Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Archive 8

Needed Articles

One of the needed articles, Second Coming (Mormonism) has been created. It was made by TheInfinityZero. Useight 17:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Source Quality

Generally for most Wikipedia articles, you can simply shut up most fringe theories or psuedo science pushers, especially with major POV concerns, by simply asking them to show source for their point of view. The marginal theories about cosmology, for instance that the universe is on the back of a giant turtle, will have poor sources compared to thinking by Einstein or Hawking. Or more to the point, it is very easy to evaluate sources and be able to suggest who is credible and what is simply an off the wall, perhaps even self-generated source.

I am strongly concerned about the quality of many of the Mormonism related articles (ok.... Latter Day Saint movement) with what I perceived is a huge problem with trying to evaluate what can be considered reliable sources and what are simply crazy kooks that have some wild theory about Joseph Smith howling at the moon goddess in his red pajamas. In other words something that is so far from a reliable source that you might as well consider it to be fiction, even though it seems to have a basis somehow in reality.

I have seen a huge number of POV fights also show up on several articles where you can pretty much document your entire POV and disprove the opposing POV through incredibly extensive bibliographies. I could name several articles here that would fall under this general umbrella, of having this problem, but it is an ongoing and persistent problem within nearly every article related to Joseph Smith, his religious teachings, and the religious movement that followed after him. Being a contemporary figure, or at least somebody with clear historical records in a country relatively free from foreign invasion, documentable and even contradictory records exist about the early events of the LDS movement. Even within "official" records, both government as well as church records.

What I'm asking for here is a frank and honest discussion about what kinds of sources ought to be considered "reliable" within Wikipedia articles, and what kinds of sources really are "un-encyclopedic" and don't really deserve to be considered a primary source of material. Particularly in reference to articles related to the LDS movement. I know that not everybody here will even agree on a common defintion, and even citing cannonized scripture is likely to cause huge disagreement as to if it may even be considered a reliable source. But for the sake of trying to improve the NPOV of many of the related articles, it would be worth while to at least consider that many of the source cited in these articles are really worthy of being cited in an encyclopedia setting of what should be quality NPOV articles about these topics.

Perhaps I'm opening a can of worms that is better left alone, but I perceive this as a huge problem that needs to be addressed by this Wikiproject. --Robert Horning 19:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably a big can of worms, but I agree, some sort of list of sources considered "reliable", "unbiased", etc, would be good. Useight 19:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Generally, I find that articles from Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought are very good - there is a lot of scholarly research about Mormonism there, from both a pro, and critical perspective. An online version can be found here. --Descartes1979 (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

I recently went on vacation and visited many church sites. I have quite a few pictures in case there are any pages needing a free-use picture. If you can think of any needed pictures, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Useight 20:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Will you assist in passing a Good Article review?

No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith is being reviewed for Good Article status. The reviewer has some minor issues with the article, some of which I have tended to, other points are a bit beyond my abilities, so I am asking if someone here would care to look at the article and see if they can assist in having the article pass the GA review. __meco 10:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Standard?

I was wondering if this wikiproject has a standard infobox for temples. I've looked at some of them and stuff like "cafeteria, floor area, location, phone number," etc., it is just irrelevant and should either be worked into the article or taken off of the infobox.-Mbatman 72 04:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I need your help(images)

I posted many images about the Book of Mormon and about Mormons on wikipedia. They are there now for a long time. But suddenly came a administratorUser talk:Pascal.Tesson and wants to delete all images. I uploaded this images with a fair use rational. The images are used for Family Home Evening and I think this explains everything. Everybody is allowed to use them.This is the Gospel Art Picture Kit. Furthermore the LDS position of fair use is:[1] Notwithstanding the foregoing, we reserve sole discretion and right to deny, revoke, or limit use of this site, including reproduction. It is not our responsibility, however, to determine what "Fair Use" means for persons wishing to use materials from this site. That remains wholly a responsibility of the user. Further, we are not required to give additional source citations, nor to guarantee that the materials are cleared for alternate uses. Such ultimately remains the responsibility of the user. However, the Church maintains the right to prevent infringement of its materials and to interpret "Fair Use" as it understands the law. Furthermore I used also non-Church images to explain Mormon science, like File:Lehi Trail.jpg Please help me to protect this images on wikipedia. This images should stay on wikipedia. I think there is an anti-mormon bias on wikipedia.Daniel3 19:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I find it very interesting that you would quote that part of the lds.org copyright policy page. The foregoing section is

All material found at this site (including visuals, text, icons, displays, databases, media, and general information), is owned or licensed by us. You may view, download, and print material from this site only for your personal, noncommercial use unless otherwise indicated. In addition, materials may be reproduced by media personnel for use in traditional public news forums unless otherwise indicated. You may not post material from this site on another web site or on a computer network without our permission. You may not transmit or distribute material from this site to other sites.

I believe that this is quite clear. Note also that the fact that you believe the pictures should be fair-use, the fact remains that they are copyright images and that our policy on non-free images clearly states that images that are not an essential part of the articles they illustrate should go. This has nothing to do with anti-mormon bias and I wish you'd stop making baseless accusations of the sort. Pascal.Tesson 20:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It is possible (IMHO as unlikely as Microsoft doing the same thing with sourcecode for MS-Windows... but that is another story) that the LDS Church may grant some sort of copyright permission similar to the Creative Commons suite or the GFDL, but that permission must be explicitly granted. In this regard, I completely agree with Pascal's interpretation of the Wikipedia policies.... even if it isn't completely explained in LDS terms.

The LDS Church has its own team of copyright (and other IP law) attorneys who check copyright status for LDS publications, and in many cases whole works of art (i.e. Arnold Friberg paintings) have even been explicitly donated to the LDS Church or even commissioned by the church for internal use. Since Friberg is still alive, the "life+75 years" copyright term still hasn't even started in terms of these works becoming public domain. Even though they have been used by the LDS Church since the 1950's and have nearly iconic qualities.

Yes "Everybody is allowed to use them", and if you want to take them down to your local Kinko's or whatever photocopy center you have and use them for your personal use, explicit copyright permission has been granted. But that is any single person making a single one at a time copy.... or if you decide to use that copy as a hand-out for use in your Primary class. This is not the same as allowing it for public mass-scale reproduction on the order of Wikipedia.... which isn't the same thing.

In addition, copyright permission under the terms of the GFDL explicitly permits commercial reproduction of all Wikipedia content, and many commercial organizations (aka for profit companies) do use Wikipedia content. The people who have helped to craft the copyright policies here have been very insistent upon keeping the full terms of the GFDL for anybody, including commercial users, for all content including the photos. Even if the images are not necessarily available under terms of the GFDL, they have to be roughly compatable or they can't be included.

Fair use is such a slippery slope of problems that can be heavily abused that is it reasonable to try and avoid any problems at all unless you are writing an article about that specific work of art as a work of art. Because of the icon qualities of that photo. Friberg's painting of Helaman's Stripling Warriors simply can't be used in any article discussing the Book of Mormon, the Son's of Helaman, or even Helaman himself. That is not fair use, but simply and plain copyright violations. --Robert Horning 23:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Daniel, an option would be for you to contact the LDS church and ask for permission to use the images in question. You never know what the answer might be. It would be a shame to lose all images in LDS related articles; maybe there is another source you could use?

I would make a request about using comments about anti-Mormon bias. There is anti-Mormon behavior and then there is just behavior. Be careful of making the accusation; every time it is leveled inappropriately it weakens the claim when it is appropriate. Wikipedia has rules to follow, it is best to just follow them. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I should add that another option, especially for things like maps of migration routes (aka the Mormon Trail or like the map of the middle east and Lehi's journey across the Arabian desert) can be reproduced using software like Inkscape or other mapping tools. It isn't necessarily the easiest thing in the world to do, but it can be done and will help out Wikipedia much more in the long run if you do. Images like the one above depicting the journey of Lehi's family contain raw information which is not copyright protected (facts can't be copyrighted) but the image itself and its format is protected. Reproducing it would mean to create a new map with the locations of the same cities (facts) and redrawing the same route as depicted. That becomes an original piece of art and you can in turn grant copyright permission via GFDL license (or simply make it available to the public domain). This is not only acceptable, but strongly encouraged if you have the skills to do this activity. --Robert Horning 14:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I would also add, based on your comment that some of the pictures have been there for a long time, that Wikipedia has recently changed their attitude towards copyrighted works. So the fact that it was acceptable when it was first uploaded doesn't mean that it is still acceptable with the new policy. I had a similar problem with an image that I uploaded for the Cheryl Wheeler article. It had been there for a long time, but then got deleted due to copyright policy. I also agree that you should be very careful using the term Anti-Mormon. The fact that others have had the same problem with material having nothing to do with Mormons suggests that this is a copyright issue, not a Mormon / Anti-Mormon issue. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 15:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:LDS stubs subtype

Members of this Wikiproject may be interested in this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2007/July#Cat:LDS stubs subtype
--159.182.1.4 15:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:LDS people stubs and the corresponding stub got an OK to be created at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, so is anyone here interested in doing the actual creation? -- 159.182.1.4 18:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Currently this is found at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive/July_2007#Cat:LDS_stubs_subtype -- 208.81.184.4 17:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

vote for Moses to become a featured article vote

Vote at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Moses so as too get Moses into a featured article Java7837 23:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What "stories" of the Bible merit separate articles?

There has recently been some discussion regarding which "stories" or portions of the Bible merit having their own articles. For the purposes of centralized discussion, please make any comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#What should have separate articles?. Thank you. John Carter 13:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Two Collaborations of the Month?

At the top it says Family Home Evening is the WP collaboration, but down further it says that Lehi, son of Helaman is the WP collaboration. Is this WP being kept up? And can we archive this talk page? It's getting a bit big. Joseph Antley 04:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Archive is done. I personally have not devoted time to keeping up this page and I would not be a very good judge for its upkeep. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Size issue on List of temples of TCoJCoLDS

Strange information is being displayed on List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the "Size" lines, which are currently displaying like this:

" ** ft² (Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "[" m²) and ** ft (** m) high on a ** acre (Template:Ac-ha ha) site "

[ ** is being used here to represent data variable between the various entries ]

I have no idea what is causing this, and am not sure how to fix it, so I thought I should bring this up here. -- 159.182.1.4 18:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Julia Murdock Smith

The article on Julia Murdock Smith, Joseph Smith, Jr.'s daughter, has been nominated for deletion due to lack of notability. It is certainly true that this stub has never grown, and that notable information on Julia is scarce. Does the project consider the article notable? Please add comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia Murdock Smith. Thank you. WBardwin 05:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I would doubt it. So little info is there that At the most I would think it should be a redirection to JS. BTW, Hi. Tom Haws 18:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Article ratings

Does anybody here understand the article rating system? I would like to see a lot of the articles in the project get at least some level of rating. But I don't know how it works. For example, I think First Vision is an amazing article, and I would like to give it as high a rating as I casually can. How is this done? Tom Haws 20:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Is Earl Roy Curry notable?

