be changed. So, I say: Your POV about my understanding of Wikipedia is irrelevent to this discussion as I feel the same way about your understanding of Wikipedia policy. Yet, if you have something to add to this discussion in an effort to reach a consensus feel free to do so but don't think that I am going to accept your opinions as consensus when I disagree with them and with your interpretation. If you are rude enough to dismiss me that is your choice but I don't have to deal with your attitude nor I will not be sidetracked by your rudeness. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 04:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The article needs work, but is a notable topic, not a POV Fork. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 03:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, according to what I have read the creation of an article on the criticism of a topic is considered a POV fork. There will always be disagreement about what constitutes a POV fork but its quite obvious that something is a POV fork when it seeks to avoid having to build a consensus in an article on a topic by creating a sub-article dealing specifically with criticisms. I don't know what your interpretation of a POV fork is but its obvious that you and those who agree with you have prevailed in the past and this must not be allowed to stand and that NPOV should be promoted even if you do not agree. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 03:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep While I respect wanting to avoid POV forks, that concern doesn't appear to apply to this article. Avoiding reference to criticisms of a world religion or political entity would be passive partisanship of that group (inherently NPOV), just as only a cursory reference to such criticisms.  As the main article on Mormonism is extremely large, I would say it made sense to make this sub-article.  Reading this article it is obviously intended as an overview of the various forms of criticism that have been proposed (as opposed to, say, an article making a direct attack on the subject), with sub-links to those specific critiques.
 * Overviews of notable subjects are encyclopaedic, giving attention to detractors of major organizations is needed to avoid partisanship, and wikipedia uses sub-articles regularly for organization and readability. I see no argument for deletion -Markeer 13:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment No one is saying that we should avoid criticism of world religions or a political entity. The issue is how it is done and that creating an article specifically for the purpose of crititizing a topic is inappropriate and unprofessional and creates a source that is POV and not reliable. Wikipedia should be striving to create articles that maintain neutrality and these articles can no more maintain neutrality than can articles created for the sole purpose of advertising or promoting a specific topic, company or individual. You argue that a cursory reference to such criticisms is inherently POV and while its interesting to know that you consider all the encyclopedias that exist to be inherently POV except for Wikipedia. It is this kind of attitude that has caused the encylopedic community to criticize Wikipedia and it's becoming apparent to me that their assessment of Wikipedia's reliability is not far off. Anyone can create and edit an article on Wikipedia and there doesn't have to be any scholarly review and therefore there is a natural tendency here to create articles specifically for the purpose of criticizing a topic. Every topic that exists has its opponents and normally encyclopedias seek to balance those in articles on that topic but here we advocate the creation of articles based solely on a criticism of a topic and that is inherently POV. For some reason we feel that the unlimited scope of Wikipedia allows for this but it doesn't and it creates a perception of Wikipedia not being reliable. When I first started using Wikipedia I considered it to be highly reliable but over time I have changed to consider it at best only a starting point for further research and to be generally unreliable. Where do you draw the line? Can someone create an article titled "Criticism of the Criticisms of Mormonism?" It seems to me that there are editors here who are given undue consideration and that this causes a lack of balance in Wikipedia that should not be tolerated as it creates POV articles. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 02:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Yes, POV forking concerns DO apply to this article. Criticism of Mormonism is apparent in just about ever article regarding mormonism... if you look at Wikipedia's proposed Criticism guidlines, it's fairly obvious that this article is inappropriate. "Separate articles consisting entirely of criticism of a topic are not allowed." That's pretty clear to me. gdavies 20:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I suspect those editors who feel differently will prevail as they have in the past because those who felt the same way that you and I do on this have been driven to leave Wikipedia because of the attitude by other editors that such articles are appropriate and therefore cannot comment. This in my mind means that the only editors who will comment here on this issue are those who advocate POV forks such as this one. The next time this issue is brought up I doubt very much that either you or I will comment because of the result of the bias that is promoted. I have seriously considered leaving Wikipedia on several occasions because of this but I have chosen to remain and to edit articles I feel need to exist here. I had to give serious consideration to whether I would nominate this article for deletion and was somewhat concerned about doing so. I normally wouldn't take the time to challenge an unfair, and clear lack of neutrality as presented by these articles because those who advocate POV tend to be more outspoken than those who oppose it. Yet, maybe if more editors will nominate articles of this kind than over time someone may take notice of the bias of the overall community and maybe even the Media may become involved and ultimately force the hand of those who promote bias on Wikipedia. