Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement


 * 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   Merge to Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. A couple of notes:
 * To new contributors with "few or no other edits outside this topic." Anyone who brings a sound, policy-based argument to the table will carry weight. Same goes for references, re-writes in draft space, all that.  But this is not a vote, and the decision is not made by counting the number of emboldened "Keeps."  Thanks for coming and taking part in the process, though.
 * To everyone else: Don't abuse the "few or no other edits outside this topic" tag.
 * Colonel Warden and Carrite both discuss precedent. It's easy to locate articles of this sort, using the left hand side bar, Toolbox -> Special Pages -> All pages with prefix (under the "Lists of pages" header, second one down)  From this we get
 * All article pages that start with "Criticism of," and
 * All Wikipedia pages that astart with "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of."
 * While precedent is not binding since consensus can change, if you're going to raise it in a discussion, please provide some links. Otherwise folks will fact you, so to speak.

I'm going to redirect this, but merges are editorial only, so the discussion now must move to the target article's talk page, Thanks for coming, Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The topic title is framed to highlight negative coverage of this sect. This is inherently contrary to our core policy of WP:NPOV and so constitutes an improper WP:POVFORK of the main article. Warden (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Warden (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - What you say has some merit, but I am a big believer in precedent aiding our AFD decisions. There are many, many "negative" Criticism of pieces that have flown... Ergo, normal notability rules should apply and summary execution would seem inappropriate. No decision on that, but I'm banking on a fairly vast corpus of published independently written works on the topic. Carrite (talk)