I can't find anything on Google or Google Books, which, of course, isn't dispositive. I don't want to CSD if I'm overlooking something. THF 18:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Brigham Young University

This related project is just beginning. If you're interested, please join by adding your signature to the list of members. Wrad 19:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

AFD Alert

A series of lists relating to LDS history, laboriously produced by User:Jgardner if I'm not mistaken, is being proposed for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1990s (LDS). Opinions and comments, please. WBardwin 22:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Burying The Past: Legacy of The Mountain Meadows Massacre

Burying The Past: Legacy of The Mountain Meadows Massacre could use some attention, including a fix of the article name (I believe the "The"s are not capitalized in the actual name of the film). -- 159.182.1.4 01:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Mormon Polygamy template

There's a group of pages on my watchlist that have an extensive list of "See also"s related to polygamy—articles like Reynolds v. United States, Late Church v. US, Reed Smoot hearings, and the manifestos. These articles are often edited as a group when new relevant articles are created. This seems to be precisely the sort of thing that should be done via templates. Does anyone see any problem with creating an LDS/Polygamy template? I think the focus should be on the territorial practice of polygamy and government entanglement, although we should probably include a link to Mormon fundamentalism. I think that figures in modern polygamist groups are outside the scope of such template, which will be focused on the late practice of LDS polygamy, but I wonder if I'm injecting too much bias into the topic. Any opinions? Cool Hand Luke 21:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It all depends on the title you use; it can not be so broad as LDS polygamy given that some people interpret LDS at Latter Day Saint rather than the proper Latter-day Saint. If the title limits the scope you evade all potential problems. However, if you do this, I would also create a template that addresses all other practice of polygamy post 2nd Manifesto. Does that sound logical? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I don't want to create anti-fundamentalist POV problems, and at the same time I don't want to create the impression that we're equating Latter-day Saint and modern polygamy (which anonymous editors are often very sensitive about). Do you think a single template could serve for both? Perhaps we could divide it into pre- and post-manifesto collapsible sections that could be switched on and off by default. (I'm not worried about the mechanics now—we'll find an appropriate template to work with when we know how it should work in concept. I'm just trying to prevent stubbed toes with good planning.) Cool Hand Luke 00:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

My kneejerk reaction would be that it would be very difficult to have one template serve two masters, err topics. This is a bit difficult and potentially sensitive, I would look for some other input before we go too far. Mind waiting a few days before being bold? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do is make a sample in your user space, then discuss it there. Wrad 02:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Luke, I interpreted your original idea as proposing some sort of "polygamy and the law"–style template, but as the discussion has proceeded it looks like maybe you are more thinking about some sort of "Mormon polygamy" template. However, if it were titled something like "Polygamy and the law" (or even "American polygamy and the law") as opposed to "Mormon polygamy" or something similar, then you wouldn't have to worry about whether or not you were equating pre– and post–Manifesto events under the blanket categorization of "Mormon polygamy". The mere fact that an article deals with polygamy and the law would determine inclusion. Under such a system, you wouldn't need to include the Mormon fundamentalism article, because it doesn't really directly address polygamy and the law. However, you might want to include an article related to Mormon fundamentalists that had to do with the law, like Tom Green (polygamist) or Short Creek raid. However, this approach might result in excluding other articles you may have wanted to include, depending on what your goal is. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 02:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I think that's a good way to frame it. I think I'll define the template for the history of polygamy and the law. I don't know enough about modern polygamy to fairly tackle that, and I defer to Storm Rider's judgment that the subjects are too different to comfortably fit. I imagine that some post-manifesto topics (like the Short Creek raid) could benefit from both templates, but I'm going to stick with what I know. Cool Hand Luke 02:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (religious figures)

A new proposed guideline titled Wikipedia:Notability (religious figures) may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. -- 159.182.1.4 22:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Also a side question: why isn't there a project page similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism for WP:LDS? It appears that when articles are added to the list of Judaism-related deletions there is a much more open and robust discussion of the merits of the article than we have seen on recent deletions on Mormonism related articles. It appears that WikiProject Deletion sorting general tries to function in conjunction with other topic-specific WikiProjects, similar to WP:LDS. Is this just an oversight, an opportunity for enhancement that just hasn't happened yet, or has there already been a determination made that the WP:LDS is unsuitable for inclusion? -- 159.182.1.4 22:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Project help needed

This project's editors need to descend on Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints immediately, the article is violation of WP policies. I have tagged it NPOV, and only stumbled on it because I am working on an article about the Plano Stone Church, and the RLDS being headquartered there when Smith III moved to Plano, Illinois. The above article basically covers only a lawsuit between the RLDS and Community of Christ, see WP:UNDUE. Hopefully the editors here can help out. Thanks. IvoShandor 16:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

GA class clarification

In order to become GA class, articles must be promoted through the WP:GAC page. Several articles withing this project were self promoted by someone. This is not good procedure. The highest you can promote an article without going through some sort of process is B class. For further information, see the Book of Mormon talk page. Wrad 00:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I need your help

Some people want to delete the article Lehi in the Wilderness: 81 New Documented Evidences That the Book of Mormon Is a True History. I need your help to keep this article on wikipedia. Please go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lehi in the Wilderness: 81 New Documented Evidences That the Book of Mormon Is a True History and write that you want that this article stays on wikipedia. This book shows direct evidences for the Book of Mormon in the old world so it is a really important Book for Book of Mormon scholars.Cmmmm 14:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Book of Mormon GA on hold for seven days

This article is under review for GA. If we collaborate on it for that time, it has a good chance of making it! Please come help! Wrad 22:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Need image help with a genealogical chart

At Image talk:SmithFamily.gif there are comments about the problems with Image:SmithFamily.gif, which apparently shows some members of Joseph Smith III's family with the wrong name or wrong parents. Could someone who is familiar with the genealogy and knows how to edit images take a look at that? --Metropolitan90 18:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• In particular, a woman who died in 1869 is shown as having children born in 1874 and 1876, and a woman named "Lois" is listed as being named "Louis" instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Region categories

I think these are being promulgated in a clumsy way. See Category talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the United States. Cool Hand Luke 19:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

New page, probably in your purview

Hi, I wanted to let you know User:Snocrates has started a page that I suspect falls in the purview of your project: Mormon folklore. I thought you might want to tag it as such. Aleta 02:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Latter Day Saint Wikipedians

I would suggest all LDS wikipedians add their user pages to Category:Latter Day Saint Wikipedians.

To add yourself to this category just add one of the following to your userpage:

{{User:Jaksmata/Userboxes/User_LDS}}

This user is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

OR

{{User:Java7837/userboxing/mormon}}

This user is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

OR

[[Category:Latter Day Saint Wikipedians|{{PAGENAME}}]]

-Tea and Crumpets ^{(Talk - contribs)} 04:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquote entry

Greetings! I started an entry on the Book of Mormon at Wikiquote (see link to the right), and I've tried to capture those passages that were most important, most representative, or most beautifully written (in my humble opinion), but I can not do the topic justice, and am hopeful that some participants in this project can fill in the sparse work that I've begun there. Cheers! bd2412 T 10:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Latter Day Saint restorationism

I propose we rename this project Latter Day Saint restorationism. That seems to be a pretty neutral term that is also descriptive of what the -ism is about. With the assumption being that all article pages that use the term movement would instead use restorationism. I realize that if this proposal reaches consensus it will be a difficult task to accomplish because of the many pages and categories that use the term movement. However, that stuff can be done with the assistance of some bots, so if the only objection to the move is the work involved or you have ideas on how the work can be done please don't elaborate as we can tackle the technical stuff if the move proposal reaches consensus. --Trödel 18:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Trödel, could you provide a few reasons why the change would be an improvement? As this is a project page rather than an article, we can certainly call it whatever we want. However, most readers of associated articles would understand the concept of a social/religious movement over time, while "...isms" are generally formal academic categories and may be more unfamiliar. As the churches within our movement share a history (but vary widely in theology and practice) it appears likely that all of them would, presently, include themselves in a restoration category. But I don't know if this would be verifiable. As for the technical changes, let's knock out the pros and cons of the concept before proceeding. WBardwin 19:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this term in use outside Wikipedia? If so, I could see merit in such a change. If not, though, I have reservations about introducing new terminology. It's a good term, though. I like it better than Latter Day Saint movement, and if I were writing an academic article, I'd consider using it. If nobody has used it before, however, I'm not sure that Wikipedia should be the first. COGDEN 19:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I found the term in an religion based journal online. I thought it would make much more sense in this context. The article was describing Latter Day Saints within the realm of restorationism. I am not sure about its use elsewhere. My short personal survey over the week since discussing the term here is that neither seems to be widely accepted by the academic or informed community outside Wikipedia or LDS based journals.

In answer to WBArdwin's request, the first reason is that I never really liked the term movement but couldn't really think of anything better :) As to substantive reasons:

1. The Latter Day Saints groups are really not a unified movement - I think of a movement as a group that is headed towards a shared goal and that the members of the movement work towards the goal - like the Civil Rights movement. I really don't see a similar goal amongst LDS groups, except maybe the goals they share with other Christians - to spread the gospel, introduce Christ to people, etc (the only one I can imagine that they share could be the proclamation that God has spoken to man again through prophets, but that message is very different amongst the groups).
2. The term Restorationism describes a common thread amongst the different groups - that they believe that the gospel has been restored, and the current teachings of X contain the truths of the gospel through that restoration.
3. From a non-LDS worldview - placing Latter Day Saints within Restorationism makes understanding the relationship of Latter Day Saints to other Christians more understandable.
4. The term movement does not properly identify the the religions/denominations/sects that are included in the group.

Well that is about all I can think of for now. I don't see any reason to change this WikiProject name if we don't also come to a concensus on changing the collective group of LDS style restorationists to LDS restorationism rather than LDS movement. --Trödel 02:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, first of all, naming it "Latter Day Saint restorationism" says to me that it is a restoration of Latter Day Saint, which it clearly isn't. What you are getting at would be something like "Latter Day Saint (restorationism)", but there is already a Latter Day Saint article that would then have to have something in parentheses. I like "Latter Day Saint movement" because, at least at first, it was one movement that later splintered. But if we can find significant usage of another term in other arenas (besides Wikipedia), then we should change it. Until then, I think that this title is a good, brief description of this concept. — Val42 (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like there is too much momentum behind the current naming structure - I withdraw the proposal --Trödel 14:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Amulek

I wrote an article about Amulek; you might want to look it over.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sixth Column

The Sixth Column article was recently tagged with being part of thie project. It has been a few years since I read this book, but this book seems too far removed from this project. Why was it tagged? — Val42 03:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Val, I read the article, but I have not read the book. If there is any connection it was not included in the article. I deleted the category. What I found interesting is the category itself and the articles that have been included. Some are obvious, but others have very little in common with LDS or Mormons. Strange.--Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This is indeed true. I have been tagging a lot of articles lately for the project moving though mormon-/LDS–related categories, ususally tagging everything in sight. This method obviously has the disadvantage of being indiscriminate in perpetuating errors of judgment (or ill will) committed by previous editors. I hope, though, that most will agree to my continued endeavor in this respect, as there is a huge backlog of project-related articles that don't carry the project banner, and hence are only indirectly visible to project members. Also, this constitutes a bottleneck for recruiting new members. Category:Portrayals of Mormons in popular media was in fact remarkable in the way that a lot of its entries didn't expound any relation to mormonism bar the categorization itself. However, since I a) weren't familiar with any of the works, and b) didn't become aware of this awkward phenomenon until I was well on my way to having worked through it all, I believe all entries here have now been tagged with the LDSproject banner. I think it would be beneficial if someone with a keen knowledge of LDS culture would re-check all articles in that particular category and remove all entries (as well as the spuriously added category, which Storm Rider did) that obviously shouldn't have this connection asserted. Perhaps some little investigation may be called for in some instances: i.e. querying the editor who added the article to the mormon-related category. In all cases that aren't positively spurious, a notice on the article's talk page would be prudent, I think. __meco 07:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Good counsel. I believe that User:Uncle G added the category to one of the articles I checked. I will go back and check. The only thing I got out of the article is that an individual was racist; there may have been a prophet involved also. But those are hardly traits of Mormonism...there have been many prophets and many racists. It is too easy to perceive an editor is not acting in good faith, which is not acceptable; posting a note on their talk page will quickly clarify motivation. Good points, thanks. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Style Revision

The style guide stands in need of revision. As it is currently, it is very incorrect. Many other denominations that have broken off from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints through the years are being bundled into "Mormonism" and the "Latter-day Saints." Currently the tern Latter-day Saints refers to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and "Mormonism" is a term that should describe a combinaton of doctrines, culture, and lifestyle, as it pertians to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. According to the Associated Press Styleguide, “The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other ... churches that resulted from the split after [Joseph] Smith’s death.” Please refer to the official style guide for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/style-guide), and understand that the other denominations are not part of the Latter-day Saints, Mormonism, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibitor (talk • contribs) 19:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that "Mormon" needs to be clarified. But Wikipedia doesn't exist to define things but to collect and organize information about a subject. There are several of the "break offs" that use the term "Mormon" for their membership, so we can't declare that this should be exclusively applied to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. However, I have made repeated attempts (without success) to get a definite list as to which denominations use the "Mormon" for their membership.

