This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Violence against Mormons redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
This article appears to be a copy of multiple other articles:
Any reason for this repetition? 7 talk | Δ | 06:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete. My fault for the Prop 8. material in Mormonism and violence. I agree it belongs in Protests_against_Proposition_8_supporters, but I wasn't aware of that article. -- Dr.enh ( talk) 13:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I have cleaned up the article. It no longer contains the redundant sections, although in future, a small prose should be added with a redirect to the main article.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 21:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Duplications were removed sometime ago. Violence from and vilolence aginst are seperate topics. Article can easily be expanded and referenced.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 08:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. It actualy seems very inappropriate to put the two together. Seperate articls will keep lines from being blurred and keeps subjects clear.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 08:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know why this is controversial, but you do need to discuss a bold move like removing a project tag.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 01:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate the good faith. The article originaly had some reduntant information that I removed, in order to keep the page from being just a copy of other information. Mentioned on this page you will see where I have mentioned that the redundant information should be rewritten with original prose and have new references. But since th debate about the scop of the project I have returned the information and will simply re-write it as time permits. However I have stated previously, an article does not have to mention the word gay or homosexual to be within the scope of Project LGBT. I tend to think that is kind of a narrow interpretation of what constitutes a project scope.
The article Platonic love is listed as within the scope of the project. The article is about an ancient greek form of sexuality which is no longer practiced in contemporary society under the original definition. It only lightly touches on Homoerotisim and the supposed homosexuality of Plato. Basicaly this is foundations of the modern trm of Pedaphile, and hardly seems appropriate or within the true scope of the project, but that is my opinion and not a basis for arguing against project participation.
I tend to agree that the amount of violence against mormons from the gay community is actualy very low, but to be honest and encyclopedic the subject should be covered in this article and it surely falls within the scope of the project to have an article that mentions Violence from the gay community if the article about the love of boys some 2500 years ago or more is.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 23:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
See my comments on Talk:Mormonism and violence. ...comments? ~ B F izz 06:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I just added a few tags speaking to the neutrality problems, orphan problems, etc. - and added a nomination for deletion tag. This article is a total rehash and synthesis of information that is fully treated in the other historical articles about Mormonism. It is very hard for me to read this and not see it as heavily biased by very definition of the scope of the article. You can't speak about this topic without broader historical context. The article is completely redundant. (And for that matter I think the same thing about Mormonism and violence, so an argument that this info was split out of that article, or should be merged there doesn't carry weight with me. I think they should both be deleted.]] Descartes1979 ( talk) 08:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Question: the lede mentions "violence and persecution." Would it make sense to re-name the article "Persecution of Mormons"? "Persecution" is a term which covers more issues, such as vandalism.
Delia Peabody (
talk) 22:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user
Will Beback
talk
03:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
::We can report that Mormons believe anti-polygamy legislation was persecution, and that others disagree. However, the main issues of violence and vandalism seem to fit the description of persecution.
Delia Peabody (
talk) 11:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user
Will Beback
talk
03:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::Again, we can report that the Mormons view the enforcement of anti-polygamy laws as persecution without taking sides in the dispute. I would say, however, that "Anti-Mormonism" would have been my fall-back proposal, and if there is already an article by that name, it seems redundant to have two very similar articles. A merger would be a good solution. --
Delia Peabody (
talk) 14:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user
Will Beback
talk
03:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::::I agree with you there. Anti-Mormonism must be against Mormons per se, and not against a policy that is not unique to Mormons. (There was a lot of debate about why opponents of Prop. 8 did not vandalize the black churches, which were promoting it just as much as the Mormons, but the consensus seemed to be that Mormons were a more politically expedient target.)
Delia Peabody (
talk) 15:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user
Will Beback
talk
03:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
There are a couple of things that everyone has to remember about this topic - maybe you already know this, but for the sake of being obnoxiously explicit...
At the end of the day - I would like to see the article "anti-Mormon" toned down a little and clearly differentiate between legitimate criticism of the church, and what is really "anti-Mormon". I would like to see this article deleted, and its content folded into the other articles on Mormon history.
