Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prophecies of Joseph Smith

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Dmcdevit·t 03:05, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prophecies of Joseph Smith

I don't see any way that this article could eventually conform to NPOV. It has about as much potential as a page devoted to examining the Scriptural backgrounds of papal proclamations. Furthermore, by analyzing the claimed prophecies, it would violate the "No original research" policy. Analysis of whether a prophecy is true prophecy or not belongs on sites other than Wikipedia. Kadett 23:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - we know that everyones always going to put NPOV language and of coiurse thier own opinions into this, if we look at the edit history, hence delete. Gabrielsimon 23:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment This has already been discussed. The article has undergone major changes as a result. I believe the idea right now is to document the prophesies only, and make no attempt to determine truthfullness, which, as you've suggested, would be inappropriate. I thought this page should go away previously as it could serve only to promote fighting. See the take page for history and details. Friday 23:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable, encyclopedic so long as it is essentially a laundry list of what the prophecies were. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:10, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, but only if it fits into the style suggested by BD2412 Youngamerican 01:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but only if it can be brought up to a reasonably comprehensive list of prophecies and placed in something resembling chronological order. --MrWhipple 02:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Up until recently I had serious reservations about this article, but they have since been resolved. In its present form, it's informative, neutral, and does not represent 'original research' in any way. Gregmg 03:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork, agree with Gabrielsimon. JamesBurns 06:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This article is important and can detail a vast amount of research done by various people on this critical topic. Please see the discussion concerning this part of Joseph Smith, Jr. on the Joseph Smith talk page as well as on this page. Jgardner 06:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. POV, but we've kept POVer lists of prophecies before. Almafeta 16:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Seems to be a list of Smith quotations, and Smith's POV is certainly notable. Possible magnet for disputes, I suppose, but no more than any other religious page. Xoloz 16:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Provisional Keep, as long as the article explains how believers think the prophecy came true. Otherwise, there is little informative value, as only those who already know about the prophecies can judge whether they came true. --K. 05:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Agree strongly with K. This was how the page was originally organized, but this was opposed by several users. I think the page should have prophecy, evidence for, and evidence against -- this make it useful to see how Smith's prophecies have been interpreted by supporters and critics. Perhaps a neutral editor could be brought on board to help sort these issues out.

Response: Absolutely. The article certainly needs work, but I think that it can be worthwhile. NPOV doesn't mean no POVs are allowed; it simply means both (or more) POVs should be included. I have never read any of Smith's prophecy's and have no idea how to work out if they came true. This article could help by explaining both how supporters think it came true and why critics say they didn't. Being new to Smith's teachings, I'd be happy to help in adding different interpretations. --K. 00:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Provisionial Keep, This article can be informative and a worthwhile article on Wiki. However, it should be limited to a list of prophecies and possibly a very, limited explanation of each prophecy. Readers are quite capable of determining the value of each prophecy without an interpretation from each side or arguement regarding the validity of Joseph Smith's prophecy. Storm Rider 16:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The article is problematic. Smith was constantly issuing prophecies. A list of all of his prophecies would be a good part of his writing and speeches, much too long to fit in one article. Most of the prophecies listed so far are ones which are considered to have come true, gathered from pro-Mormon sites. Most of the prophecies are as unspecific as Nostradamus's prophecies. Almost anything could match the prophecy. Discussing the accuracy of the prophecy is worthwhile. Where does one go to find out information about Dan Jones? Prophecies_of_Joseph_Smith#Word_of_Wisdom_related_conspiracies is similarly vague, but meaningful to modern Mormons. How can a casual viewer determine what these mean without further references? Maybe that is the point of a prophecy, it is general enough that it is probably true. Nereocystis 17:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Provisional Delete: The article as it stands at this time has no substantive content. There is no discussion of which of the prophecies have been fulfilled, or partially fulfilled, or failed. If the article previously had such content, then its deletion while a VfD was in process is a serious breach of Wikiquette, resembling, but not exactly, vandalism. Robert McClenon 22:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This article is too POV. Gateman1997 01:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I find a few of the above comments disconcerting. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and it's not a battleground. A religious war has no place in an encyclopedia. Please see WP:NOT and Wikipedia:Deletion_policy. Gregmg 04:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Which comments? I can't see any that could be construed as soapboxing. --K. 05:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• My concerns aren't with inappropriate comments on this page, but instead with the desire of some to add POV to the referenced article. Gregmg 14:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Some people consider analyzing the prophecies to be POV. Others consider not analyzing the prophecies to be point of view. It would be helpful to specify what type of comments you don't like. Otherwise, it difficult to discuss objectionable comments. Nereocystis 18:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The difficulty of analyzing prophecies is first identifying the meaning. As you review the current article's history, the two sides are miles apart on what Joseph Smith meant in a prophecy. I do find it interesting that those outside of the LDS church seem so stridently confident that their interpretation is the only legitimate prism through which to review Smith's prophecy. Conversely, those who are followers of Smith believe there is only one prism; the one that makes a prophecy true. I still remain unmoved that readers are not capable of reading individual prophecies and making their own interpretation of what it is meant. An introduction to the prophecy is adequate, but an analysis will only result in constant revert wars as is so evident in this article. Storm Rider 22:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Interpreting the Independence temple prophecy in D&C 84 depends on what Joseph Smith meant by "generation." Critics believe he meant within his lifetime. Believers believe generation is synonymous with dispensation. Some context here is necessary to understand the possible interpretations. I say give both and let the reader decide which is correct (or if they want a third alternative). --MrWhipple 23:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

An analysis shouldn't be original research or opinion; it should simply state what different groups believe as to how the prophecy came true. That isn't POV, it's presenting facts about what people believe. How will there be edit wars about that? Does anyone disagree on what the LDS think about his prophecies? --K. 04:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Many of the prophecies do not have official LDS interpretations. This is especially true of prophecies which may not have come true. There definitely is not a monolithic non-LDS viewpoint. However, this should be attempted. Let's try it with one or two prophecies, perhaps in the talk section, and see what it looks like. Nereocystis 13:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

That sounds good. As long as we stick to "this group believes this, while this other group believes this" then we don't get into POV issues of "this didn't come true/this did come true". --K. 13:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep. But only if an analysis of the prophecies is included. Nereocystis 21:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.