However, I think that you have an incorrect concept about the difference between Latter Day Saint and Latter-day Saint. The former is used on Wikipedia (apparently derived from scholarly works) as an umbrella for all of the denominations that have descended from the church founded by Joseph Smith, Jr.. The later is used exclusively for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is a clear distinction made by regular contributors. — Val42 (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Latter Day Saint RfC open

There's an RfC open at Talk:Lost Boys of Polygamy. They ask whether the article should exist, and if so whether the title is appropriate. Cool Hand Luke 23:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

restorationists in the press

interestingly I ran across this article today while reading the news on my centro. Aspen Times refers to LDS as restorationists. Trödel 23:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Books in the Book of Mormon

The Book of Omni doesn't have any references except to the Book of Mormon. We should be able to find some other works to reference. This also applies to all of the other articles about books in the Book of Mormon, except for First Book of Nephi and Third Nephi which have one each. We should be able to find plenty of additional material from LDS authors. Even some anti-Mormon writers have probably written things about these books. There should even be some from others not of these diametrically-opposed sides who have presented at LDS conferences. — Val42 (talk) 01:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Using subpages of article talk pages to store information for templates

Seeing no mention of the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Transcluding article content from talk pages, I'm posting a note here. There are a number of editors - myself included - who think it is absolutely incorrect to use subpages of article talk pages in the way that they appear to be used by this WikiProject; one editor has mentioned an interest in getting such pages deleted via MfD if they are not moved to template namespace. I think a planned migration would be in the best interests of everyone; I suggest further discussion be continued at the Village pump. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Kent Derricott

There currently is a AfD for Kent Derricott, an entertainer who is well know in Japan as a gaijin tarento, who is also well known there for being 'Mormon' (one of the two "Kento-san" who learned Japanese while serving a mission in Japan, the other being Kent Gilbert). The article is just a stub, which naturally needs expanding, but not sure if the AfD is justified. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Mitt Romney RfC

There is currently a discussion regarding how much weight to give the subject's religious affiliation at Talk:Mitt Romney#Material regarding subject's religious affiliation. Any input is welcome. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Battlestar Galactica (1978 TV series)

In the second paragraph of this article's introduction it reads: "The premise of the series takes themes from Chariots of the Gods and Mormon theology." Shouldn't this mean that we ought to include this article and also fit it into one of the LDS-related categories? __meco (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the Book of Mormon and Linguistics and the Book of Mormon

The editor Descartes1979 reverts 2 Theories in favour of Joseph Smith's own account. I think that this is anti-mormon bias because he wants to reduce the Theories which are in favour of Joseph Smith and at the same time lets the other theories stay on this article. Compare the versions of this article, my version is Origin of the Book of Mormon 1 and his version is Origin of the Book of Mormon 2

at the same time he wants to revert nearly all linguistic forms in the Linguistics and the Book of Mormon article. Compare the versions of this article, my version is Linguistics and the Book of Mormon 1 and his version is Linguistics and the Book of Mormon 2. I think that this is a very obvious example of anti-mormon bias.84.146.201.29 (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• To the anon editor - several of us have been waiting patiently for constructive discussion on your edits at the talk pages of the articles you note. Please join us, we are willing to come to a consensus, but your edits have amounted to plagiarism, and revert warring. --Descartes1979 (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Gordon B. Hinckley

With the recent death of Gordon B. Hinckley, that page will need extra attention to combat the vandalism that often occurs on current events topics. Hopefully members of this project will be able to assist. -- 63.224.135.113 (talk) 04:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Also there is a Wikinews article about the death (found here) that could use some looking-in on. -- 63.224.135.113 (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding project banner

I have noted how several articles relevant to Christianity have only the banner of more focused projects, several Christianity banners, or no banners at all on the talk pages. This makes it rather difficult for the Christianity WikiProject to keep track of all articles, as well as potentially reducing the number of editors who might be willing to work on the article, if only the more focused banner is in place. If I were to adjust the existing {{ChristianityWikiProject}} to include separate individual assessment information for each relevant Christianity project, and display the projects which deal with it, like perhaps the {{WikiProject Australia}} does, would the members of this project object to having that banner ulimately used in place of this project's one? It might help reduce the banner clutter, as well. John Carter (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Bible in Mormonism

I've noticed that most of the articles on the Bible or books of the Bible say anything about the LDS view of the Bible. It's important that others know that we revere and study the Bible, especially after Elders Ballard and Nelson gave talks on the importance of the Bible these last two General Conferences. I think we should add a section to each of those articles explaining the LDS viewpoint. If necessary, we could also make a new article specifically about the LDS Bible. What do you think? Anyone want to help? -Tea and crumpets ^{(t c)} 17:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Tea, it would seem a separate article on Bible (LDS) would not be helpful. The LDS bible is the same bible that exists for the rest of Christianity; there is no difference between the two. The LDS have a preference for the King James version, but that is as far as it goes. I would be happy to help, let me know where you are starting and I will assist as I can. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The preference for the King James version by the LDS Church naturally only extends to the English language, and there are LDS specific chapter heading, footnotes, dictionaries, and indexes, especially notable in the latest version printed by the church. It might be an interesting article if someone described both that, as well as the history of usage/official adoption of various versions of the Bible, including in languages other than English, for the Latter Day Saint movement as a whole. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 01:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If, as you all indicated, there isn't a specific, different translation of most of the books of the Old and New Testament used by Mormons, then there probably wouldn't be any particularly obvious reason to include reference to the LDS in most of the articles about the Bible, barring specific unusual interpretations. It would help to know exactly which books of the Bible are included by the LDS. I'm guessing, based on the use of the King James, it's more or less the "Protestant" Bible? However, if any of you were to want to create a separate article on the use of the Bible by the LDS, I can't imagine anyone would object, provided there were the requisite reliable sources and enough content to justify a separate article, and I assume both of those factors can be easily met. John Carter (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The English version of the Bible published by the LDS church is a standard King James version with specialized footnotes which cross reference to the other LDS scriptures (D&C, Pearl of Great Price and Book of Mormon). In addition, there are included in the footnotes comparative verses from the "Joseph Smith translation," or "Inspired Version." These notes, however, do not impinge upon the primary King James text, which reads exactly like it would from any other non-LDS printed version of the King James Bible. All distinctive differences related to the main text are confined completely to the footnotes. In other languages, a standard (non-LDS) Bible is typically used. It would be of interest in some article to illustrate those unique aspects of the English language LDS printing of the Bible. Bochica (talk) 05:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(newindent) Hello John, it is true that we use the KJV of the Bible; however the teaching on the Apocrypha may be interesting to you. Joseph Smith stated the following:

Apocrypha. March 9, 1833—Having come to that portion of the ancient writings called the Apocrypha, I received the following revelation:

1. Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha—There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly;
2. There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men.
3. Verily, I say unto you, that it is not needful that the Apocrypha should be translated.
4. Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth; 5. And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom,
5. And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited. Therefore it is not needful that it should be translated. Amen.

It is left to the individual member to study the Apocrypha or not. This is found in the History of the Church, Vol. 1, p. 322. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how this applies to other languages, but at least in Portuguese, the João Ferreira de Almeida translation of the Bible is the "authorized" version used in Portuguese-speaking congregations (aka wards & branches). Since there have been several native Portuguese-speaking general authorities who have served as the Area President of the Brazil Area, this is pretty much official doctrine for the LDS Church, although I can't give an exact reference here. I did hear it directly from Helio Carmargo (the first Brazilian called as a Seventy), but that isn't a citeable reference. Interestingly enough, this edition of the Bible supposedly was based upon the KJV, and the Portuguese Wikipedia reference above lists the Textus Receptus bibical text as the basis of the translation... also used in the KJV. I don't know how much official emphasis upon the Textus Receptus has been given by the LDS Church, but that does seem to be a very common thread among other language editions of the Bible used by the LDS Church as well. Food for thought at least.

One other interesting aspect of LDS acceptance of apocryphal writings should also be mentioned, so far as the LDS Church has a significantly expanded cannon above and beyond mainstream Christianity. One book in particular, Sefer haYashar (midrash) (allegedly the Book of Jasher), was referenced by Joseph Smith (this is in the article) and has found its way into LDS theology in a number of ways. More could be said about this topic as well in an LDS context, but I wouldn't push it too hard. --Robert Horning (talk) 09:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Laie Hawaii Temple

Peer review request found here. Please help. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 03:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Book of Mormon

This article's quality is deteriorating drastically. Large sections have been removed, the lead is terrible now. This article just needs help from people who know what they're doing. I'm beginning to wonder if this project has anyone who knows how to do anything other than argue about POV issues! Referencing and layout too often seem to be thrown out the window in the name of the all-powerful POV. The fact is, 90% of your POV problems would be solved if you actually cited your sources half as religiously as you argue over POV! Wrad (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Dedicating a country?

The article on Dieter F. Uchtdorf contains the following line: "On May 12, 2006 Uchtdorf dedicated Slovakia for the preaching of the gospel." This has a very odd ring to it, at least to my ears. Can we rephrase this, or put it in more context? Alai (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Before formal missionary work is authorized for a specific region of the world, a formal prayer/ceremony is often performed... usually officiated by a member of the Quorum of the Twelve... for the specific country or political unit where the activity will be taking place. This is usually followed (but not always) by the establishment of an LDS mission for that country, or at least the formal introduction of LDS missionaries. This dedicatory prayer is recorded in the official records of the LDS Church, and is usually a date of note in historical accounts about that country for at least the LDS Church members that live in that country. Prior to the dedication, formal approval from the government of that country is usually obtained for permission to begin proseltyzing in that country, if such permission is required, or some sort of formal legal registration has also taken place.

As many of these dedicatory prayers are of significant historical vintage, it is certainly noteworthy that somebody currently alive was one of those who officiated at a specific country... so yes, this is something worthy of inclusion into an article like this. Hopefully the former communist government attitude in Slovakia toward religion should be a reason for why this is something of a relatively recent event, while the dedicatory prayer for England took place in the middle of the 19th Century, to give an example. I don't know how to rephrase this better, but I hope this gives some background information for what is happening. And yes, this sentence is very much LDS catch phrases and should be reworded for a more general audience. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Moving a page

Secret combination, a page within the scope of this project is going to have to be moved to make room for a disambiguation page. What would an appropriate name for the new page be? The other page will be Secret Combination (song). It is a song by Kalomoira. Grk1011 (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Featured article review : Golden plates

Golden plates has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Serpent's Choice (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Eugene England

Hi, I'm sorry I don't know all that much about WikiProjects, but I just created a stub for Eugene England (I feel that he is definitely notable enough in the LDS tradition to warrant a wikipedia page) and I put the {{LDSproject}} boilerplate on it. I don't know if I was supposed to ask about that first or what, but I just was bold and did it. I put it on the list of pages requesting assessment, I'm hoping to add more info to it as time goes on, and I'm asking others (including whoever reads this) to contribute anything they know about the entry for this great thinker. Let me know if I screwed anything up and/or how I can help improve his page from a simple stub. Thanks. biggins (talk) 08:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Is excluding Haun's Mill from 'List of massacres' biased?

