Talk:John Dehlin/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I just realized there was another article on this subject in the past. I hope I haven't violated some WP rule about recreation. If there's still a consensus on lack-of-notability, deleted it again, but from discussions in the log, it looks like he may be more notable now. The earlier deletion done was before his position as Executive Director at

Is there any way to view the previous article by this title? Rich jj (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Up-and-comer John Dehlin's 1st Wiki-bio was just a bit premature, izall. You see, due Mormon Stories, somebody or another created a page. At the time, Dehlin's beaucoup blog mentions and his association with a Utah radio station were yet supplemented by exactly zero MSM mentions, so -- the page was a goner. Yet, weirdly enough, immediately thereafter Dehlin happened to mention in a blogpost his disappointment in Romney's having distanced himself from LDS historical polygamy (forgive me if my memory mischaracterizes this) and a MSM guy (gosh, can't remember which paper. New York Times? I give up) apparently called John up and the next thing you know this particular bit involving John and giving mention to John's blog became echoed by a No. of places in the MSM . Then, of course, John began his career doing development of on-line academic courses, which got media mention...followed by John's moonlighting with Sunstone...and voila, his notability had become a slamdunk.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 03:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Re the infobox pic (File:John Dehlin.jpg) - Would it be OK to uncrop Mrs. Dehlin into its frame? (orig. had uploaded a shot of his speaking at an OpenCourseWare conference before realizing its  $  tag rendered it unlicenseable for WP)  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 15:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know what is behind the broken links? This strikes me as an important update that is needed for this article. Is it the result of discipline, or a self driven 'purge'? It seems inexpicable to me. This article could provide an explanation, and perhaps address the broken links too. 222.2.86.203 (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought like everyone else apparently that the archive was intentionally removed. BUT, it's still conspicuously present by direct link http://mormonstories.org/?page_id=102 It's possible that's just a mistake, but I can't be sure. It might also be that he simply didn't want to direct people to the material unless they were specifically looking for it (like a halfway between leaving it out there and censoring it). I dunno. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carneadiiz (talk • contribs) 21:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The "Notes of Interest" section has clear NPOV problems, but I don't know how to mark that. 68.229.34.145 (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It's been removed. Sanpitch (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

--see

The best sources on why Dehlin is being considered for excommunication are those that rely on the actual available documents and that have deep access to the thought process of Latter-day Saints on the matter. The New York Times is clearly acting as a Point-of-View pushing agent in this matter. Their attempts to spin this as an issue about something other than Dehlin's belief in the central precepts of Mormonism, such as that Jesus Christ performed an atomenment for all mankind, is not at all neutral. Wikipedia needs to stop privaleging certain sources over others. In this matter, MillianStar.org clearly has a greater access to the relevant sources and a greater willingess to delve into them. Wikipedia cannot reject off hand such sources without pushing a certain point of view. A point of view that privaleges those who have access to the levers of power in the main-stream media and totally dismisses others. To privilage the NYT in this matter is to totally ignore everything that post-modernism has taught us about the many forms of power, and to allow a small group the power to shape a narrative.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

To me it looks like a

WP:RS. As WP:V says, "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." I'm curious if any other users have any ideas of how to approach this. Good Ol’factory ^(talk)

02:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

In this case we need to stop disparaging all blogs just because they are called such. In this case we need to move away stringent following of the guidelines, because they will force us into taking one particular Point-of-View and trunning with it. That said, a reealistic apparasal of the NYT coverage of these issues shows a bias. In fact, Bill Keller admitted that the NYT in cultural issues deliberately supports only certain sides on the debates. The whole discourage on Kellerism would point that this is one of the issues where the NYT is not to be trusted. Here [1] is an article on what Kellerism is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we're disparaging blogs, we're just recognizing that they don't have standard fact-checking and editorial oversight like other media. In any case, we can't really change the WP policy en masse just as a result of this. One way to deal with it is to look for a non-blog source that reports the same thing. If one can't be found, that's usually an indication that something is amiss and that the blog post might be a fringe view. (I'm not saying it is in this case, I'm just saying how things are usually regarded if nothing else can be found that reports roughly the same thing.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Since the disciplinary council is scheduled for 25 January (in a few days), this might be a short-lived problem. Assuming he is excommunicated (which I'm guessing is the likely result), there will be fresh news stories on the reasons for the excommunication, and we can go from there. It may present the same sorts of problems—Dehlin may claim to have been excommunicated for reasons that may be different than the reality. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
• cmt - From a primary source (viz., John Dehlin, @ his Mormon Stories interviews-broadcast website):

  "... ... ...

