This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
8: The Mormon Proposition article. 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 |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about 8: The Mormon Proposition. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about 8: The Mormon Proposition at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've looked at the addition of this link [1] with respect to WP:EL, and I beleive it qualifies as "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." under WP:ELMAYBE.
Allow me to anticipate some possible objections and answer them:
I have no doubt this will be disputed, I actually think the policy questions are complex and arguable--so, have at! Have a great weekend! -- j⚛e decker talk 17:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I do not approve of these links; they are biased and they should be removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viramag ( talk • contribs) 22:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
The problem with including "anti-mormonism" in the see also is parallel to the complaints that were raised about putting see also links to Homophobia at organzations such as Family Research Council, etc. The catch in each case is that without further explanation (and sources), the naked (e.g., no other text, no cites) link appears to the reader as an objective judgment of the documentary (or organization). To the extent that reliable sources on the subject discuss the movie in the context of anti-mormon movements as described in the linked article, it's entirely right to include it, but it's best to do it in the text, with sources, and connecting the opinion with the specific people who make that connection. And of course, NPOV requires balancing that out with sourced folks who think there isn't a connection if they're available as well. (As an aside, category inclusion has the same problem.) -- j⚛e decker talk 15:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Since this movie is about Mormonism, it would seem logical to be able to include the reaction from Mormon apologetics. Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR) has done a thorough analysis of the film and it should be included in the article. There was a thought that this was a self-published source. WP:SPS lists these sources as self-published sources:
FAIR does not fall into any of these categories. It is an organization, not an individual source. It is quoted in several mainstream newspapers. It does not fit the definition for self-published source. The page in question is here. Please review WP:SPS Peculiar Light ( talk) 23:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)