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 02:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as these styles of articles have a long precedent and there is no other reliable way to handle them. Two "deletes" [bad faith comment removed by author] aren't going to overthrow an entire "Criticism of ..." article style. It's perfectly legitimate to have all of these that we have already: Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Islam, Criticism of atheism, and it's not just a precedent in religion, we have Criticism of capitalism and Criticism of Marxism, for example. Keep all such articles. — coe l acan t a lk  — 22:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The only reliable way to handle these articles is to delete them. Far to many editors have left Wikipedia because of the conflict and lack of consensus of these articles. I based this on the fact that there tends to be high activity in these articles and then suddenly that activity essentially disappears and then the same conflicts are renewed by different editors. In watching the discussions of these kind of articles I have wanted to make comments but I have learned my lesson and tend not to become involved in them anymore as they have no merit and those editors such as yourself who believe these articles are appropriate can do whatever you want with them but I do feel that someone needs to draw attention to this problem. Your POV that these articles are legitimate is wrong and a violation of neutrality. Also, where editors are from who are questioning the appropriateness of these articles has no bearing at all on the issue. I could just as easily say that "A bunch of 'keeps' from outside of Utah aren't going to force us to keep an entire "Criticism of..." article style." It's clear based on your comments here that you are biased on this issue and are promoting POV forks. I will continue to challenge editors such as yourself and if necessary force you to show your true colors as tyrants who advocate POV on Wikipedia and who won't even compromise on an issue such as this one which would still allow for criticism to be expressed on Wikipedia about an article's topic without creating entire articles based on a POV. I doubt that anyone would agree that if George W. Bush or one of his supporters logged on and created an article titled "Praises of George W. Bush." Who here would think that this wasn't a POV article? What if they also argued that they were simply expanding on a section in the article about George W. Bush? At some point we need to draw the line and its clear that this line should be at POV articles because there is no way to form consensus in these articles as opposed to consensus being almost guaranteed in a topics article. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 02:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You and Cool Hand Luke are right that my geography lesson was bad faith and uncalled for. I apologize for that, and I've removed it. I'll respond to the rest of your reply in a bit, after I mull it all over. — coe l acan t a lk  — 08:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm going to be referring to WP:POVFORK here. This article is not a POV-fork because it is "summary style". The difference would be if this article was created for the purpose of inserting content into Mormonism that was rejected from that article for being uncited. But you've shown no evidence that this is the case. Moreover, even if it were the case, and if this article were suffering from profound POV issues, there is an alternative route besides deletion. You could balance the article. For every criticism in the article, you could potentially provide reliably-sourced Mormon responses. This would make the article meet WP:NPOV. As for your claim that I am a "tyrant", well, I'm flattered, but even if I were "biased on this issue and are promoting POV forks" that would mean little. You are biased toward removing criticism; we all have our biases. What's your point? The idea behind WP:NPOV is not that we each try to be perfectly flat (impossible for most people), but that "where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. ... As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints." Your POV and my POV add up to NPOV. The problem with your whole argument here, and why you are wasting a great deal of your own time (and a fair share of others' time), is that you are trying to argue for policy change by using an AFD. This is often seen as WP:POINT, or "hostage-taking" of an article, and you'll pretty much never get your demands this way. I suggest you try making your complaints at the Village Pump instead. — coe l acan t a lk  — 09:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: although I obviously agree with your vote, I do find your comment about a "a couple of 'keeps' from Utah" to be a bit unfriendly. One might imagine that you're marginalizing these editors' contributions&mdash;perhaps discounting the contributions of all Utah/LDS editors. I just don't think the comment was necessary. It's true that precedent speaks strongly against deletion, but it has nothing to do with the geography or religion of those who suggest the precedent should change. Cool Hand Luke 07:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I respect your viewpoint but I did not consider AFD to be about voting and did not consider Wikipedia to be a democracy. If Wikipedia is going to be about precedents and about voting than there is very little real neutrality. I would even assert that this is an American POV about how things should operate (i.e., democracy and the Supreme Court) and it fails to recognize that democracy and precedent should not govern neutrality. We shouldn't be voting on whether an article contains POV and deleting them because they contain POV's but we should delete articles as per Wikipedia policy that violate neutrality. To continue adhering to a precedent based on the opinions of editors who promote a lack of neutrality concerns me as precedent tends to become even more fixed over time. I also think that precedent speaks for deletion and that the repeated nomination of these articles suggest that they are in fact POV forking and that many editors consider them to be POV forking. To think that one interpretation has prevailed in totality on this issue to date would indicate a conflict of interest and I assert that an environment exists where editors perceive tyranny in the process. At some point we have to say that while we seek to promote neutrality that real neutrality can only exist if articles that deal with a topic include a balance of POV's and that no article should exist either as an advertisement or criticism of a topic which these articles do. They are the counterpart of advertisements. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 20:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, unless you propose to delete Mormonism as well. AFD is not the place to discuss mergers. Ben Standeven 20:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not discussing a merger and I am not suggesting that we merge the articles. There is another discussion going on about whether we should merge the articles but this isn't it. This is a discussion of whether we should delete these kind of articles as they violate neutrality. Edward Lalone | (Talk)