Is there a reason that the Haun's Mill massacre is excluded from the List of massacres article? Not including it, but including the Mountain Meadows massacre seems to smack of bias. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It was probably just missed. I've added it to the list. — Val42 (talk) 07:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

How about List of terrorist incidents? It lists MMM but not Haun's Mill. Same with List of battles and other violent events by death toll, Historical persecution by Christians & List of United States military history events. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added it to the above articles. Good catch. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Is Haun's Mill and the MMM really a "terrorist incident"? I think both incidents fall better under the definition of genocide. --Descartes1979 (talk) 06:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW - Haun's Mill was not persecution by Christians, but was rather motivated by local political and economic friction. I removed Haun's Mill from Historical persecution by Christians. --Descartes1979 (talk) 06:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I also removed Haun's Mill from List of United States military history events - it was perpetrated by the Missouri Militia, a paramilitary force at best, and not regular U.S. Military. Notice how it was the only action by a militia in the entire article? --Descartes1979 (talk) 06:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Descartes, I saw that you forgot to remove Mountain Meadows from the same sites, so I helped you out. I would disagree with you on Haun's Mill; it happened because they were Mormons not because they were just normal settlers. Attempting to limit the scope to such a narrow perspective is not supported by any reputable historian. MMM does not fit the definition of genocide; one could argue that Haun's Mill was a cultural group, but that still seems to only fit the technical definition.

It would have been more helpful if you would have deleted both at the same time, but to only delete Haun's Mill does not lend a lot of evidence to your objectivity. I am sure it was just an oversight. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You are right Storm Rider, I didn't realize the MMM was in the article Religious persecution by Christians, and I agree that it should not be there. I also agree that MMM was not a military event. However, the Utah War was, so I am going to add some of the info back to List of United States military history events - but I will exclude the MMM. Thanks for the catch. --Descartes1979 (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Egyptian Names in the Book of Mormon

Some people want to merge Egyptian Names in the Book of Mormon with some other article. This would be a great and tragic mistake. Please vote against it. Thank you. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more with Das Baz (I proposed the merge) - the content in Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon and certain sections of Linguistics and the Book of Mormon are identical. There is a rampant problem with the articles about Mormonism in that there are hundreds of disparate articles on obscure topics, that are not linked in a coherent way. I strongly believe they need to be consolidated so that people who have an interest in Mormon topics can find the information more easily. The Linguistics article gets a lot of traffic, and is referenced by the main Book of Mormon article among others. That is where the information in the Egyptian names article belongs (which is where, by the way, information on Hebrew and Greek names in the Book of Mormon already are). I just don't understand why it would be a "tragic mistake", and have yet to hear a good argument supporting that view. Das, are you sure you aren't overreacting a bit? --Descartes1979 (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, because I have seen too many cases where a "merge" is just a first step towards total deletion of the facts. Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that the merge is complete, I hope that you will see that we have not deleted the content. --Descartes1979 (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Daughter of Jared

I came across Daughter of Jared today. I don't think that it will ever be anything other than a stub. Check it out and make any comments on that article's page. — Val42 (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• I agree - I added a proposed deletion flag.--Descartes1979 (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Likewise I also proposed the deletion of Akish. --Descartes1979 (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Book of Mormon articles

The following text was just added to the Nephi article:

"The historicity of the story of Nephi is not generally accepted by non-LDS historians or archaeologists.

This type of sentence is being added piecemeal to the Book of Mormon articles. I think that we need to add this (or something similar) to all of the Book of Mormon articles, or remove it from all of them. I think that the compromise that will be reached will be somewhere in between, but it needs to be done. The compromise that I suggest is, "X is, according to the Book of Mormon, ...." — Val42 (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Coordinators for the Christianity projects

I have recently started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity#Coordinators? regarding the possibility of the various Christianity projects somewhat integrating, in the style of the Military history project, for the purposes of providing better coordination of project activities. Any parties interested in the idea, or perhaps willing to offer their services as one of the potential coordinators, is more than welcome to make any comments there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Coordinator?

It has probably been noticed by most of the editors who frequent this page that there is often a pronounced degree of overlap between the various projects relating to Christianity. Given that overlap, and the rather large amount of content we have related to the subject of Christianity, it has been proposed that the various Christianity projects select a group of coordinators who would help ensure the cooperation of the various projects as well as help manage some project related activities, such as review, assessment, portal management, and the like. Preferably, we would like to consider the possibility of having one party from each of the major Christianity projects included, given the degree of specialization which some of the articles contain. We now are accepting nominations for the coordinators positions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Coordinators/Election 1. Any parties interested in helping performing some of the management duties of the various Christianity projects is encouraged to nominate themselves there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Much to my surprise, the period for the factual elections of the new coordinators has started a bit earlier than I expected. For what it's worth, as the "instigator" of the proposed coordinators, the purpose of having them is not to try to impose any sort of "discipline" on the various projects relating to Christianity, but just to ensure that things like assessment, peer review, portal maintainance, and other similar directly project-related functions get peformed for all the various projects relating to Christianity. If there are any individuals with this project who are already doing such activities for the project, and who want to take on the role more formally, I think nominations are being held open until the end of the elections themselves. And, for the purposes of this election, any member in good standing of any of the Christianity projects can either be nominated or express their votes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Coordinators/Election 1. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Technology and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

I created the article Technology and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because some people think that the church does not support technology and confuse the church with the Amish. I need your help to expand this article because it is still a stub. Please help me to expand this article.Cmmmm 15:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anyone who thinks that - do you have a reference? I think the article is not nearly notable enough. I have proposed a merge of this content to the main LDS church article.--Descartes1979 (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews & Latter Day Saints reporting

Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews might benefit from some ongoing assistance by people with subject matter expertise on the Latter Day Saint movement, such as those found at this WikiProject. Recent interesting statements in related news stories there include (emphasis mine):

• 2008-02-04 - "LDS church names Monson their new president" currently states that "When the president dies, the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles is handed the position" and that "Monson simultaneously served as both First Counselor and President of the Quorum under Hinckney's administration due to his seniority."
• 2008-04-07 - "401 children from Texas sect compound taken into custody" stated for 3 days past it initial publish date that "The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, a polygamist sect founded by Warren Jeffs – jailed last year for the rape and forced marriage of a 14 year old girl – is a breakaway branch of the Mormon Church." Full disclosure - this has since been corrected.
• 2008-04-19 - "Copy of handbook for leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints obtained by Wikinews" implies that the Church Handbook of Instructions being available on the internet is somehow a new phenomena, even though it first appeared on the internet about 10 years ago.
  

-- 63.224.135.113 (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

LDS project bot

I am thinking of creating a bot to help with a few of the common tasks related to this project, and I would like to hear what you think. Below I am listing a few of the tasks that it could do. Please add other repetitive tasks that you think would be good to include in its functionality as well:

1. Change references to LDS scriptures into the {{lds}} template.
2. Periodically update the list of pages at /Articles needed
3. Add navigation templates to new articles
4. Add LDS project tags to new articles

--Descartes1979 (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

History of Nauvoo, Illinois & Nauvoo, Illinois

History of Nauvoo, Illinois has been split out of the history section of Nauvoo, Illinois into a new article. History of Nauvoo, Illinois needs a better intro, and the history section of Nauvoo, Illinois needs at least a summary paragraph about the history of the city. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Mark Hofmann edit

I'm not really a member of this project, but I was looking at this edit of the Mark William Hofmann article. It makes some claim about finding some papers somewhere related to the case and claims Church leaders didn't let authorities know about their discovery, blah, blah, blah. I didn't get it all. I thought someone ought to look at it who knows how to balance it out. The ref the editor gave is to an anti-Mormon website, so I don't think it's the most reliable source of information. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 15:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Polygamy in the United States

Recent changes here use Mormon in reference to the movement, the LDS Church, and the FLDS and related offshoots. Needs a real copy edit and some balance. Also, given the title, needs information on US polygamists not affiliated with the LDS movement. WBardwin (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Are there any polygamist groups in the US not affiliated with the LDS movement? I don't think there are, but I could be wrong. --Descartes1979 (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

There's House of Yahweh. — Val42 (talk) 02:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Baptism in the LDS

There has been some recent discussion at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum page about what to do with all the articles relating to baptism in the various Christian churches. A list of the articles invovled can be found at User:Pastordavid/workpage. Some of these articles relate specifically to the LDS churches. I think we would all welcome any input from members of this project regarding what if anything to do with the articles, which might include keeping them separate, merging them, or otherwise dealing with them. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject in Spanish

Hi! I come from Spanish Wikiproject of LDS. We have got an idea there about translation. We can translate articles onto the rest on languages, I mean, for example, translate Nukuʻalofa Tonga Temple onto Tongan language and the rest of articles the same. What do you think? For do this we need help to say it on the other Wikipedias. I'll try to translate onto Catalonian and Occitanian. Please, help us with this. --Jeneme (talk) 11:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll help. It sounds like English isn't your native language, so if you need help with translating just let me know. I'd try to translate them to Spanish myself, but the last time I tried that on Wikipedia, someone thought my translation was "espantoso". — Val42 (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

My native language is Spanish (my English is very poor as you see). In Spanish LDS project we're doing this. Rjgalindo and Lokj translate articles from English to Spanish, and then Chabi correct the mistakes from translation. So, when you translate an article into Spanish, tell it to Chabi, he'll help you and, of course, tell it to me. --Jeneme (talk) 07:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

These folks in the Spanish wiki are doing a fantastic job, so far I know none are LDS. I try to keep up with them, but my main focus is medicine in Spanish, which is «espantoso». Now they're moving into other languages and leading the project there. So whatever you can do to help in any of the languages would be an enormous contribution. Even if your spanish isn't too sharp as it once probably was, come stop by our discussion pages and we'll touch it up. Un abrazo, Bobjgalindo (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding template

Good morning folks,

With the recent announcement of new temples in Arizona I have noticed that {{List LDS Temple USA West}} has been getting a little crowded, particularly in the Phoenix area. I'm also concerned that some of the other spots on the map (Idaho in particular) may be a little crowded on higher-resolution displays, as well. Not only is the map getting physically crowded, but the list itself is getting a bit long and thus the template is starting to get, well, large.

I am wondering if it might not make more sense into two (or possibly more) templates, which would allow for less crowding on the map and a smaller, more manageable list? I've made a couple of sample templates to show what I mean, compared up against the current template - all three are shown here for simple comparison.

