 |
Discussions often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.
|
 |
This is not a forum for general discussion of personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/Polemics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk. |
 |
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. |
|
|
|
 |
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 2 months may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived. |
 |
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
- Surhone, L. M., Timpledon, M. T., & Marseken, S. F. (2010). "Nauvoo Legion: Militia, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Joseph Smith, Jr., Brigham Young, Native Americans in the United States, Nauvoo, Illinois, Mormon". Betascript Publishing.
Click to show/hide further details.
|
| OCLC 591328904, ISBN 9786130358006. |
|
[edit] Inclusion of link to film
Inclusion of a link to 8: The Mormon Proposition in the Controversy and criticism of this article is inappropriate. It is mentioned in Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, where detailed information belongs. There are a lot of films for and against the LDS Church, and this particular film is nowhere near impactful enough to merit mention is this main article. —Eustress talk 05:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- How is it possible that a recent major documentary film specifically criticising the Mormon Church is not appropriate in a section labelled controversy and criticism?
- But the following sentence... Is relevant to Controversy and Criticism how exactly? (My apologies for calling it propaganda, but that's exactly what it sounds like and it's far less relevant to this section than the link to the documentary.)
- Light Defender (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Belittling the merit of a documentary that the LA Times called "An outstanding and urgent example of the investigative documentary" that "is all the scarier for its straightforward presentation of how the LDS Church succeeded in getting California's Proposition 8 on the ballot in 2008 and then getting it passed. As an exposé, there could hardly be a stronger case for ensuring and strengthening the separation of church and state" Does not make it inappropriate!
- Light Defender (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've taken this issue to dispute. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints_discussion Light Defender (talk) 07:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- Light Defender, there is a whole separate article for this link to the documentary. If such a section was to be included on this page, it would be pretty much a form of "bashing" and considering there is a whole separate article for this (Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), to include the link on this page would violate WP:NPOV.Curb Chain (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- Not notable enough for inclusion. Referencing on the "Criticism" article is sufficient. If the film were included, the dozens of other such films (On the content page Category:Documentary films critical of Mormonism there are 4 films listed including this one - not dozens. And perhaps you're right the other 3 should also be mentioned in this section? Light Defender (talk) 14:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)) that have been made over the years would have to be included as well. The dispute resolution move was ill-conceived and will be shut down quickly, if it hasn't already. White Whirlwind 咨 07:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Who says it's not notable enough? The Mormon Censors? Not the LA Times. Not the NY Times. Not Variety Magazine. Not the Wall Street Journal. Etc Etc Etc... The Mormon attempt to deny and trivialise this documentary does not make it less notable. If it wasn't so highly controversial and critical of the Mormon Church, why are so many Mormons intent on keeping reference to it off this page? Light Defender (talk) 13:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Other important websites (like Mormon.org and FamilySearch.org) which are official LDS Church sites.
A while ago, other 'external sites' were listed. The list grew and some WP editors said, "Enough!" Now, just one site reference remains and that is not enough. Here on TALK, I plan to revisit a list which I will ponder and compose for review. It is a disservice to Wikipedia readers to not see some of the available websites from the LDS Church. As another example, Lynnette and I are very active in INDEXING, part of FamilySearch.org which is very popular and could link to the upcoming 1940 Census (to be released to the public on April 2nd, 2012). That is just one of many examples. Another is the emphasis of LDS youth and the presence the LDS Church has on the web for them. I agree that the list could become too expansive, but with careful selectivity, more than just one external link will be a great addition to our superb and great Wikipedia article. Give me the weekend to ponder and produce a 'first draft' list. Others can jump in. Thanks, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think there's a case for including a link to mormon.org here in the ELs, but I think most of the other links you're referring to are properly housed elsewhere on enwp (e.g., FamilySearch, Mormon Channel, YM/YW) and easily accessible via lds.org. —Eustress talk 22:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Redundancy
There is a lot of redundancy in this article, with certain elements of Mormon doctrine being repeated over and over again, as though the article seeks to place particular emphasis upon them for some reason. Whether this is because contributors have not been paying attention to what's already been written in the article or because someone is trying to make a point I'm not sure…I would like assume good faith though and give those who have edited the article the benefit of the doubt. Nevertheless, it needs to be majorly cleaned up, with a single mention of each significant element of church doctrine being plenty sufficient. I'll try to fix it a little bit myself. --Antodav2007 (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- It might help me if I knew what to look for. What are some things that you think are being repeated too much? Thanks. Ltwin (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)