From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Chopping of FairMormon mention[edit]

I chopped this line, but it was reverted by GSwarthout.

FairMormon, a Mormon apologist site, details various rebuttals and explanations for the differences.[50][51]

The reason for reverting was given as: "Presenting both sides is an admirable goal and reasons given for removal are not convincing." Firstly, "presenting both sides" is indeed an admirable goal but this is not wikipedia policy. "Both sides" are only mentioned if both sides conform to WP:RS and WP:NOTABLE and do not violate WP:UNDUE. Googling FairMormon every hits it from the FairMormon organisation itself. To be considered a reliable source, we generally need 3rd parties that mention it. Please provide some evidence that this is a reliable source.

But my main problem with the text is that is says nothing. We can assume that apologists for every religion will disagree with people to say there cosmology is false. For this text to be encyclopediac, first we need to ensure it is a reliable source. If it is, we need to detail some of their rebutalls and explanations in the article, not just say that they exist. Ashmoo (talk) 10:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

  1. See WP:GHITS
  2. Try something that filters out hits on the orgs own websites ( and, something like this:
  3. FairMormon is notable enough to have a WP article.
Thanks-- (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing my concerns. But I'm not questioning the notability of this article but the reliability of this source. I admit the 'google hits' thing should count as an argument. I just used it as a general illustration. If you have evidence that this is a reliable source, please provide it. (Wikipedia itself can't be used as source according to its own rules).
But even we prove it is a reliable source, my second problem should also be addressed. Ashmoo (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)