Talk:Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement

message: The talk page needs to be archived. Most of the discussions have been dead in the water for some time. The article itself is stagnant. No one is responding to my suggestions, aside from Stormrider and Shereth. The page is not getting edited. The title remains despite my comments, which have not been responded to. The quotes are not neutral, although wikipedia states that non-neutral quotes should be removed, which Shereth kindly pointed out to me in another discussion. The page lacks cohesion. It should say Critics, not critics including (three names which are repeated in every single sentence over and over again.) The sub-articles need to be merged with this article. The criticism articles merged have far more information than the parent article (see anything wrong with that?) There needs to be sections for specific types of criticism instead of making a new section for every single thing. Isn't there anyone with decent writing proficiency who can at least make the article appear aesthetically pleasing from an encyclopedic perspective? I find it interesting that comments on the talk page go unnoticed, but I'm sure if I were to actually edit the article, there would immediately be participation in it. It seems to be a dead, dragged out discussion, but as Stormrider said, IF you stand on policy. There is policy and guidelines to support a title change, which I discussed previously. There is policy to get the "monster in human shape" quotes removed. There is policy which is blatantly getting overlooked in this article, and I'm anxious to discuss it. Please participate in the discussion, instead of waiting for me to edit the article and then reverting my edits which you did not discuss. Sharpsr1990 (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: When you post on a discussion page and nobody reponds after a week or so, be bold and move ahead with your objectives. If an editor then raises an issue, work it out on this page, and move forward. I suspect that many are reading your edits. --StormRider 16:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Archiving done. --StormRider 16:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention 

message: StormRider:  Did you edit my "Oppose" text above?  I see a change at
:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACriticism_of_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement&diff=316425195&oldid=316422414
If you have any concerns about my text, please write me on my Talk page, or simply post a comment here, indented underneath the text you have a concern with.   Thanks.  --Noleander (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not a concern, but I should have signed my clarification to your list that the link you were using was actually a link to this same page. Had it been text, I would not have added a clarification. You are positing there is a need for consistency and using a link to an article that is not separate. Readers by assume that you are providing a list of individual articles, which would be incorrect. I would recommend that you remove it, because it does not add to your argument or position; conversely, it can easily be viewed as puffery.--StormRider 01:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to the change: it was a good change.  My objection was that it was over my signature.   --Noleander (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Please do not change other editor's text on Talk page

message: I notice that the quality of this article has diminished recently.  The intro of the article (by Cogden?) is very nice, but the body of the article does not flow, and does not reflect that intro.   Some editors (Shereth?) seem bent on making this article as small as possible.  I would encourage editors to put themselves in the shoes of readers of the encylopedia, and try to make this article more informative and more readable.  Reading the discussions on the archives of teh Talk pages may help.  --Noleander (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, the whole article is a good overview of the LDS movement. The deletions by Shereth today didn't help, especially because they removed the  pointers and overview paragraphs. tedder (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraphs I deleted were devoted exclusively to the modern LDS church.  The impression I have been getting from the discussion that has been progressing is that this "article" is supposed to be about the early church, pre-succession crisis stuff.  We can't have it both ways - so which way is it going to go? Shereth 16:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no issue with the division between the two articles.  Moving text from this article to the other is okay, if it deals only with the COJCOLDS.  My concern is that this article is not encyclopedic and does not read well.  What I suggest is:  as we spend time moving text from one article to another, we spend some time ensuring that the articles read well.  As an example of a task perhaps you could undertake:  look at the chronological outline that user COGDEN suggested, and see if you could work that into some text.  --Noleander (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the chronological-order criticism idea, as I had mentioned before (and no one bothered responding to) there is something of a schism between the concept of a chronologically-ordered list of critical topics (as introduced in the header) and the topcially-ordered sections that have, and continue to, exist in the body of the article.  Either is fine, but it can't go both ways.  I believe there is a fundamental lack of consensus on exactly what this article is supposed to be.  A chronological listing of criticisms aimed at the pre-crisis church?  A topical breakdown of criticisms of the same?  A summary-style article touching on various criticsms of Mormonism in general?  I honestly do not have a problem with going either way on it, it's just that we need to pick one and stick to it.  Perhaps the problem is bigger than this article - a look at the various "Criticism of X" topics relating to Mormonism shows a telling lack of cooperation and coodindination between them.  I'm not trying to make the article smaller, I am simply trying to keep it "on topic" as well as making it work well with the myriad of related articles.  I am open to suggestion of course. Shereth 17:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the article could be organized chronologically or topically.  But that dilemma is faced by nearly every aricle in the encyclopedia that deals with history (should the WW I article be organized by time, or by topics?).  I don't see a problem with trying to incorportate the best of both worlds.  For example:  This article certainly needs sections on "Criticism of JS" and "Criticism of BOM".  But there is nothing wrong with also adding in a chronological overview, as COGDEN started to do.  If you look at the WW I article, you will see that it has a "Chronology" section, as well as topical sections such as WW I#Technology and WW I#War Crimes.  Perhaps we could use that as a model for this article?  --Noleander (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrm.  That might be doable; I will have to give it some more thought.  Off the top of my head, though, I'm not sure that the chronological breakdown method is very workable; the criticisms in the 5 "eras" that COGDEN suggested still have a lot of overlap and are still primarily covered topically by what is there already.  I suppose what I am getting at is that having a timeline would do little more than regurgitate what is in the topical sections (or vice versa) since there's not really much going on.  In any event, WWI is certainly a more substantial topic than this one so the comparisons won't quite be apples to apples .. Shereth 17:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article quality going downhill 

message: There is a deletion discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Judaism_(2nd_nomination), and any input would be appreciated. AzureFury  (talk | contribs) 02:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Criticism of Judaism]]