That's my humble opinion, and I fully recognize that maybe it is not an accurate perception - so slap me down if you disagree. Queue zealous Mormon Wikipedian and accusations of "anti-Mormonism"...
-- Descartes1979 ( talk) 20:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
::I think it is important to have two articles, one on "criticism" and one on "anti-Mormonism." The reason is that if you lump bonafide anti-Mormonism in with criticism, it tends to legitimize bigotry. The parallel you make above to anti-semitism is a good analogy. Anti-semitism is a real and odious phenomenon, which should not be dismissed as "criticism of Jews." On the other hand, it is equally odious to brand critics of Israeli policy as anti-semites.
Delia Peabody (
talk) 15:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user
Will Beback
talk
03:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Does everyone agree that this article should be combined with anti-Mormonism? Delia Peabody ( talk) 01:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Violence against Mormons actually seems to be a POV fork of Mormonism and violence. Does it make more sense to merge back any useful, non-duplicated information there? -- 208.81.184.4 ( talk) 00:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
:
Mormonism and violence also looks like a POV fork. I think it ought to be dismantled and merged into
Mormonism and
Anti-Mormonism. I don't hold any particular brief for the Mormons, but I don't like to see Wikipedia used for holy wars against any religion.
Delia Peabody (
talk) 15:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user
Will Beback
talk
03:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
::::Yes. My initial reaction to
Mormonism and violence was to think that the article was a vehicle for editors with an anti-Mprmon POV, but I checked and discovered that Wikipedia also has
Judaism and violence,
Christianity and violence,
Islam and violence, and so forth, so it is routine.
Delia Peabody (
talk) 15:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user
Will Beback
talk
03:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::I don't see a problem with classifying all forms of "Violence against Mormons" as "anti-Mormonism." Or shall we say, it's not an acceptable form of criticism.
Delia Peabody (
talk) 15:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I am hoping to wrap up another editing project soon, at which point I will undertake the merger.
Delia Peabody (
talk) 15:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user
Will Beback
talk
03:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Violence against Mormons redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
This article appears to be a copy of multiple other articles:
Any reason for this repetition? 7 talk | Δ | 06:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete. My fault for the Prop 8. material in Mormonism and violence. I agree it belongs in Protests_against_Proposition_8_supporters, but I wasn't aware of that article. -- Dr.enh ( talk) 13:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I have cleaned up the article. It no longer contains the redundant sections, although in future, a small prose should be added with a redirect to the main article.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 21:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Duplications were removed sometime ago. Violence from and vilolence aginst are seperate topics. Article can easily be expanded and referenced.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 08:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. It actualy seems very inappropriate to put the two together. Seperate articls will keep lines from being blurred and keeps subjects clear.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 08:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know why this is controversial, but you do need to discuss a bold move like removing a project tag.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 01:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate the good faith. The article originaly had some reduntant information that I removed, in order to keep the page from being just a copy of other information. Mentioned on this page you will see where I have mentioned that the redundant information should be rewritten with original prose and have new references. But since th debate about the scop of the project I have returned the information and will simply re-write it as time permits. However I have stated previously, an article does not have to mention the word gay or homosexual to be within the scope of Project LGBT. I tend to think that is kind of a narrow interpretation of what constitutes a project scope.
The article Platonic love is listed as within the scope of the project. The article is about an ancient greek form of sexuality which is no longer practiced in contemporary society under the original definition. It only lightly touches on Homoerotisim and the supposed homosexuality of Plato. Basicaly this is foundations of the modern trm of Pedaphile, and hardly seems appropriate or within the true scope of the project, but that is my opinion and not a basis for arguing against project participation.