  "Even though the media have chosen to focus on SSM and OW in many of their stories, I don’t believe that I have ever claimed that SSM and/or OW were the only causes for the disciplinary council, or even necessarily the main causes (if I have done so, I’m more than willing to apologize/clarify).

  "And while it is impossible for anyone to accurately weigh the various factors that contributed to the decision to hold a disciplinary council, I believe that it is very accurate to say that my support for same-sex marriage and Ordain Women was a main factor, and/or a significant factor in the decision (#3 of 4 specifically listed by Bryan King in his August 7th letter to me).

  "Whether or not any specific item is the “main reason” is purely a matter of speculation, in my opinion."

  --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

More:

1. 19Jan2015 The Daily Beast: "The Coming Crackdown on Mormon Liberals"
2. 20Jan2015 RealClearReligion: "The Real Reason Why One Mormon Is On Trial"
3. 21Jan2015 Religion News "5 reasons for excommunicating Mormon Stories founder John Dehlin"
4. 12June2014 ByCommonConsent:

   "... I would also like some clarity as to the real grounds of the heresy charge (what Mormons problematically call 'apostasy'). The New York Times has reported that his Stake President has expressed concern regarding 'some of [his] recent statements and actions regarding this church and [his] place in it,' citing an Internet posting in which Mr. Dehlin wrote that “he no longer believed many fundamental "truth claims" the church makes.' Does this mean that simple unbelief warrants a heresy trial? What exactly has John Dehlin done wrong? No doubt his local leaders will cite court confidentiality, but in our internet age, we need as much transparency as is possible or the painful miasma that surrounds the doubting and disaffected will thicken." -- Ronan J. H., "On Excommunication" (link)

5. 19Jan2015 Slate: "Faced With More and More Press, the Mormon Church Is Once Again Walling Itself Off"
   --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• Here [2] is a source that indicates the 5 major issues that Dehlin's stake president says are his main concern.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

A blog cannot be used as a reference for a living person per

WP:BLPSPS. Bahooka (talk

) 15:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

First time commenting, hope I don't break the page. Is there anyway to get a copy of the letter his "church authorities" sent him?Onlineaholic (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

They are confidential, so they're only available if they are released by Dehlin. He has been posting most of the communication he receives from the church on his websites, but there has been some discussion regarding whether or not he has tampered with/altered some of them. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Could we get a source for this?

"As an LDS missionary in Guatemala from 1988 - 1990, Dehlin's mission began baptizing up to 700 "converts" per month. To accomplish this, many missionaries were using deceptive methods which were taught and supported by some mission leaders. Dehlin was disturbed and reported these activities to his mission president who did not share Dehlin's concern and sent him home early (normally a disciplinary action)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.65.78 (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It's at the end of the paragraph. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I was also wondering if there isn't a conflict regarding the source since it's his own podcast that's the source?Christian.schanner 21:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

In it's current form, the article is highly biased toward

I have gone about removing a large amount of excessive detail about Dehlin's excommunication as it appears to conflict with

WP:AVOIDVICTIM. I've also copyedited the whole article to ensure it is worded in a more balanced and objective way, without necessarily removing a large number of sources. Feedback would be appreciated. ~NottNott ( ✉ -☻

