Category talk:Mormonism-related controversies

Untitled

This category should be deleted. It is being used to hold every Mormon article around. Silly. --Blue Tie 03:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is the result of such a discussion, noting that it exists as a subcategory that is accepted. [1] Anon166 22:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think that "accepted" and "no consensus" are the same thing? The result of the discussion was "no consensus" not "accepted." Jaksmata 14:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is the parent category I referred to.[2] Anon166 19:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Definition of the category

I think the idea for this article is theoretically feasible and worthwhile. However, in order to deal with NPOV concerns it needs to be renamed and carefully defined. Slapping a "controversy" category on an article about a person doesn't sit well with me... I can't think of a workable title, but using an adjective (such as "controversial") would be a little easier. It seems like the only things that would be easily categorized (relatively easy, I mean) are people and events, under separate categories. gdavies 01:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think that individuals should be categorized here (although perhaps we could make a subcategory for them). Seems counterintuitive to call a person "Mormonism-related controversy", and there are enough of them that a sub-category could be justified.

The category is not going to be deleted, so we should perfect a definition. It seems other religions use this terminology for analogous categories, but they're not applied consistently. Category:Hinduism-related controversies has only two articles, both with "controversy" in the title, while Category:Scientology controversy is about as large as this category, applying the label to people and things. I dislike the Scientology approach, but I don't think an article should have to be titled "controversy" to qualify. I think Adam-God theory is a good example of the kind of article that would make sense in this category; the very meaning of the doctrine is unclear and disputed.

I would favor a definition along the lines of, "Articles related to Mormonism that describe controversies or theories & events which are controversial by their very existence."

We need a definition that would not cover the Book of Mormon, but would cover articles on Book of Mormon authorship (for example). Cool Hand Luke 06:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I support the general approach suggested by Cool Hand Luke. My only concern with excluding persons would be what to do with persons who are notable primarily for doing something controversial that is related to Mormonism—John D. Lee, for example. The obvious solution to Lee's situation is to have a separate article about the incident in question (Mountain Meadows massacre), but what if the incident doesn't warrant a separate article? Does that mean the person doesn't warrant an article either? What if they are notable for some other secondary point that justifies an article?

An example of the potential problem—there was a controversy in the LDS Church after Spencer Kimball died about the elimination of the Indian Placement Program. I don't think the controversy justifies and article—I don't even think the LDS Indian Placement Program necessarily justifies an article—but there is an article about George P. Lee, who was the primary voice for those opposing its elimination. He's well-known for this dispute and his subsequent excommunication, which at the time everyone assumed was for his dispute with the LDS Church, and then it came out later that he had attempted to sexually molest a child, which may have been the real reason for the excommunication. Anyway, Lee would probably warrant an article had the controversy not occurred, because he was the first general authority of the LDS Church that was also a Native American, which was a big deal at the time of his call. Lee probably warrants an article for a second non-controversy-related reason (first Native American GA), but his primary notability is for the controversy. We don't put him in the category because he is a person. Are we then forced to make an article about the controversy itself to have it included in the category because we can't put people in the category? Something to think about.

In any case, any effort to nail down the category would be helpful and I would support whatever the consensus is. -SESmith 06:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a definition of "controversy" from Webster's Unabridged:

1. a suit in law.
2. a discussion of a question in which opposing opinions clash; debate; disputation.
3. a quarrel; a dispute.

Does this definition work for us? It seems to me that the operative words are "debate" or "disputation." Not all disagreements are controversies. For example, one historian interprets an historical event one way; another historian, writing later, disagrees and proposes an alternative interpretation. IMO, this disagreement isn't a controversy unless historians begin choosing up sides and vigorously debating the two interpretations.

For articles about persons, I have some difficulty with this category, since most public figures (especially in religion and politics) get drawn into debates or controversies at some point in their careers. I think it would be acceptable to include an article on an individual in the category if there is a significant section in the article (at least a paragraph) describing a controversy and setting out both sides of the debate, and the article on the person is the main article in Wikipedia explaining the controversy. IMO, SESmith's example of George P. Lee doesn't currently meet that standard—I read the article and didn't find any clear statement of a controversy. But if the article were edited to add a description of the controversy and include discussion of both sides (following Wikipedia standards on verification, NPOV, and NOR), then I'd go along with including it in the controversies category. The point, however, is that not all articles about people involved in controversies belong here. They should be included only if the article is the main source discussing the controversy and the text of the article clearly describes it.

I think similar standards ought to apply to articles about disputes of doctrine or religous practice. The controversy needs to be clearly described in the article, with descriptions of both sides of the debate. Our concern is to avoid using a subjective criteria regarding what is controversial, since that has led to edit warring. BRMo 21:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

A Mormonism-related controversy is a controversy/dispute/debate within the context of Mormonism or Mormon history. This would rule out anything disputed doctrinally by, say, a Catholic. However, it would necessarily include anything that caused an internal schism (like plural marriage), any doctrinal reversals (ie, anything about Blacks and Mormons), any theological revaluation or reinterpretation (Adam-God theory for example), any inconsistency disputed by scholars, legal or historical (such as the Nauvoo Expositor), or anything cultural that is unspecified in the source of the doctrine (the role of Mormon women, Mormon political movements). This category is rather easy, and is only difficult to the converts and wannabes who would suppress what educated Mormons discuss openly as controversies, not criticisms. Anon166 22:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Please be civil.

I agree with BRMo. Articles about controversies should describe both positions of a disagreement. I think vague assertions, or even quoted media characterizations of a person or event as "controversial" are too prone to POV. Actual evidence for a split should be sufficient, even for living people, provided the controversy is shown by reliable sources. George P. Lee might be appropriate, but at most the article gives a sense that events connected to him invite criticism of the LDS Church. It wouldn't be a verifiable controversy until two or more "camps" were defined. Cool Hand Luke 04:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I wasn't actually suggesting that the George P. Lee article as currently written would qualify. Clearly, the discussion of the elimination of the program would need to be substantially expanded to slot it into the category. I was just using it as an example of an instance where perhaps a person could qualify but the controversy itself would not justify its own article. That's all I meant. It was just a query as to how we would deal with situations like that if persons are excluded completely from the category. -SESmith 06:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Regardless of any of the above, it appears the 'people related so Morman related controveries' will be deleted. Is there any real argument against copying all the bio articles into this cateogry so the group of them will not be lost, at least until some better idea turns up? Thanks Hmains 04:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Feel free to do that. I think many biographies do not have controversies with two or more articulated sides, and many of them will have to be removed from the category, but we should keep them together for now. Cool Hand Luke 06:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I will do nothing more, given all the excess anger and hostility some other of my work has generated. Sorry. Hmains 22:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I just came in here to comment that PEOPLE are not CONTROVERSIES. They do not belong here. --Blue Tie 22:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is there no "Persecution of Mormons" category?

Some of the articles categorized with this "controversies" categories describe obvious, unabashed persecution, e.g. see Short Creek Raid. I would imagine that if it were some other religion likewise targeted for mass arrest and removal of their children over disliked religious practices, the word "persecution" would have been used immediately. 76.24.104.52 (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)