I tend to agree that the amount of violence against mormons from the gay community is actualy very low, but to be honest and encyclopedic the subject should be covered in this article and it surely falls within the scope of the project to have an article that mentions Violence from the gay community if the article about the love of boys some 2500 years ago or more is.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 23:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
See my comments on Talk:Mormonism and violence. ...comments? ~ B F izz 06:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I just added a few tags speaking to the neutrality problems, orphan problems, etc. - and added a nomination for deletion tag. This article is a total rehash and synthesis of information that is fully treated in the other historical articles about Mormonism. It is very hard for me to read this and not see it as heavily biased by very definition of the scope of the article. You can't speak about this topic without broader historical context. The article is completely redundant. (And for that matter I think the same thing about Mormonism and violence, so an argument that this info was split out of that article, or should be merged there doesn't carry weight with me. I think they should both be deleted.]] Descartes1979 ( talk) 08:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Question: the lede mentions "violence and persecution." Would it make sense to re-name the article "Persecution of Mormons"? "Persecution" is a term which covers more issues, such as vandalism.
Delia Peabody (
talk) 22:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user
Will Beback
talk
03:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
::We can report that Mormons believe anti-polygamy legislation was persecution, and that others disagree. However, the main issues of violence and vandalism seem to fit the description of persecution.
Delia Peabody (
talk) 11:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user
Will Beback
talk
03:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::Again, we can report that the Mormons view the enforcement of anti-polygamy laws as persecution without taking sides in the dispute. I would say, however, that "Anti-Mormonism" would have been my fall-back proposal, and if there is already an article by that name, it seems redundant to have two very similar articles. A merger would be a good solution. --
Delia Peabody (
talk) 14:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user
Will Beback
talk
03:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::::I agree with you there. Anti-Mormonism must be against Mormons per se, and not against a policy that is not unique to Mormons. (There was a lot of debate about why opponents of Prop. 8 did not vandalize the black churches, which were promoting it just as much as the Mormons, but the consensus seemed to be that Mormons were a more politically expedient target.)
Delia Peabody (
talk) 15:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user
Will Beback
talk
03:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
There are a couple of things that everyone has to remember about this topic - maybe you already know this, but for the sake of being obnoxiously explicit...
At the end of the day - I would like to see the article "anti-Mormon" toned down a little and clearly differentiate between legitimate criticism of the church, and what is really "anti-Mormon". I would like to see this article deleted, and its content folded into the other articles on Mormon history.
That's my humble opinion, and I fully recognize that maybe it is not an accurate perception - so slap me down if you disagree. Queue zealous Mormon Wikipedian and accusations of "anti-Mormonism"...
-- Descartes1979 ( talk) 20:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
::I think it is important to have two articles, one on "criticism" and one on "anti-Mormonism." The reason is that if you lump bonafide anti-Mormonism in with criticism, it tends to legitimize bigotry. The parallel you make above to anti-semitism is a good analogy. Anti-semitism is a real and odious phenomenon, which should not be dismissed as "criticism of Jews." On the other hand, it is equally odious to brand critics of Israeli policy as anti-semites.
Delia Peabody (
talk) 15:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user
Will Beback
talk
03:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Does everyone agree that this article should be combined with anti-Mormonism? Delia Peabody ( talk) 01:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Violence against Mormons actually seems to be a POV fork of Mormonism and violence. Does it make more sense to merge back any useful, non-duplicated information there? -- 208.81.184.4 ( talk) 00:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
:
Mormonism and violence also looks like a POV fork. I think it ought to be dismantled and merged into
Mormonism and
Anti-Mormonism. I don't hold any particular brief for the Mormons, but I don't like to see Wikipedia used for holy wars against any religion.
Delia Peabody (
talk) 15:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user
Will Beback
talk
03:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
::::Yes. My initial reaction to
Mormonism and violence was to think that the article was a vehicle for editors with an anti-Mprmon POV, but I checked and discovered that Wikipedia also has
Judaism and violence,
Christianity and violence,
Islam and violence, and so forth, so it is routine.
Delia Peabody (
talk) 15:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user
Will Beback
talk
03:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::I don't see a problem with classifying all forms of "Violence against Mormons" as "anti-Mormonism." Or shall we say, it's not an acceptable form of criticism.
Delia Peabody (
talk) 15:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I am hoping to wrap up another editing project soon, at which point I will undertake the merger.
Delia Peabody (
talk) 15:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC) sock of banned user
Will Beback
talk
03:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)