Please let me know what you think about splitting this template up. Shereth 17:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Good work; it looks better split up. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I take it this isn't an especially active project? I'd normally hope for a bit more feedback before implementing the change, any clue as to how long is a good idea to wait given the level of participation in discussion on this project? Shereth 16:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL, no Shereth, it is not as active as it could be. However, I would hope you would lean towards boldness and move forward. I have not attempted to contact other editors to draw attention to this proposal, but I also don't think it is controversial. I would wait no longer than Friday and then proceed. You have my thanks for your efforts. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and implemented the change - I figure if there's some strong objection to it, it can always be reverted :) Shereth 03:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Patty Bartlett Sessions

Patty Bartlett Sessions is up for deletion. The article describes her as a Mormon pioneer: can anybody refer me to sources that will back up her notability? Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Major restructuring proposal for polygamy related articles

A major restructuring proposal for all polygamy articles related to Mormonism has been made at Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr. and polygamy#Series and Restructuring proposal. Please visit and give your two cents. --Descartes1979 (talk) 04:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Mostly done with construction of Latter Day Saint polygamy in the late 19th century, could use your help

Per the restructuring initiative noted above, I have finished my first cut at the new article Latter Day Saint polygamy in the late 19th century, and could really use some help in filling out the content for things that I have missed, and general wiki style article revision. There are also two sections that I don't have as much info on right now, (you will see them towards the end of the article) which, again, I could use some help filling out. --Descartes1979 (talk) 05:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 815 articles are assigned to this project, of which 285, or 35.0%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

"List of topics" article should be moved to WP:LDS space?

I came across List of topics about the Latter Day Saint movement trying to figure something else out, and I noticed there had been some question about whether it shouldn't go into the project space because categories serve the same purpose as the page for article space. I happen to agree with that, so I figured I'd bring it to the project's attention for a to-do. MSJapan (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Laie Hawaii Temple

Now that Laie Hawaii Temple is a good article, I would like to focus on bringing it to featured status. I have set aside some open tasks in my user space if anyone is interested in collaborating. You can find it here. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Categories

I just went through all of the categories related to the LDS movement and tagged them all to be included in the scope of this project, there were around 400 of them - which seems rather excessive to me. Are we sure we aren't over doing it with all of the granular categories? I saw dozens of them with only 1 article in them. --Descartes1979 (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have specific examples? A generalized term such as "dozens of them" tells me nothing. Unless you are more specific, I cannot tell what it is in particular you are referring to. Thanks in advance for the clarification, and rest assured that if I know what it is you have reference to I would be happy to help out. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 02:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am not going to go back through 400 category pages to pull out the ones that have one page in the category - for now all I can say is that it happened quite a bit while I was going through them the first time around. Check out my contrib history to see the list of the category pages I touched (I think I got 95% of them). --Descartes1979 (talk) 04:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Free photos of General Authorities?

Does anyone have any leads on where "free" photos of General Authorities might be found? (Especially those who are still living, for which WP policy generally forbids "fair use" of copyrighted photos.)

I recently came across the photo of Elder Bednar, speaking at a BYU commencement and wearing an academic robe, and the thought occurred to me that a non-LDS reader — especially someone outside North America or western Europe — might not realize the significance of this mode of dress and could come away with the misperception that this was some sort of Mormon clerical attire. I'd love to replace the existing photo with one showing him wearing a suit and tie, but I haven't been able to find a photo without copyright strings attached. Richwales (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles about LDS in other languages

Just as a general thought, I'd like to suggest the idea that those of us with reasonable foreign language skills might want to go check out the LDS-related articles (if any) in various non-English editions of Wikipedia, and make whatever contributions we can to improve (or create) those articles.

I did this myself, about a year ago, with the Romanian article about the Church. That page was originally a grotesque hatchet job that had probably been copied straight out of some anti-Mormon tract — but now (through the efforts of several people, not just me) it's a reasonable description of Mormonism that will hopefully make sense to someone who is completely unfamiliar with the subject.

Some Wikipedia editions, of course, don't have any LDS-related articles at all. I happened to be looking at the Georgian Wikipedia recently, and there doesn't appear to be anything there about the Latter Day Saint movement right now. I don't speak Georgian, so I can't help, but maybe someone here does (or knows someone who does). Richwales (talk) 07:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Latter Day Saint movement

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement

Please, any help possible would be appreciated in bringing this article to a neutral state. It is in need of serious consideration. Thanks. --TrustTruth (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Good luck - since it is a POV Fork, I doubt it will ever be neutral.--Descartes1979 (talk) 06:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Date formatting

Hello - I noticed that a couple of templates used by this project, namely Template:Infobox LDS Temple and Template:LDS Temple list, encourage using the "2008-10-05" date format that is not recommended by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). I'd like to move them over to the "5 October 2008" format to be consistent with dates used in lists and tables in the rest of Wikipedia. Is there anything you'd like me to consider before making the switch? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to start in on the date reformatting. You can help by adding importScript('User:Remember the dot/ISO date format unifier.js') to your monobook.js, editing the subpages of Template:LDS Temple, and clicking "Format ISO dates in international style" in the toolbox. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Most of the dates have been switched over now; I'll probably switch the remaining ones over in the next few days. Please let me know if there are any problems; it's a bit disconcerting to not have much feedback on this. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the comparison list now doesn't work at all for sorting. I think this should also have been brought up on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Temples. Additionally, now the dates are formatted the way they were entered rather in the way that complies with each user's preferences under the Special:Preferences date tab. Finally, we should leave the data as is and modify the template to make changes to the way it is presented rather than making changes to all the different templates. The ISO format is consistent and can much more easily be put into whatever format is needed, where the current data entry is inconsistent and can not be manipulated in the template at all - but must be used as is.

I understand the problem with having date links everywhere - but that is a programming issue with MediaWiki - not something we should fix with the data. The problem is that in order to have the dates formatted to match the user's preferences they have to be wikilinks, but the date standard has evolved to favor NOT wikilinking all dates - so that means that the user preference is completely ignored for most dates now. Personally, I think the prior standard should prevail - the favoring of formatting dates according to the user preferences, until the software is fixed and date formatting applied to dates that aren't wikilinked as well as those that are. --Trödel 12:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I am also surprised that you didn't address the reasons that ISO format was originally chosen that were specified on the instruction page, "use ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD format{reference-footnote} This will allow sorting by year in Compare list, and wikilinking to date format according to user settings. For example [[1937-03-06]] formats as 1937-03-06, formatted according to your user preference see screenshot{end reference}" --Trödel 12:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with Trödel. The purpose of these templates is to store the data only, not to provide formatting. The formatting should be set where the data is used. – jaksmata 14:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thank you for responding. Comparison of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints now acts as before, with the dates in YYYY-MM-DD format.

The problem with using 2008-10-07 for dates is that for nearly everyone it shows up as 2008-10-07. Using date preferences to change this just creates a disconnect between our readers and our editors, which is not good. As you mentioned, it also creates overlinking, and without even more complex code (that the templates have not had) single years like 1896 get linked too.

I see your point about wanting to store dates as YYYY-MM-DD and then just reformatting them as needed. This is not a bad idea, however we ought to consider that most of the time the appropriate date format is "7 October 2008", not "2008-10-07". It's confusing, especially to newcomers, when the code inside the template does not match what they are actually seeing on the page.

So the problem boils down to whether dates should be stored in "2008-10-07" format and then reformatted into "7 October 2008" most of the time, or stored as "7 October 2008" and then reformatted into "2008-10-07" when occasionally necessary. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being gone so long - I have been trying to figure out a way to reformat the ISO format to the 7 October 2008 format - I think I have that done. In the meantime I have ignored this conversation :( - Anyway take a look at User_talk:Trödel/Sandbox1 which outputs the correct format from ISO dates to d Month YYYY type format. (This test page uses User_talk:Trödel/Sandbox2 and User:Trödel/Sandbox2 as copies of the Salt Lake and Arizona temples, and the Gilbert Temple's regular template page as a control. I created a template, User_talk:Trödel/Sandbox3, which converts the format; however it will only work if the inputed date is an ISO Date (or a straight number YYYYMMDD) - I'm trying to figure out if I can do something different - like if the date is in a different format if I can do something smart rather than return an ugly red expression error (see the Gilbert Arizona Temple on my test page. (as a note User:Trödel/Sandbox1 acts as the {{LDS Temple list}} template for the testing since a change will need to be made to that template.

Before I implement the proposed solution on the template page, I was wondering if your bot thing allows you to reverse the change of the date made, as I don't want to see the red error text on any of the pages :) --Trödel 19:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ouch, "announcement = 19191003" looks really unintuitive. How is this better than using "announcement = 3 October 1919" and having unusual templates reformat it into "1919-10-03" when occasionally necessary, as is currently done?

As for the script, yes, it can be modified to do pretty much whatever needs to be done. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

My bad - they can be in the ISO format as well - I just left it in that format when I was doing some experimenting to see if I could support any random format the user might put in there.

I can not think of a way to convert the format of d Month Year to other formats because the String parser functions are not implemented on Wikipedia (or any Wikimedia project). So although MediaWiki (the software) has an available solution, we can't use it here. That is where I went first in trying to resolve the problem - can we convert it back to the ISO format for the comparison page.

The only thing I can think of is to use the ISO format and manipulate it since the #expr function treats an ISO date as a mathematical expression evaluation 1919-10-3 as 1916 - but since the order of operations is preserved, we can preserve the information from the ISO format and extract it out in different formats we want by mathematically changing it to 191910.03. Now I understand why so many templates use a separate variable for year month and date information. I am going to try to get my date conversion template to convert the data to yyyy|m|d - so that we can use all of the date calculation templates that others have already created rather than creating additional ones for ourselves, but I'm not sure that it will work since the "|" character doesn't transfer well at times from one template to another. --Trödel 19:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I just took a look at the change you made for the comparison page, using the #time parser function was my first thought as well - that way we could take the format however someone enters it on the data page and output it the way we want. Unfortunately, it is not that easy :(

The #time function only works for dates after 1 January 1970 and returns 1 January 1970 for any prior date for example 31 January 1871 returns as 1871-01-31; or even if you want the same format back 31 January 1871.

This makes the whole problem much more difficult - but I think the solution on my Sandboxes works.

The question now is how to format on the different pages, YYYY-MM-DD is obviously the preferred method on the comparison page. I agree that D Month Year looks good on the infobox and the list page.

The next question is "should we wikiformat it at all?" so that the user's preferences will over-ride the standard format. I like that they can be overridden, but it looks like my preferences is not "in vogue" see {{Infobox Person}}, but {{Infobox Pope}} still links the dates. So although there is still some disagreement and Wikiprojects are determining the formatting for their related pages, it looks like not linking is becoming the preferred method (a cursory review of templates in Category:Royalty and nobility infobox templates show that all the ones I checked do not link the date). I think there are too many links on the Lists of temples pages - so I would be fine with having no links there.

Thoughts?? --Trödel 19:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That's weird - if you use the #time function in a template that is transcluded on a page it reacts differently than if you use it directly on a page - as with the error messages above - but on the comparison page the date is displayed as 1970-01-01 --Trödel 19:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Gaa, you're right about the 1970 date barrier, I didn't notice that before. The bug related to this is bugzilla:11686. Thank you for being so patient about this.

Your solution looks better than what we have right now, however I would really like to see the #time ParserFunction expanded to work at least for Gregorian (post-1582) dates. I may be able to get a MediaWiki patch together to fix this myself, we'll have to see.

Would it be OK if we left the templates messy for another day or two while I see what can be done on the MediaWiki end? If it turns out nothing can be done then let's use your solution, or see if we can split the dates into day, month, and year parameters. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 20:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I sent an email to Tim Starling (the guy who wrote the #time parser function) and asked if there was any chance on getting it to work with dates prior to 1970; hopefully he'll say yes. But if not we may need to find someone who can right the date code for that using PHP. If you can fix the MediaWiki end that would be great - and I'm ok on waiting. I'll let you know if Tim replies, you can email me at my wikipedia name (substituting o for ö) at gmail.com.

