Talk:Anti-Mormonism/Scare Quotes

"Scare Quotes"

Primarily to Anon166, but also for anyone else with a similar viewpoint: this article is about the term anti-Mormon. It is not the page Criticism of Mormonism or anything of the like. As such, the primary content of this page should be (1) a description of how people use the term, and possibly (2) some discussion of people who feel they have been unfairly labeled with the term. This article is about a label. If you feel that label is unfair, it's not your job to change the article to make explicit how you think it's unfair--it's your job to find verifiable sources, e.g. quotes from "so-called anti-Mormons", talking about how they feel the label is unfair.

So. I'm removing the "scare quotes". I don't think they add anything to the article, and you won't find them in articles such as Anti-Zionist, Anti-Arabism, Anti-Americanism, Anti-communism, etc.

Furthermore, I'm changing "of their critics" back to "on Anti-Mormonism", because I think this article shouldn't be about Mormon views of their critics, it should be about their views on Anti-Mormonism. Their views on their critics properly belongs in a place like Criticism of Mormonism.

Also, I'm going to attempt to reword the very POV material you added to that section. Please at least make some attempt at being NPOV. Thanks! :-) --Dlugar 03:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Dlugar, NPOV is only understood by those who are able to practice it. If you disagree, you can state your theory, as I would be interested in it. For example, anyone who asserts their own POV, especially religious beliefs, will think that NPOV is simply someone else's POV, or they would be insincere in their pro-POV and would really know what NPOV is anyway. Not good. Also, if you disagree to my pointing out that a cited author (Nibley) is using fallacies such as false dilemma and ad hominem then you would be disagreeing with this fact from your POV? Do you also disagree they are in fact fallacies too from your POV? Or just inconvenient to your POV? I might suggest, for anyone on the brink of self-discovery, that the either/or fallacy, aka, false dilemma, is what keeps people deeply involved with their bigotry. Please read the definition of bigotry and then we can all admit what the worst bias really is, and study a contempt for NPOV that never results in being useful to a pro-POV. I assert that pro-POV pushing is what we are discussing, a sincere attempt at wikipedia contempt. Anon166 20:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Anon166, I agree with your opening statement, which has helped me understand how you can consider your edits as NPOV. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 20:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well Bill, it's when they try to have it both ways, spiritual and intellectual, that one begins to doubt the former claim. Nice chatting. Anon166 23:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understood what I said. It appears that your view of NPOV is if a statement agrees with your position. Anything that you don't believe in, you interpret as POV. That is why you can consider your edits as NPOV and many factual statements as being POV. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 14:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Bill, you unknowingly, it seems, conflated the concept of belief with factuality. Anon166 15:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Anon166. I personally believe that Nibley's statements were incorrect judgements, however I don't believe that he was using such fallacies as false dilemma (he said that some apostates felt a certain way, not all of them) or ad hominem (he doesn't assert that the claims of apostates are always wrong). Furthermore, even if he were making illogical or baseless arguments, it is not the job of an encyclopedia to point that out--pointing that out is not verifiable and counts as original research. What you could do is cite references to others who point out the logical problems with Nibley's statements. --Dlugar 02:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Dluger, synonyms for false dilemma and ad hominem are "either for us or against us" and "attack the messenger" respectively. The first does not assume any good faith in the Exmormon in uncovering a perceived fraud, right or wrong about the fraud; while the second argues that the messenger is somehow wrong, therefore the message is wrong. They were perfect examples of each fallacy. Also, an encyclopedia would be misleading if it included the comments without specifying, for balance to an opinion, their counter-criticism, which is, succinctly, their known invalidity. Else it would be including a factual error without saying it has been discovered as erroneous. By the way, if someone makes unverifiable statements, then they shouldn't be included in the article. You assumed they could be included. Same goes for fallacies, unless making the balanced point they are also fallacies. I note that you don't assume any balance is appropriate to opinion commentary, but instead assume they are more useful as potentially misleading. Anon166 03:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Anon166, if the section were entitled "Is Mormonism true?" then I would agree with you--statements like Nibley's shouldn't be included. However, the section is entitled "Latter Day Saint views on Anti-Mormonism", and I think Nibley's quote is an accurate portrayal of how Mormons view anti-Mormonism in general. I believe that it is very clear to readers of the article that the quote is not presented as the standard of truth, but rather as an example of how Mormons view the topic.

That's not, however, to say that I think his quote should stand without balanced counterpoint. Hence the inclusion of Richard Packham's quote, which I think is a far better rebuttal than simply labeling Nibley's statements as a false dilemma or ad hominem. Such labels should be superfluous for any educated reader. At any rate, thank you for your contributions, and for making sure that this article doesn't become less polished of a "pile of dung" as you so eloquently put it. :-) --Dlugar 05:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Dlugar, I won't comment on point-counterpoint, because I don't think that it is a valid theory behind any encyclopedia because it assumes dueling POV's. Rather, I think the project has everything to do with exhaustive and fair categorization that avoids falling into a POV trap which promotes an opinion or POV as valid. If the reader comes away believing anti-Mormon is more concrete than known history, or an entity that exists on its own like a disease, then you have failed, because it's not. It's a complex cultural phenomenon with differing causes and explanations, not a thing. Those differing theories need explication and categorization. I would point out that Packham is not responding to Nibley except as a puppet in your play. Ideally, he would be in a separate category representing a view that anti-Mormonism is Mormon propaganda and the pathology of group obedience. That means Smith and Nibley's comments would go together to span the history, and in each quote introduction, would then need to be objectively and clinically described for what they signify to Mormon doctrine and practice, including the significance of their faulty method (NOT how they merely represent Mormon and practice, because they are the raw sources to the anti-apostate doctrine). Imagine, if you will, publishing an article on slavery that included racist arguments that justified their slavery, but not mentioning they were fallacious or non-factual. It is merely a passive form of racism when someone thus excuses it by saying that everyone knows its false. Which brings in the last point. Assuming the Wikipedia reader is already educated is an absurdity, considering that teens probably quote it most in school reports and that higher education routinely discourages its citation. It also seems to be missing the point about many of its editors too. Anon166 15:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend glancing at some other "Anti-*" pages on Wikipedia (such as Anti-Americanism) to get an idea of the sort of things that are appropriate for Wikipedia. "Anti-American" is a complex cultural phenomenon with different causes and explanations, and yet I think it warrants an article and descriptions of what it means to various people.

On the slavery topic, I can certainly imagine an article that said something like, "Christians justified slavery on the basis that slavery was mentioned in the bible," perhaps quoting some 18th century Christian who made such a statement, without mentioning anything of the logical fallacies implicit in the quote.

At any rate, while I'd love to continue this conversation with you, I don't think it adds much to this talk page. I'd recommend moving this discussion to either a sub-page or to one of our talk pages. Thanks! --Dlugar 15:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Dlugar, I think the point you are missing is that The anti-Mormon fallacy (or anything alluding to political abuse of the term) would be a better title for the category in question than the category you are hinting at. That being said, I think it contains a big word for teens to encounter in a title, without description. Thus my other point. Anon166 16:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)