Talk:Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

message: I don't think any article should have the word controversy in the title, unless the article is about the fact of controversy, like what causes the controversy, what effects the controversy has on the dialog, etc. (and in that case, it should be named "Controversy and X").  The problem lies in the word "controversy":  "Controversies regarding X" could mean anything, and it encourages people to conduct edit wars.  I don't think you would never see a "Controversies regarding X" page in the Encyclopedia Brittanica, because it is assumed that any good, factual article about any subject will mention the major controversies involved, and not collage them together in a Frankenstein article. Lets face it everything about the LDS Church (or any religion) is controversial, and could eventually be examined in depth on a "controversy" page; a "controversy" article is like black hole that sucks material from main, "non-controversial" articles. COGDEN 05:41, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There is this exact issue in the the Jehovah's Witnesses articles. Should there be a giant list of "controversies" or should these be presented in the context of their subjects? I don't have a really good answer to this. But I suspect that this question could come up for an given subject and I would like some guidance on what to do here. joshbuddy 22:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The propriety of pages with "Controversies" in the title

message: Based on the Wikipedia NPOV policy (specifically, the policy on content forking), I suggest that this whole article be deleted. The policy is clear. --TrustTruth 20:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the Exmormonism and anti-Mormonism and Criticism of Mormonism pages reference this material generally, and this list serves as a short-cut to avoid taking up too much space there. That's the only reason I bothered with it, because I need to link it to save space. I agree with NPOV fully, and this list seems to comply, EXCEPT the names part, which seems a bit like a blacklist or guilt by association. It is now completely neutral to a religious POV, and rightly balanced in the categories section, and makes no assumptions that aren't discussed in Mormon-edited pages on the topics. Mormons don't deny these controversies, they just explain them differently than some might.Anon166 05:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of Article 

message: I don't think that the LDS can be properly equated with Utah in general, and thus statistics about antidepressent use, bankruptcy, and fraud are all out of place in a "Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."  If they are placed under an appropriate heading, the antidepressant and bankruptcy statistics should be deleted (hearsay) unless proper citations can be produced.Nightclerk 20:15, 19 June 2006
:Agreed, I was getting around to it anyway. Anon166 04:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The appropriateness of references to Utah statistics

message: The premise of this whole "article" is weaselly - it basically says "people who aren't Mormons are skeptical of everything Mormonism is about" with no attribution of notability to any third-party sources whatsoever.  This could all be one person's opinion, too, as there's very little non-IP editing in the article. MSJapan 06:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then please chime in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.--TrustTruth 16:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV and listcruft