Since that is the case - I'll not spend anymore time on the ISO date converter template I had created - I was planning on supporting a few different formats and converting from an ISO date to d Month Year; D MON YY; Month d, Year; Mon d, Year; Mon d; d Month at the very least - but that is probably more work than I should take on right now, but it would be fun work :) --Trödel 20:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the functions available in PHP, it unfortunately doesn't look like there's an easy way to make this work :-(

It should be possible to extend #time to 1901 at least, which would be an improvement, but it's still not far enough back for our purposes. Interestingly, if PHP and MediaWiki are still around in 2038 this problem is really going to rear its ugly teeth because of the year 2038 problem. PHP itself may have to be fixed before the problem truly goes away.

If Tim looks at it and is unable to resolve the problem, what do you think we should do? Should we use your parsing code, or just split the dates into 3 parameters for day, month, and year? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that we should just use the parsing code. Two reasons- 1) we would need to create about 8 more variables in each template - and I worry that there already is too many. 2) once the fix is in from PHP 5.3 (below) it would need to be switched back. Better to keep it as readable computer/human information now and parse the information out.

I was worried that we wouldn't be able to do it, but luckily the expr command resolves all inserted variables first then solves the expression keeping the order of operations - I rely on that to get the different parts out of the ISO date. Of course if they just would let the string functions loose on Wikipedia that would make it easier, but I understand and agree that if they did it would be unleashing a potential nightmare of problems from users using them when they weren't absolutely necessary. --Trödel 22:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, there is hope! From what I've read, it sounds like PHP 5.3 will will eliminate the 1970 and 2038 barriers. PHP 5.3 is expected out later this month (timetable), so we shouldn't have too long to wait before this problem can be properly fixed. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you know if there is an update schedule planned for Wikipedia servers going to 5.3? --Trödel 22:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No, but I have better news: from my testing it looks like the barriers are already nonexistent in the latest stable PHP (5.2.4) when using the date_create and date_format functions. So, it *should* be possible to patch MediaWiki to use these functions instead of using strtotime. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds Great! --Trödel 10:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have stopped, but there's a problem: right now some of the dates are in YYYY-MM-DD (ISO) format, and some are in D MMMM YYYY (MOS) format. It's totally inconsistent and it screws up the sorting on the temple comparison grid. Someone needs to either put it back in the ISO format (at least temporarily) or change the rest of the dates to the MOS format (with the understanding that the sorting will be figured out/fixed later. Which one is it going to be? – jaksmata 16:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Right now we're waiting for the MediaWiki developers to respond to bugzilla:11686. Once they say whether or not the patch will be implemented we'll know how to proceed. I'm sorry that the dates are such a mess in the meantime, but I think it'd be better to wait instead of rushing into something again. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 17:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If you can, it would be helpful if you voted for bugzilla:11686. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 17:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with bugzilla, but I did manage to vote for it. (The last few posts went over my head initially...) I'll be patient and wait to see what happens with the bug. – jaksmata 20:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for voting! The patch to fix the bug is sitting there waiting for review, but I don't think the MediaWiki developers work on weekends, so it looks like we're going to have to wait until Monday at least before we can know for sure whether it'll be accepted. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I've solved the problem! It turns out that there's a quirk in MediaWiki where if you pass "|local" to the #time function, the 1970 and 2038 date barriers disappear. The #time function should still be fixed in MediaWiki, but this gives us a way to work around the problem quite well.

Armed with this knowledge, I've recoded Template:LDS Temple compare to do the following with its date parameters:

• If the date matches the format "1 February 2000", it is formatted as "2000-02-01".
• If the date matches the format "February 2000", it is formatted as "2000-02".
• If the date does not match either of these formats, it is displayed as entered. This means that if an editor makes a mistake when entering the date, at worst it will just show up in the wrong format instead of not showing up at all.

Please let me know if this solution works for you! If it does then we should get started converting the remaining dates to "1 February 2000" format. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Larger issue with dates in Wikipedia

As a further comment, I was unaware that if you weren't logged in you saw the dates as 2008-10-07. Thanks for bringing that up. I thought that they formatted as October 7, 2008 if you had no preference chosen - but it looks like it formats the way they were entered rather than defaulting to a format that is appropriate for your language/country. We need to resolve that as the ISO dates are awkward and hard to read --Trödel 22:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Also - this proposal looks useful. Unfortunately the advocate is no longer active on Wikipedia. --Trödel 22:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Camp Onway

Camp Onway is a former Boy Scout camp now owned by the LDS Church. Do you folks want to take this over? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Elijah Abel

There is currently a deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Elijah Abel drawing.png for the image used on the Elijah Abel article. It has been demonstrated that the image in question is found in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Volume 12 Issue 2 (here), but the current thinking on commons seems to be that Dialogue got the image wrong. Since I do not have access to the material that being claimed as the real source of this image, I was hoping someone could look at this. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

James Calvin Sly

The article on James Calvin Sly (a LDS pioneer, and member of the Mormon Battalion) is in a sorry state. Anyone willing to help with it? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

W.B. Enniss

The article on W.B. Enniss has been successfully nominated for procedural deletion on notability grounds. While the present state of the article certainyl doesn't assert notability, there are a couple of online references including this which notes he was Bishop of Draper until 1910, and this which appears to be a primary source but implies an important pioneering role.

These sources don't of themselves confirm notability, but they suggest there might be more somewhere. If anyone with a background knowledge of Mormon history has a few spare minutes, they might like to have a look at the article and see if it can be expanded to include a referenced assertion of notability. If not (or if Enniss genuinely isn't notable), no worries and the article will probably be deleted in the next day or so. Euryalus (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

A prod deletion is primarily for deleting articles for which there is not a reasonable objection. All you need to do is remove the prod notice, edit the article, and include the resources you posted here. If the anyone doesn't agree that the material you provided is sufficient, they can move to the next step and nominate the article for deletion under AfD. In this case I have removed the notice and included the references you have provided, but I am still not convinced that he meets the requirements for inclusion (as I haven't reviewed everything yet - just trying to help you out). Be sure to write some things in his article that explain/make claims why this person should be included. --Trödel 21:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I don't believe the sources I list above are sufficient to indicate notability, which is why I was asking if anyone here knew of any more. It's not a subject I know anything about so I won't be adding anything further to the page - just drawing it to the attention of this WikiProject as one that has an interest in the article.

I should also clarify that I was not contesting the PROD, which is why I left the tag in place. Your removal of it does contest it, so the next step for the article is either improvement or AfD. Either way, I'm just the messenger :) Euryalus (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - I skimmed your message and didn't read the last paragraph carefully. If I can't find notability - I'll delete the article myself since the prod survived the 5 day waiting period. --Trödel 22:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I could not confirm that this person met the criteria for inclusion. In fact from the research I did it is doubtful that independent third party sources will list more than that he was a bishop, served a mission, and was the owner/manager for several businesses. Thus I deleted the article --Trödel 22:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Mormonism at the Simple English Wikipedia

Just letting you know that the Mormonism article at the Simple English Wikipedia is in a situation where it's written as if the LDS church itself is the Latter Day Saint Movement. --w^{L<speak·check>} 01:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that is totally inappropriate as the subtle differences between the CJC LDS and the other denominations may not be appropriate for simple english. However, the differences should be mentioned with a reference to here probablly. --Trödel 16:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, a lot of changes were made so not to make it look like it is another LDS church article. We don't have to go into much detail about the differences between CoC and LDS's doctorine, but I think the article should be an overview of basic doctrines (most likely the Articles of Faith) and how the movement spread out during the Succession Crisis. Mormonism is defined at simplewiki as a religious movement (like enwiki's Latter Day Saint movement) but enwiki focuses on its use as a term and how LDS seems to "own" it. --w^{L<speak·check>} 11:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

We'd really welcome some people who could give both a general overview, and an in-depths description; I am not versed in it, but the CoC seems to be at the point of being accepted as a "Protestant" movement, while the LDS isn't. It would therefore be nice if it was possible to give "general doctrines of faith" (at the general Mormonism article) and specific beliefs of the LDS and CoC at their respective pages. "Simple" in Simple English refers to the language, not the concepts used. Note also that you can write in "complex" English, put a "complex" tag on top, and leave the SEWP editors to simplify,if worst comes to worst. --Eptalon (talk) 12:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

re: "18-month Cyberstalking Scheme" allegations

Thread moved from User talk:Jimbo Wales Griffinofwales2 (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello! I am Jared Smith. I have not taken the time to edit Wikipedia pages for some time under my own username JDS, and therefore I couldn't remember my password, so I created a new account so that I could address the founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales here on his talk page.

I just now sent an e-mail to Wikipedia administrator user:Versageek.

I am puzzled that my brother Jordan's appeal to Jimmy Wales was archived without any public or private response. Jordan told me has twice spoken with Mike Godwin, and that Mike Godwin told him last week that he would look in to my brother Jordan's complaint. Jordan told me that he has not heard from Mike Godwin or any Wikipedia administrator in response to his posting here last week, even though quite a few Wikipedia editors and administrators have blocked him from editing articles or even his userpages. My brother Jordan also told me that it appears that no one associated with Wikipedia will reply to him or help him or even try to investigate his complaint against certain persons who he alleges are anonymously exploiting Wikipedia pages to publish on the worldwide web false and hateful things about him. I don't know if that is true, but that is what he told me. He told me that he explained the problem on this Talk Page, and when I went to see, there was nothing here. So I looked in the page archives, and I found this.

I did some research and found that the anonymous person which my brother complains about, is bragging at his userpage that no Wikipedia administrator will investigate, and he further slanders my brother at his talk page and at other users' talk pages, and also constantly monitors and possibly wiki-hounds certain contributors to Temple Lot (which I created in March of 2004) and Church of Christ (Temple Lot).

I am curious why no one at Wikipedia will investigate whether Good Olfactory is the same as Snocrates. I am curious as to why Good Olfactory was able to cause the request for sockpuppet investigation to be deleted. Has that happened before? To where a request for sockpuppetry investigation has been deleted at the urging of the subject of the inquiry? I'm curious, is all. I don't know whether Good Olfactory is the same as Snocrates or G77 or anyone else, I'm just curious why Good Olfactory was so easily able to block any inquiry. I do notice that Good Olfactory replies at Snocrates Talk Page recently, so maybe they're not the same person. Or maybe they are both the same person and Good Olfactory is convinced that no Wikipedia administrator will investigate, even though quite a few Wikipedia administrators denounced Snocrates in February 2008, "13. No. We do not allow proven sockpuppeteers to become administrators. Jehochman Talk 17:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)" and "I have warned both users. Jehochman Talk 15:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)"

If you look at page history for the article Temple Lot which I created more than five years ago, you will see that most edits have been made by Snocrates and Good Olfactory.

I am a member of the Church of Christ (Temple Lot), and would like to add more facts and information to the article.

Why has the article been blocked by Good Olfactory and Luna Santin? They say it is because Versageek blocked my brother Jordan Smith from editing, in December 2007 when he complained that Snocrates and some other persons were stalking him. I mean, that's what he says, I personally don't have an opinion as to whether he was being stalked or not.

I'm curious, why aren't the articles for Temple Lot and Church of Christ (Temple Lot) tagged as being edit-blocked? Why was Good Olfactory able to edit-block one of the pages and also block inquiry as to whether he is the same as Snocrates? I'm just curious, is all.