) 11:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I once again removed the paragraph regarding previous disciplinary councils. It seems like a minor detail that doesn't belong in the intro, considering this is an article about John Dehlin, and not his disciplinary council. Anyone desiring to know more about disciplinary councils can follow the link in the previous paragraph. If this information is included again, it should be at the end, under the disciplinary council section. Myopic Rhino (talk) 05:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that KSL is not a neutral source, being owned by the LDS church, and the statement in the intro as to why Dehlin was excommunicated is misleadingly misquoted from the KSL article. The actual wording from the Stake President's letter was "....your teachings disputing the nature of our Heavenly Father and the divinity of Jesus Christ; your statements that the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham are fraudulent and works of fiction; your statements and teachings that reject The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-days Saints as being the true church with power and authority from God." Given the extremely polarizing point of views on this, my suggestion would be to (1) state in the intro that Dehlin was excommunicated from the church (2) carry the details of the excommunication in the appropriate section at the end, and (3) reflect the specific facts as represented in the original sources, i.e. President King's statement in his letters and John Dehlin's statements in response. This would maintain a neutral POV on the topic. (ShaziDaoren (talk) 08:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC))

The subject of this WP Bio has requested help from the ex-Mormon subreddit in editing it here: "Reddit Exmos - Please save my wikipedia page from LDS/apologist propaganda" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.34.7.178 (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see how the subject asking for help from ex-Mormon subreddit is relevant to the NPOV issue. As it was, the article did indeed slant toward one side of the issue, misquoting even LDS-church biased sources. The latest update by NottNott, sticking to the brief facts of the situation in line with

• The subject actively seeking to circumvent the operations of Wikipedia is relevant because it brings into question both the sincerity and the reasons behind the initial actions here. It is relevant because they have to goal of silencing voices that do not agree with them. Dehlin has manipulated a willing and eager media establishment for over a year, we need to stand up against people buying his lies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
• Those who attack KSL as "not a neutral source" arespewing hogwash. The question is not "neautrality" but having reporters who know what they are talking about. Too much of the media has reporters who lack either the desire on background to give meaningful reports on these matters. KSL is one of the best sources on these issues because its reporters have the background to actually give correct reports on what is going on, and not be mislead by false press releases from the subject, press releases he later backs down from when no one is looking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
• Here [3] is an article that explains about Dehlin's attempts to undermine the system and abuse processes to control the message in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I know he asked for the Gordon quote to be deleted, which was an attempt to circumvent the Wikipedia process, but that doesn't mean the quote actually needs to stay. I removed it because it is just Gordon's 1) opinion that the sanctions were predictable, 2) personal opinion about what Dehlin wants, and 3) personal opinion about whether his statements constitute overall non-belief in "the faith" (a term with a wide variety of possible definitions). I think discussing the predictability is overly detailed for this article, and I think Gordon's personal opinions on the other two topics are both overly detailed for the article and not particularly relevant anyway. I have therefore removed the quote again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tripleahg (talk • contribs) 17:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The mention that some of Dehlin's works have been "peer reviewed" in the intro strikes me as taking way to much of a particular Point of View especially considering the methods and ways of publishing in some of the fields which Dehlin is involved in, which have until very recently almost never involved peer review.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey there. I've reverted back to my original revision, as you've provided no evidence to suggest that Dehlin's articles are not peer-reviewed. Feel free to respond with some evidence so we can come to a consensus. Thanks. ~NottNott ( ✉ -☺) 16:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

For example, [source] and [source] are labelled as 'accepted' and 'published' respectively, which suggests scientific peer-review. These articles are cited next to the claim of peer-reviewal. ~NottNott ( ✉ -☺) 16:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any doubt that the articles are peer-reviewed, but that doesn't mean that one needs to say "peer-reviewed" in the lede. For a grad student like Dehlin, all academic publications should be peer-reviewed, and there is no need to mention this. If his academic publications are in non-peer-reviewed journals, that would be notable and worthy of mentioning. Sanpitch (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

You're right - I was more focused on guarding against potentially biased edits that I didn't think about notability. Many thanks. ~NottNott ( ✉ -☺) 15:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Over the last 24 hours or so, both an IP and

cmt - ChistensenMJ said, "...which makes it unclear whether there is perhaps some sort of

wp:SELFPUBLISHED) and this level of participation wouldn't normally merit a COI tag, without some controversy or actual allegation of conflict of interest. --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk

) 21:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)