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 Speedy keep - nominator has indicated desire to withdraw nomination. Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mormonism and violence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article's scope is ill-defined, it represents and original synthesis of many topics, it attracts COATRACK material, and is mostly duplicated in other articles. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Background

This article, as created in 2007, was a fairly decent article, although a good deal of it was sourced to Mormon scripture. It gave a general overview of Mormon doctrines about violence, when it's allowed, when it's not, and then listed a few notable instances of violence committed against Mormons and by Mormons.

In 2008 the article was considered for deletion and the result was keep, with a consensus that the article needed to be cleaned up.

In 2009, the article underwent some drastic changes. The sections about violence committed against Mormons were stripped from the article, and a new section on Violence related to LGBT people was added. From June 2009 until April 2012 (when I made these edits: [1], [2]) the article was a complete WP:POV Fork, in that it only mentioned violence committed by Mormons, completely ignoring the long history of violence against Mormons (expulsion from Ohio, Missouri, Nauvoo, extermination order, wars, etc.) My recent attempts to modify the article have been met with considerable resistance.

The scope of the article is not well-defined.

A couple of attempts have been made to define the scope of the article, and as far as I can tell they have ended in no consensus. It is unclear whether the article is about violence in Mormon doctrine (a reasonable subject), violence committed against Mormons because they're Mormons (i.e. hate crimes), violence committed by Mormons (random collection of criminals who happen to be Mormon), violence committed by Mormons because they're Mormon (doctrinal violence), etc. Should the mailing of fake Anthrax to Mormon leaders during the California Proposition 8 controversy be included? (This has been the subject of a recent edit war.) Should the killings of Mormon Missionaries be included? (Right now they're not.) Should there be a section on violence against Mormons? (For almost 3 years there wasn't.) What about acts of violence committed by or against Mormons, that have nothing to do with Mormonism, other than that Mormons were involved?

The article is an Original Synthesis of many topics.

This is related to my first point. As far I can tell, there is no scholarly source that links the various topics of this article together. We have a cornucopia of subjects treated here, and there's no scholarly work we can look to to find out what we should include and how much weight to give it. Mind you, the topic of the article would be a great topic for a book, and the 2007 version would have made a good scholarly article. However, given the dynamics of Wikipedia, it is hard to maintain a good article unless you have a dedicated editor who knows a lot about the subject, or a good source that covers it completely. As far as I can tell, we currently have neither.

Note: the closest thing I could find to a comprehensive source was Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven, which talks about the history of violence in Mormonism, but then splits off to follow a very small fringe group of Mormon Fundamentalists.

The article tends to attract WP:COATRACK material.

Example: in 1976, an LDS Church leader gave a sermon, that among other things, encouraged Mormon young men to vigorously defend themselves against unwanted sexual advances from homosexual peers. The sermon was later published as a pamphlet and widely distributed. In 2000, an ex-Mormon scholar wrote a piece that among other things criticized the pamphlet as an endorsement of gay-bashing. Because gay-bashing involves violence, a section on the pamphlet was included in the article. However, Mormon leaders have repeatedly emphasized that violence, and specifically gay-bashing, is not compatible with Mormon doctrine, so those statements are also included in the article. Before you know it, you have an entire section on the pamphlet, including lengthy quotes from both "sides" and in the process we lose sight of what the article is really about.

The article is substantially duplicated by many other articles.

See, for instance, History of the Latter Day Saint movement, California Proposition 8, Anti-Mormonism, Mormonism, Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Mountain Meadows massacre, Blood Atonement, Capital punishment#The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints, and Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

• I think Delete would be the easiest option, merging any unduplicated material to the relevant articles. The unlikely, but probably best option would be to clearly define the scope of the article, find a source that completely covers the topic, and then rewrite the article (hard). The most likely option is probably to do nothing and let the editors battle it out. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Recent consensus did agree that changing the scope was acceptable and Violence from Prop 8 was introduced by an editor with what appeared to be some POV issues that I edited out, but the consensus stood to include "violence to" as well as "violence from". I won't get into edit war discussion, but will say that the accusasions from one group about another group that law enforcement show no connection to and state outright is simply opinion is therefore POV of the LDS church and is a BLP issue per WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:AVOIDVICTIM, and WP:BLPGROUP.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the nominator himself says "This article, as created in 2007, was a fairly decent article". That seems to me like an argument to restore the good text from the 2007 version and thereby salvage this article. Sound arguments for deletion should argue that the topic is unencyclopedic or that the current text is hopelessly unsalvageable to the point that it would be more reasonable to rewrite the article from scratch. I don't see either of these arguments as applicable to the current article text and thus, we should improve this article rather than delete it. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits. I expect a lot of the material you re-added will eventually be removed (as much is cited directly to the Book of Mormon) but it's certainly a step in the right direction. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I really have agree that the article needs some work, but I hesitate to do much right now as the inclusion of material is in dispute. However, I feel an overarching source is mentioned by the nominator, "Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith By Jon Krakauer". There is also "The Mormon Menace: Violence and Anti-Mormonism in the Postbellum South By Patrick Q. Mason", and "Mormonism: A Historical Encyclopedia" which has a detailed section on Mormonism and violence within it's "issues" section. This source cites D. michael Quinn in it's "issues" section as well. There are actually more sources the amount is more than adequate for editors to use if needing overarching support for claims and properly attributed opinion.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing comes of this AfD besides a clear direction for the article, I'll be more than satisfied. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Amadscientist and per Christianity and violence, which covers a lot of the same ground in a slightly different faith. Nominator fails to articulate a cause for deletion which couldn't be solved through the normal editing process. Jclemens (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ill-defined is not a policy. The nominator is using SYNTH out of context; wide scope of an article is not synth. Reaching a conclusion that is not supported directly by a single source, but by overreaching inference between two sources, is SYNTH. COATRACK, or any other rule for that matter, is only a matter for deletion if it is the nature of the article scope itself. What might be added later is a matter for the Talk page. I reject the nom's assertion that this material is covered elsewhere. It is most certainly not covered with the scope of the article here, and in any case, it is common for disparate elements to be gathered together from different articles, to a single article, in this way. Anarchangel (talk) 02:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A legitimate subject and well sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 04:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but improve. I think the topic is important, and is well enough defined, though I don't think that some of the current content (such as the Proposition 8 nonviolent vandalism-related material) fits within the topic. This is an article about Mormonism and violence, not "Mormons and violence." Thus, it will not properly be a coatrack for all instances in which Mormons were either victims or perpetrators of violence. Also, while some of the content is touched upon in other articles, the material does not appear together in any other single article. COGDEN 09:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Actually, "ill-defined" could be, in theory, a serious AfD issue. The first sentence of WP:N is "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article." An AfD on notability is a test not on an article title, but a test on an article topic. I just don't think that's a big issue here. Why? First, the title "Mormonism and violence" does, as COGDEN suggests, define a charter, and we have the early history of the article to confirm that. The relationship of Mormonism (as a faith, historically and theologically) to violence is a notable topic evidenced by sources. --joe decker^{talk to me} 20:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The comments about the scope of the article have been quite helpful (Mormons vs. Mormonism) and I think this will give us enough direction that we can resolve the COATRACK and other issues. Thank you ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the overwhelming consensus in favor of "keep and improve", you might consider withdrawing your nomination and asking an admin to close this AFD as a speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Don't be discouraged, it's good to bring iffy articles to the attention of the wider community. The reason we have discussion is to air out the issues and seek a resolution. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. A speedy keep would be great. I'm not quite sure how to request one, and I'm literally headed out the door on a camping trip, so if you wouldn't mind requesting it for me that would be great. Thanks. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.