 * Merge to Mormonism. All Criticism of ... articles should be merged into their parent article. Wikipedia is not paper, and people whose browsers can't edit more than 32k should edit sections or not edit. Argyriou (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Yes, encylcopedias do include information that is critical of the subject at hand.  Indeed, it is the height of academic irresponsibility to ignore criticism of any topic when it is under consideration.  To put it in terms I know well, I would not talk about Martin Luther withot also talking about his anti-semitic remarks (in both a section and an article).  To not cover that material would be POV.  Pastordavid 00:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Undecided - One thing that bothers me about the arguments is the examples of articles such as Criticism of Christianity, Islam, etc. I did find one article on Criticism of the Catholic Church; however, I was not successful in finding similar articles for Southern Baptists, Quakers, Episcopalians, or even Calvinists? Even more surprising is no critique of the Jehovah Witness group. To criticize a religion as a whole is one thing, but when there are so few comprable articles to the one in question, it sure raises a red flag for me. In addition, I would repeat a comment from above; every single article regarding Mormonism is replete with criticisms. If Wikipedia is going to keep this example of criticizing a single church, then I assume it would be appropriate to remove the vast majority of the criticism and place it in this single article, which is what the Roman Catholic Church has achieved; it is virtually devoid of criticism. I prefer the example of the Roman Catholic Church article, but I think it would be almost impossible to achieve for Mormonism. Given its small size relative to other groups, it would be virtually impossible to overcome the nature of friendly Christians who insist on ensuring that criticism falls on every article.  --Storm Rider (talk) 07:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment -- StormRider, if you check out the links in my post above, there is an example of criticism of a mainline denomination as both a section in the main article, and as an independent article. The same phenomena can be seen in the articles on Christianity, which include criticism as a section and as a "Criticism of..." article (not to mention the many other articles which could be considered direct criticism of Christianity]]).  That said, I would certainly be in favor of minimizing criticism of Mormonism in other articles, and linking to this one main "Criticism of..." article.  Pastordavid 16:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment As some readers may know, I am strongly supportive of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Please bear this in mind when I say this: I firmly believe that religions and creeds can show themselves best when they are tested. We are taught ( by Brigham Young ) that people should "seek to know the object of their present existence, and how to apply, in the most profitable manner for their mutual good and salvation, the intelligence they possess. Let them seek to know and thoroughly understand things within their reach, and to make themselves well acquainted with the object of their being here, by diligently seeking unto a superior Power for information, and by the careful study of the best books." I believe that if Brigham Young were alive today he would seek to include Wikipedia in "the best books", and would feel, as I do, that understanding comes not just from a one-sided view of things, but from diligent study of all sides of a case. This is a teaching of many scriptures, and we all do ourselves a dis-service if we ignore it. By all means, let us ensure that we do not become biased to support ( or oppose ) criticisms of this or any other creed, and let us not be mean-spirited or petty, but in the spirit of clear understanding that is handed down to us from our predecessors, I say Keep this article, and similar articles on other creeds. WMMartin 16:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. An article that references valid sources in this particular subject matter, given that the LDS Church's founding and history, versus other much-older Christian church histories, lends a valid, NPOV comparison and, as such, debate of its differences in practice over the largest of the faiths, Catholicism, and the many Protestant faiths. This article does require cleanup per WP policies. Many comments in this discussion are "playing the system", which itself is against WP policy; the existence of the supporting criticism articles on other faiths keeps NPOV by their presence, provided they, too, adhere to current policy. Personally speaking, as I practice another faith other than Mormonism, I may personally take an LDS bible found in public and throw it in the trash as a personal objection of heresy. However, to keep the purposes of WP as neutral source of information, no contributor should be able to lock out criticism of any faith, including your own, for the sake of personal objection to it. --Spencerian 17:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I have worked on both the Criticism of the Catholic Church and the Criticism of Judaism articles. I don't believe much of the content of either article but there are people who do and the criticisms are notable and thus the articles are encyclopedic.  I will grant that these articles often start out as poor quality articles but I earnestly believe that the topics are encyclopedic and the articles can be improved.
 * BTW, there are plenty of people who would agree with Edward Lalone. There was a heated debate about the Criticism of the Catholic Church article and it was agreed to create subsidiary articles on specific subtopics and include criticism in each subsidiary article.  I'm not against this approach.  In fact, I agreed to it.  However, as far as I know, the subsidiary articles were never created (I haven't been active over there for a while) and so the Criticism of the Catholic Church article was kept.
 * It's my opinion that the two approaches are not incompatible. You could have detailed criticisms in each subsidiary article and an overview article like this one summarizing all the criticisms.
 * IMO, the nub of the question is: If a "Criticism of..." article is written in a way so as to assert that the criticisms detailed therein are unquestionably true, then you have a POV fork. If, on the other hand, the criticisms are described in a way that suggests "According to reliable source X, there are people who believe criticisms A,B and C." then the "Criticism of..." article is not a POV fork because it is not pushing a POV but describing it.  Describing a notable POV is not in itself POV else the Nazism and Marxism articles would be considered to be POV.  So too, would be articles describing the criticisms of those ideologies.  Detailing criticism in a separate article should not be considered inherently POV.  Done correctly, it is just an organizational device which allows the main article to focus on the topic while pushing the details of the criticism to a subsidiary article.
 * I will also comment that WP:Criticism is not a policy nor is it even a guideline.  It is a proposed guideline that was demoted to an essay and only recently repromoted to a proposed guideline.
 * --Richard 09:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per multiple well-reasoned arguments. The subject is certainly touchy and apt to slip into POV-hell without firm and consistent guidance but to declare it inherently unencyclopedic is unwise.  --ElKevbo 23:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Per above--Sefringle 06:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.