 * For a precedent, see Articles for deletion/Criticism of The New York Times which was nominated on similar grounds and which was duly deleted. Warden (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * With all due respect to the esteemed Colonel, the body of precedent is in favor of retaining "Criticism of..." pages, such as Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Carrite (talk) 14:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * IIRC, I have voted to keep criticism articles on some previous occasions, on the grounds that the criticism is notable. I now understand that WP:NPOV is a more important consideration, being a core policy, not a guideline.  I am also now more familiar with the extent to which political axe-grinding and advocacy takes place on Wikipedia despite our clear policy forbidding this.  This is an example of how consensus can change.  And we notice below that you yourself now urge that we delete this article. Warden (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See also Articles for deletion/Criticism of Wall Street - a similar discussion which just closed as delete. Warden (talk) 10:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Criticism of Wall Street was a separate kettle of fish — an extraordinarily broad amalgam of unrelated critiques. Carrite (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. An article like this is inherently non-NPOV by its very nature. But Wikipedia does have Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Buddhism, Criticism of the Catholic Church, and so forth ad nauseam. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Notice how we don't have Praise of Christianity, Praise of Buddhism, Praise of the Catholic Church or Praise of the Latter Day Saint movement. This is blatant bias. Warden (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That was my thought exactly! How to balance these "Criticism of..." articles. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, criticism does not necessarily mean fault-finding. True criticism is, or should be, an objective analysis of the faults and merits of a particular phenomenon (see Criticism). Just as a film critic does not necessarily pan a film, he might give it two thumbs up. Nevertheless, these Criticism of.. articles in Wikipedia for the most part focus on the fault-finding and negative aspects of a particular institution. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The OED has "criticism, n. The action of criticizing, or passing judgement upon the qualities or merits of anything; esp. the passing of unfavourable judgement; fault-finding, censure." Warden (talk) 06:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete It seems to me that a criticism article is going to always be POV, and there are not religion critics like there are book and movie critics -- although maybe there should be. How about "Views of...", which could give both positive and negative views?  There must be some notable positive opinions. BigJim707 (talk) 22:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep NPOV doesn't mean we don't have criticism articles (as several have been pointed out above). Any novel religious movement is bound to have its detractors, and the LDS movement has had plenty. Rather, per NPOV, we need to cover this topic with appropriate balance, and deletion is no help in that regard. Sourcing is plenty adequate for what's claimed here. Jclemens (talk) 03:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But isn't an article only for criticism always going to be unbalanced? And isn't the original article unbalanced also if the criticism is moved to its own article? BigJim707 (talk) 04:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per standard practice. Otherwise all this criticism ends up back in the main article.  This is meant to be a balanced article about critics the critics themselves don't have to be balanced  CD-Host (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC) — CD-Host (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Yes, this is appropriate as a separate article. And I can understand why there wouldn't be "praise" articles as a practice, and such articles would be heavily targeted and argued over.  This topic would have even more interest and relevance in light of the "Book of Mormon" Broadway musical, and I could see even Mormon scholars being interested in this; it shouldn't be meant to bash or carry an agenda, it should be historical in nature, and this seems to fit. It even seems fitting to keep this as a separate article since many would balk at this information being contained within the main article, and who would want the edit wars then?  (That might not matter toward "notability," but just imagine!) LaLaFoote (talk) 07:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * — LaLaFoote (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * By providing a platform for criticism but not for praise, we would have a biased stance contrary to WP:NPOV - a core policy. You are welcome to your opinion but we prefer policy-based argument here.  Do you have one, please?  Warden (talk) 08:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see this article as a "soapbox" platform; it seems to discuss the topic in a scholarly fashion. I'd have to just mirror the "precedent" examples mentioned by others. Most importantly should be that the topic is referenced and NOT a soapbox -- if Mormons are criticized for polygamy, for instance, that is worth documenting, and is certainly able to be referenced. I wouldn't even object to an article that discussed "praise" in the same fashion, however that type of article might not be as bulletproof. I can't think of good examples to make that also "notable," but if, say, the Mormon church accomplished something for which it received notable praise external to the church (just as criticism would tend to be), then really, why couldn't that article exist? This one shouldn't be killed just because it's "opposite" hasn't been created by someone yet. I can't cite a policy for that; it just seems like common sense. LaLaFoote (talk) 08:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My suggestion was to put both criticism and praise in the same article. BigJim707 (talk) 12:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, obviously. To quote WP:NPOV: "All facts and significant points of view on a given subject should be treated in one article except in the case of an article spinout. ... This type of split is permissible only if written from a neutral point of view and must not be an attempt to evade the consensus process at another article." Clearly an article that focuses on one point of view cannot be NPOV, by definition. If there is any useful content in this "criticism" article it should be merged into the main article, but it shouldn't be a separate article. Prioryman (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: The quote from WP:NPOV doesn't mean that a "criticism of X" page shouldn't be created; otherwise, it would be impossible to create an article on an individual/organization's questionable behaviors which have raised public objections, regardless of the subject's notability. As far as I understand, the quote from WP:NPOV shows that both points of view (criticism + not praise, but responses to criticisms), must be presented on the same page. This issue can be resolved by discussions on the talk page and additions of content, not by an AFD. Moreover, despite WP:OTHERSTUFF, I'm forced to note that there are many pages which start by "Criticism of...", and so I don't think we can assess one article's validity without taking those into account. Lastly, the word "Controversies" instead of "criticism" in the title appears to me more appropriate. --Europe22 (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Huh. This is the second time in two years I've seen the nom advocate deleting an article.  Mirabile dictu ... anyway, it's a common mistake to assume NPOV = we can't say anything negative about a subject.  There are many thousands of articles about which almost nothing good can be said; this isn't a OTHERSTUFFEXISTS issue, it's precedent.  We are required, simply, to have nothing but solid sources backing up any such criticism, and the degree to which we need to kneel before the altar of NPOV is that it's incumbent in any criticism article to include well-sourced rebuttals, where applicable.  Why, look - this article, and its forks, does just that.   ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  19:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: It feels like this is being looked at the wrong way somehow. Yes, so many articles on "criticism of" exist, and have good reason to. It should come down to whether it's NOTABLE, thus the article should stand by the standard of WP:NOTE and NOT WP:NPOV if the article doesn't itself criticize, but simply informs.  The nom has contributed to articles like "bullying in academia," would he find it off-putting that no "back-patting in academia" article exists?  If the article on Lee Harvey Oswald talks about him being an assassin, should another article exist to tell of what a nice guy he was otherwise? Mormonism has received much notable criticism, going back to polygamy and going up to its stand against gay marriage (and newsmaking activities toward that end). I don't know where "praise" falls in the landscape of notability, but perhaps it could, and then someone should make an article about that, too.  I wouldn't even mind if this is relabeled as "Controversies" instead of criticism.  But y'know, I just stopped by here while commenting on another AfD because it looked interesting, and I don't appreciate someone slapping an WP:SPA label on my butt here (both Warden and Prioryman), and especially being referred to as a "sockpuppet." I may not have made many edits, but more than just a few, and on hugely unrelated topics. It seems that advocates of deletion would like to diminish what I have to say here by WP:BITE and other means, and that isn't very cool. Warden also slapped an SPA label on CD-HOST above, and if you look at his edit history, the attempt to stack the deck here via a subtle "credibility attack" seems obvious.  Now, stop it! LaLaFoote (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The proposed reason for deleting the article is for its title. This topic has been discussed on the discussion page of the article before, and, although that discourse is now a bit old, that seems a more appropriate place. The information is notable even though it is uncomfortable, and it is possible to change the article to be more neutral, so it should not be deleted on the spot.--Aftonj1993 (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup hopefully. It's not uncommon for articles about contentious political or religious debates to have NPOV issues, and while it irritates me to see biased articles I think the community does clean them up over time. When I first started reading Wikipedia articles in 2003, bias issues were a lot more apparent than they are now, in my opinion. In terms of the current debate, it seems to me like there are not only sources that criticize the movement, but also sources that discuss the nature and history of said criticism. Here's one about a "protestant apology" for criticism of Mormonism: . Qrsdogg (talk) 04:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, although I'd prefer more and better sourcing, i.e. both in quantity and quality, for such controversial articles. Bearian (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC) P.S. As Life of Riley points out, there is much precedent for keeping such Criticism of X religion articles. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, If the criticism is dispassionately reported it cannot be dubbed POV. There is scope for improvement in this article but it should not be deleted. --118.95.88.220 (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge - This is a tough call. There is already a Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints page and I'm wondering if a merge there might be a solution. I don't like this article and hate the way it is footnoted (five stacked footnotes to "document" a subjective statement, no page numbers, etc.). I think, in general, that "Criticism of..." pieces should be a section at the bottom of the main article about that which is being criticized. There's nothing whatsoever in the way of criticism at Latter Day Saint movement and that would be another highly likely target for merger. I have a hunch that the Jets and the Sharks would be going at it with switchblades if a criticism section was ported there, however. There is something to be said in favor of valoric discretion to keep another Mormon musical from breaking out. Carrite (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Upon further review, delete this as a content fork of Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which covers the same material much more proficiently. I think that's the right call. Carrite (talk) 14:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge selectively (what is sourced and appropriate) to Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. No opinion whether that article is appropriate, but we don't need two.  Sandstein   05:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)