Mr. Wales, I'm also curious, what do you think of Mormons? I notice that you took seriously and responded publicly to a complaint regarding Scientology, is it because you are worried about the rumored tendency of Scientologists to sue anyone who supposedly slanders or libels that organization? I am curious: What do you think of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or the Latter-day Saint Movement in general? What do you think about the Church of Christ (Temple Lot)? Do you know anything more about the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) than what has been included or not included in the Wikipedia article about it? Have you seen the information which Good Olfactory deleted last November and last week? What do you think of Joseph Smith, Jr.? He is related to me on my mother's mother's side of the family. Joseph Smith was hated and slandered by many people when he was alive, and by many people after he was murdered, such as by James Walker of the Watchman Fellowship. James Walker, President of the Watchman Fellowship, apparently hates both Joseph Smith and Jordan Smith, and his article is the main resource which Wikipedia editors consider a reputable,credible source about my brother, even though my brother has said that everything which James Walker and the Kansas City Star published about him is false. What do you think about Joseph Smith? And what do you think about people who respect him, and who respect the Book of Mormon? Do you think that people who believe in the Book of Mormon, such as Mitt Romney and Brent Scowcroft -- are stupid or bad people? Do you believe they are crazy? jared d. s.mith 07:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unfrayed (talk • contribs)

Mr. Wales, I'm relieved to see that you do review your Talk Page regularly, including today. How can I email you directly? I would like to email you the contents of my email to Versageek earlier today and also the contents of my brother's email(s) to her last Friday, if you don't mind. The emails contain documentation, news articles in the past 30 years about my brother's avocations as a Civil Rights worker, an award-winning investigative journalist in print and internet medium beginning in 1981 [2][3][4][5][6], and, as with myself, a researcher or practitioner in various cultural or philosophical traditions. For instance, there is a photograph of him on pages 54-55 of the July 28, 1980 edition of Time Magazine,[7] in the photo he is at the Presidential Candidate's press conference on July 16, 1980 when Ronald Reagan formally announced his running-mate choice of George Herbert Walker Bush. My brother has had Secret Service clearance and is accredited press, at the time the photo was taken, and since then. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and other law enforcement agencies have repeatedly intervened on my brother's behalf in the past four years or more, sometimes in dramatic, newsworthy incidents in Jackson County, Missouri, but after 1991, all local and national press has avoided reporting on anything regarding my brother evidently for the same reason that a number of Wikipedia editors have also avoided doing so (religious and political bias versus Jordan Smith or other controversial Mormon rights activists. While he was an Anthropology Major at the University of Utah, a lengthy report was published about him in the Salt Lake City Tribune Newspaper on September 11, 1987. He or I can email you a .pdf copy of that report. While he was a Humanities major at the University of Missouri, Columbia, several reports were published about him or by him, in 1983. And when he was named "Missouri Journalism Student of the Year" by the M.I.P.A. based at MU's School of Journalism, and also by the Kansas City Star/Times, this article and a number of others were published about my brother. News reports and photographs in regards to the church fire/protest in January 1990[8] can be provided, and statements made by various persons under oath, which have never been published online or in print, can be emailed you privately, in the which you would quickly realize that my brother Jordan Smith is a lifelong anti-bigotry activist native to the San Francisco Bay region (Berkeley, CA in 1964[9] to be exact). who first encountered defamation schemes by influential bigots here in the Midwest, and then--he claims--some fanatical bigots in the internet community, most especially James Walker, President of the Watchman Fellowship who my brother says promised him during a phone conversation on February 11 and March 13 of this year that he would revise or link to information at my brother's personal website when it became available, but my brother says James Walker reneged when he realized that the facts about my brother and about the 1990 political protest are so opposite as James Walker and spin-offs have portrayed it for the past 19 years, first in the organization's print newsletter, and then in an unmodified reproduction of it published online since 1995. Me and my brother's grandfather J. Edward Johnson was both a fan of, and acquaintance of, his fellow Boalt Hall graduate Earl Warren, both were Swedish-American advocate attorneys in their respective fields of practice.. J. Edward Johnson is featured at these online sources,[10][11][12] and his epic work "History of California Supreme Court Justices"[13] is frequently cited in the Wikipedia article Roger J. Traynor. In conclusion, my brother Jordan told me he has finally figured out that he shouldn't mention laws, law enforcement, law enforcement agencies legal disputes and so forth when contributing or attempting to contribute to Wikipedia, and he told me that if his username Jsmith51389 is unbanned, he would not again violate Wikipedia prohibitions in that regard, and only mention such things in private emails with friendly editors or administrators at Wikipedia, such as yourself. Pardon me, I just literally LOL'd...because ultimately, this is all very entertaining, and Jordan Smith has told me this was a chief motive of his when he "torched the roof"[14] of the unoccupied building, and then asked police if he could perform a rain dance: To try and make the political and religious discourse of Jackson County, Missouri more interesting, inquisitive, informative and humane. This has been taking place, Jordan Smith told me he met with Jackson County, Missouri Prosecutor Jim Kanatzar[15] two days ago at a town hall meeting as well as with some other community leaders, and Jordan said he is pleased about the idealism and honesty and creativity he sees enacted by many public servants here and elsewhere in the state of Missouri. I am very confident that you and Mike Godwin and many other Wikipedia administrators will bring redress to a bizarre, complex, but real situation once you know what is going on, instead of the intentionally-foisted falsehoods about the Latter-day Saint Movement, about the Temple Lot, and about interested persons and parties involved therewith. I may be reached via email at my Talk Page. Thank you! jared d. s.mith 18:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: Mr. Wales, to my knowledge, there has been no public nor private reply to the concerns I express in this thread. Yesterday afternoon, a Wikipedia administrator posted a sort of 'epitome of the problem' at his Talk Page. As expressed previously, I am curious as to why Good Olfactory seems to feel so totally free to publicly and anonymously harass or malign a name-known civilian via Wikipedia pages. jared d. s.mith 16:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unfrayed (talk • contribs)

I was involved with some of these events as was Good Olfactory. I can assure you that neither of us are anti-Mormon. You can ask any current LDS contributor, and I'm sure they'll agree the Good Olfactory is a prolific and even-handed editor. This user appears to be complaining that we are following reliable sources that plainly state that the Temple Lot church was razed by arson. In sensitivity to BLP, we have chosen not to even list the name of the convicted arsonist who is mentioned above. Take a look at the pithy section yourself. Instead, this individual has repeatedly attempted to use the page as a platform for his conspiracy theories involving Missouri, the Kansas City Star, and law enforcement. He has been banned repeatedly for his disruption. See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jsmith 51389. Cool Hand Luke 14:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

good, now we're talking. I mean literally, a discussion is taking place instead of not, and that's a good thing, apathy and silence aren't helpful to this situation. Reviewing his edits, I agree Good Olfactory is a prolific and even-handed editor....most of the time, but he has not been even-handed whenever he "edits" the article I created Temple Lot or its sister article Church of Christ (Temple Lot), nor was a certain prolific and usually even-handed user "Snocrates when he edited either page. And Good Olfactory edit-protected Church of Christ (Temple Lot), then asks me on my Talk Page why don't I contribute edits to Wikipedia? To repeat: '"I am a member of the Church of Christ (Temple Lot), and would like to add more facts and information to [that] article..."

Cool Hand, I see you have been involved many times during the aforementioned "18 months" and today you have continued the false and slanderous "spin" about my brother. The so-called "pithy section" links to the particularly false and slanderous report authored and published by the president of a particularly, avowedly anti-Mormon organization, why was that article ever accepted as a supposedly "unbiased, reliable, credible source" of information about Joseph Smith or Jordan Smith or any faction of the Latter-day Saint movement? I mean, are you kidding me? And you state "In sensitivity to BLP, we have chosen not to even list the name of the convicted arsonist who is mentioned above." When did you decide to become sensitive to BLP matters in connection with my brother? Judging by your obstinance in two threads on the BLP noticeboard in December 2007, you did not want to remove my brother's name from the articles, and you griped about it at the Temple Lot talk page when it was finally removed, repeatedly inserted my brother's real name and identity in that and other Talk Pages (in violation of the BLP policies which you just claimed to be so compliant with) stating that the name "Jordan Smith is dirt common." Snide remarks about certain Mormons are dirt common, but neither my brother nor his name nor my name are 'dirt common,' and you knew that, and you know that. It's all in the spin, and your spin is disparaging of at least three separate Mormon activists named "J. Smith." You state that "Temple Lot church was razed by arson..." when it was not, and not even close. I have offered to email Wikimedia several photos of the building after the fire was extinguished, only the second-floor meeting hall was seriously damaged. Jordan's fellow church members contemplated renovating the building, but decided that because it was so old and unattractive, that the time was right to demolish it and rebuild, after retrieving all valuables and papers from the church, none of which were destroyed by the fire which supposedly "razed the church." Nor was my brother ever excommunicated, expelled, disfellowshipped or otherwise ousted from membership in that church, and was and is part-owner of the property he damaged by fire after phoning police and media and identifying himself, his location, and his purpose for setting the fire (create a brief 'media spectacle' to attract public attention to his public political protest). In case you haven't noticed, arsonists don't enter a building of which they are part-owner, telephone police and media, identify himself or herself, and then set a damaging fire for reasons explained in full to aforesaid police officials. Political activists do that kind of thing (if they're especially courageous, and don't need a "gang" of supporters to accompany them), but arsonists don't. Or perhaps you would like to give me another example of an "arsonist" who entered a building at high noon, phoned police, identified himself and his location, and his purpose for being there? No, really. And meet another so-called "arsonist" from Independence Missouri. And another. jared d. s.mith 17:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unfrayed (talk • contribs)

UPDATE 2: For the benefit of anyone reviewing this thread, I want to point out that semi-anonymous user and self-described "liberal Mormon" Cool Hand and an anonymous user Good Olfactory who to my knowledge never explains whether he is a member or not of any Latter-day Saint faction, but who does claim on his userpage to either "...attend or [have] attended Harvard University..." (presumably as an enrolled student) -- both of these Wikipedia administrators have not replied to the substance of my statements here, but at other locations, such as here, here and here.

For the further benefit of any reviewer of this thread, I should point out that 'liberal Mormons' typically enjoy the benefits of membership in the LDS church but they do not believe that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, and so forth. Another close relative of mine is also a self-proclaimed 'liberal Mormon' and he has repeatedly made clear that he believes Joseph Smith was a fraud, and the Book of Mormon too, but that somehow the religion founded by Joseph Smith is not fraudulent. It's a view which I obviously don't share (or understand), and I'm only pointing it out here for the benefit of 'outsiders' to the religion. Making things even more complicated for outsiders or even 'insiders,' most every member of Church of Christ (Temple Lot) claim devout belief in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, and the authenticity of the Temple Lot, but as with 'liberal Mormons,' they believe Joseph Smith, Jr. was mostly a fraud--a "false" or "fallen" prophet" -- especially after approximately June 1831. These are not opinions of mine, but documented facts, only a few of which are mentioned at Temple Lot and Church of Christ (Temple Lot), but most of which have been deleted or blocked from inclusion in either article or even Talk Pages during the past 18 months by the likes of 'Snocrates' and 'Good Olfactory'. By way of further explanation, Temple Lot faction members usually explain their distaste for Joseph Smith, Jr. by citing the views of David Whitmer, a former friend and colleague of Joseph Smith, Jr. who was excommunicated for apostasy in the 1830s.

