Talk:September Six
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of Latter Day Saint movement WikiProject, an attempt to provide comprehensive and detailed information about the Latter Day Saint movement and Mormonism on Wikipedia. To participate in the project, edit this article, visit the List of articles about the Latter Day Saint movement, the project page, and/or join the discussion. For writing guidelines about contributing to the project, you may want to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints) | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
 |
September Six has a significant affiliation with Brigham Young University and is therefore a part of WikiProject Brigham Young University. If you would like to participate in this project, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)[FAQ] |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
[edit] Why were they excommunicated
Why were they excommunicated? This seems to be the very most basic question, and the whole article seems to skirt the issue by failing to provide specifics. I understand that it can only be speculated, but the article seems very vague on this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ErinHowarth (talk • contribs)
- The why is a question of POV. The church doesn't explain excommunications. And some participants choose not to disclose. In any case - it would probably be a he said-she said thing - and since we can't verify it, it can't be included in the article - verifiable speculation, otoh, can be :) --Trödel 23:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- I thought some of the individuals held press conferences. Their reports should not be considered any less authentic than the church's undisclosed reports. I guess it's the section titled causes that gets me all fouled up as a reader. It keeps refering to the group as if they were all in it together, but most of them were not associated with each other until the press lumped them all together.--ErinHowarth 05:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Exactly - and some did hold press conference - but can't remember all the details and sltrib.com charges to view their archives. --Trödel 06:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, that is a problem.--ErinHowarth 06:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Exactly - and some did hold press conference - but can't remember all the details and sltrib.com charges to view their archives. --Trödel 06:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- I thought some of the individuals held press conferences. Their reports should not be considered any less authentic than the church's undisclosed reports. I guess it's the section titled causes that gets me all fouled up as a reader. It keeps refering to the group as if they were all in it together, but most of them were not associated with each other until the press lumped them all together.--ErinHowarth 05:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Added possible reason for excommunication, that the church will not tolerate the publication or public espousal of unapproved doctrines, regardless of their merit. Doctrines are to be "top down", not "bottom up". (posted 13:53, 17 August 2007 by IP# 65.23.125.201)
-
- Sounds rational, but I'm afraid it is an opinion unless we can find a source. Ideas? WBardwin 20:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Seems very familiar. Didn't someone say almost as much in the PBS documentary? Incidentally, other parts of this article seem WP:SYNthy. The Mother in Heaven dialog seems to more clearly belong in that article. A purportedly official recognition of the concept several years after 1993 seems to be off-topic unless another source has already commented on the excommunications in light of this ABC interview. There might be such commentary, but it looks like original synthesis as-is. Cool Hand Luke 08:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds rational, but I'm afraid it is an opinion unless we can find a source. Ideas? WBardwin 20:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Causes and reactions sections are written badly, not well sourced and seem somewhat one-sided --Blue Tie 05:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unencyclopedic
This article is a shining example of how to violate policies of No Original Research, No Synthesis, and Verifiability. With few exceptions, the entire thing is either unattributed or vaguely attributed to the PBS special, which program in fact does NOT support the assertions made in this article. At best it vaguely alludes to them, which allusions are treated here as open statements of theories the writer editor wishes to put forth. I've TIVO'ed the programs and reviewed them recently. They absolutely do not support the assertions made here and attributed to the program.
I propose to cut every [citation needed] assertion that is either uncited or that is attributed to the PBS Frontline special. If someone can find better attribution in the next 30 days, there'll be no need to cut. AuntieMormom (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- It is my practice, rather than "threatening" to cut material, to spend a little time doing my own research. Almost every good faith edit has some, albiet modest, value - and many erratic editors will not see your "threatened" deadline in time to defend their material. That said, I'm sure the article could be carefully trimmed. WBardwin (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