Similarly, "liberal Mormons" such as Cool Hand Luke declares on his userpage that he appreciates the 'neutral' views of ex-LDS historian D. Michael Quinn who was excommunicated in September 1993. In a characterization which I personally find amusing, D. Michael Quinn's current views about the authenticity of the Book of Mormon or other texts or claims produced by Joseph Smith are not explained, but he is reported in his Wikipedia entry to "believe in the Latter-day Saint Movement." I would suggest that by now everyone believes in the existence of the movement, lol. What does D. Michael Quinn believe of its founders' claims? Like I said, "liberal Mormons" tend to believe that Joseph Smith was a crackpot, and that modern devotees of the Book of Mormon are crackpots also. Naturally, self-proclaimed "liberal Mormons" find more sympathy and assistance from some non-Mormons than do those who echo the official position of the LDS church, that the Book of Mormon is totally authentic. Complicating things even further for an 'outside' observer, me and my brother Jordan Smith are not identical in our political views with regards to Mormonism. Politically Jordan describes himself as 'liberal' or 'progressive', and that this is one reason he claims for staging what has always described as a pro-LDS yet "Berkeley California style" political protest on January 1, 1990. Thus my brother could be called a (politically)'liberal' Mormon tending toward the idealogy of the Democratic Party, as with LDS Democratic Senator Harry Reid, while for my part, I'm politically conservative, and can be described as tending toward the idealogy of the Republican Party such as with LDS Republican Governor Mitt Romney.

That having been said, I want to reiterate my requests here...in order to clarify my purpose in addressing Jimmy Wales and thus the Wikimedia Foundation here during the past few days --

1. I want every edit by Snocrates and then Good Olfactory made to the articles Temple Lot and Church of Christ (Temple Lot) examined by one or more officers or administrators other than obvious sympathizers of "Snocrates February 16 2008" or "Good Olfactory February 16 2008" or Cool Hand Luke.

2. I want the edit-block on Church of Christ (Temple Lot) imposed by Good Olfactory to be removed, and I want the edit-block imposed by user Luna Santin on the Temple Lot article which I created to likewise be removed. And I would prefer both edit-blocks be removed immediately, and if it is deemed necessary to re-impose one or both, that it not be re-imposed by 'Good Olfactory' or 'Snocrates' or 'Coolhandluke' or 'LunaSantin' or any other administrator who has been involved with the articles in the past 18 months.

3. I want any person who publicly maligns, insults or discusses my brother Jordan Smith to quit doing so anonymously, or quit doing so altogether. This is because he is a controversial figure, but he's not a public figure, and it is not right for 'anonymous cowards' to malign and persecute anyone whom they know is a living person whose name they know, especially not in a top-ten most popular website in the world. I mean come on now... are you kidding?!!

4. I would prefer other things take place, but I'm realizing that if requests #1 and #2 and #3 are honored, it will become clear to just about everyone what needs to happen here: Detractors of Joseph Smith or Jordan Smith ought recuse themselves from any public involvement with any Wikipedia article or Talk Page in their regard. That's my opinion anyway. jared d. s.mith 20:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unfrayed (talk • contribs)

I would like to point out that Church of Christ (Temple Lot) and Temple Lot do not have full protection. The only people that are blocked from editing the above articles are IP addresses and non-autoconfirmed users (accounts less than 4 days old & 10 edits). Griffinofwales (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

My mistake....I did assume that both pages were completely edit-blocked. Well, that resolves my request #2 as stated above. A genuine thank-you for reviewing my comments here and intervening positively. Mormonism has always been bizarre, complicated and tending to arouse impassioned responses both for and against many of its aspects or adherents. I feel that if me and my brother and other experts on the topic of Temple Lot publish more and more information, it will help matters greatly, and worsen nothing. My brother is a human being, not just a 'username' on a computer screen. Anonymous partisans or idealogues communicating via Wikipedia pages need to protect name-known persons regardless of what they have "heard" or "read" about him or her. It's always ludicrous to presume that a political or religious activist is 'guilty' of some crime just because a confused or deceived or hostile judge or jury in a lower court pronounced him or or her so. This is supposed to be one of the central messages of bona fide Christianity including bona fide Mormonism but unfortunately doesn't appear to be, at times. See this news from Missouri yesterday, though. jared d. s.mith 23:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unfrayed (talk • contribs)

I think it might be appropriate to move this discussion to another page, where it can be continued. The matter doesn't directly involve User:Jimbo Wales and he doesn't generally choose to involve himself in matters such as this. If he hasn't involved himself in it yet, I'm guessing that he has chosen not to be involved. Please no one accuse me of "shutting down" anything or stifling opinion; I'm merely suggesting that this probably isn't the appropriate spot for this discussion. User talk:Unfrayed might be better. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Support move, perhaps the appropriate Wikiproject's talk page? Griffinofwales (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Support move, on the condition that it be moved to a frontline Wikiproject such as the Latter Day Saint Movement Wikiproject (ironically established by CoolHandLuke), or to a Wikiproject relating the American Civil Rights Movement/History or another Wikiproject relating to political or religious current events. And Good Ol’factory? Yours is a diplomatic and positive intervention just now, and at this rate, me and my brother and other friends or relatives may be willing to forgive you even if you are the same as Snocrates, and furthermore we may be willing to forgive CoolHandLuke as well. After reviewing your latest input, Jordan told me to tell you he is willing to characterize you as a "misinformed genius" rather than a "malicious genius." Things might work out okay for each of us if more and more factual information is allowed to emerge for the first time ever, here.

On May 4, 2008, Independence Police officers began investigating effects of false statements made to LDS headquarters in Salt Lake City about Jordan Smith, in May of 1991. On May 7, 2008, Independence Police officers began investigating Jordan Smith's complaint versus the Kansas City Star Corporation. On June 9, 2008 and July 1, 2008 and then again yesterday June 3, 2009, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began examining Jordan Smith's complaint versus six influential media organizations which have knowingly, persistently and maliciously lied about him, the LDS religion, and Smith's conduct and motives on January 1, 1990 and before and afterward. These are not legal threats, these are items of news or historic interest. Jordan Smith is a client of the Police Complaint Center and is to teleconference with Diop Kamau again on June 5, 2009, he and Kamau have been investigating and acting publicly on behalf of the same issues since 1989.[16] Kamau was beaten up by a white officer on Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday January 15, 1989[17] after complaining about racism, Jordan Smith was injury-assaulted by an Independence Missouri police officer after peacefully surrendering on January 1, 1990 [18] after publicly protesting against racism and violations of the People of the United States [19] by elements in the Temple Lot sect and other subversive persons or parties, and that same officer then assaulted another unarmed, unresisting colleague of Kamau's on March 25, 2006,[20][21] the 2006 assault was also videotaped and/or broadcast by CBS affiliate KCTV5. People don't seem to realize that Jordan Smith's political protest action in 1990 was briefly a very notable event, and has become much more so, due to a number of influential persons and parties laboring to suppress from public view any facts about he and the 1990 church fire. Smith's political protest was widely television-broadcast or published in major newspapers in every State of the Union in 1990, it's just that every single one of those reports nationwide were unfortunately only "lifted" from the false report in the Kansas City Times of January 2, 1990. Examples of Jordan Smith's political protest being [falsely] reported in influential national media include CNN, Paul Harvey radio news, Chicago Tribune, Washington Times, the Spokane Chronicle,St. Paul Minnesota Pioneer Press as well as the Deseret News and Salt Lake Tribune which had published that interview with Jordan Smith in September 1987. In regards to Jordan Smith and his alleged conduct and motives on January 1, 1990, the Associated Press report replicated in those and hundreds of other newspapers are not credible or verifiable sources, they don't just make "arguable" or disparaging claims about Jordan Smith, but a series of completely-false claims. For example, the church building was not destroyed, burned down, or totaled, nor even close to it: those were falsehoods intentionally expressed by the faction's Business Manager (doh! follow the money!!). For another example, my brother Jordan was never excommunicated from any church, nor faced an inquiry alleging any misconduct towards any fellow member of any faction of the Latter-day Saint Movement. Instead, some people simply lied to the effect that he had been excommunicated or otherwise ousted from membership, first from the Temple lot faction of the church established April 6, 1830 and then from the LDS faction of the church established April 6, 1830. Last June 8, 2008, ironically on the thirtieth anniversary of the LDS church overturning its racist ban on African-Americans holding the priesthood, Jordan Smith was injury-assaulted by multiple attackers in the local LDS congregation who were alarmed that the Hispanic LDS Stake President and the Polynesian-American President of the High Priestood were sympathetic to Jordan Smith and were trying to rectify problems caused by public misunderstandings about Jordan Smith's membership status in the LDS church, and his conduct and motives on January 1, 1990; all the misunderstandings having been caused by non-Mormon or anti-Mormon influential press reports, the worst offender today ironically called "Watchman Expositor." Lifting only a re-hash of false reports in the Kansas City Times of January 2, 1990, the garbled report first published in that anti-Mormon organization's April 1990 newsletter falsely claims that Jordan Smith had been threatening or disruptive towards fellow members of the Temple Lot church in the past when in reality he had never even argued with any member or official in the sect. James Walker's slanderous report states that Jordan was once even "bodily removed from church services" and implies that he was "threatening people with a sword." None of that ever happened, nor even close. Jordan Smith never displayed or wielded any weapon/sword/knife/bayonet in any public setting, whether among friends or antagonists, and certainly not at a church meeting which he mistakenly believed at the time comprised mostly friends. Jordan Smith never claimed God told him to do anything to anyone or anything, or to "cleanse the Temple Lot," or to "burn down or destroy" anything there or anywhere else, he merely claimed that God wants anyone (be it a police officer, or soldier, or priest or a father or a mother or a brother or a sister) to publicly denounce certain types of abuses of people's human rights or civil rights or persons when it is observed or experienced. In other words, Smith testified at his trial that he felt at the time that Jesus Christ evidently wanted him to stage a non-violent civil rights protest, and also to "warn the nation" that "a sword" (war) was coming (i.e. Ezekiel Chapter 33),[22] and he set a fire which damaged the roof and meeting hall of a sect building, performed an Indian Dance to create a spectacle which he hoped would draw public, press and U.S. law enforcement attention to his twofold political and religious statement, and next thing we knew, newspapers nationwide and now on the internet kept publishing that "Jordan Smith said God told him to burn a church down....for basically no reason" or "because Bill Sheldon said that Jordan would set fire to the church when the Communists invaded Missouri with chemical weapons" or whatever other nonsense was expressed about Jordan and his conduct without any attempt ever being made to inquire of him about it. Just stupid stupid stupid hateful false, absurd anti-Mormon anti-Christian anti-American lies and slander, all directed at a particularly intelligent, compassionate, courageous, gifted public servant and servant of Christ who just happens to have a name similar to the founder of the Latter-day Saint Movement. I want Jordan Smith and all of his so-called "sockpuppets" unblocked, because he never created or used a Wikipedia username for malicious or dishonest purposes, but simply to protect he and his family from the effects of falsehoods widely disseminated by anti-Mormon press to this day. jared d. s.mith 06:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unfrayed (talk • contribs)

You or "your brother" should take this to a forum that publishes original research. We're not in the business of maligning anyone here, we just follow reliable published sources. I'm happy to move this discussion anywhere else. Cool Hand Luke 15:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. You and your "comrade" James Walker need to take your bias out of Wikipedia. You know darn well he is not a "reliable source" for anything LDS-related, he's an avowed detractor of the LDS, and of Joseph Smith. But I repeat myself. Haven't you read anything in the previous comments? Please, you and James Walker or any other sympathizer with his virulently anti-LDS bias, leave me and my family and my fellow LDS, alone, in the pages of Wikipedia. But I repeat myself. jared d. s.mith 17:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unfrayed (talk • contribs)

The above is what was moved from User talk:Jimbo Wales. Please add your comments under 'New Comments'. Griffinofwales2 (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

New Comments

I was feeling particularly masochistic this afternoon so I managed to read through the above mountains of text. After taking a break to stop my head from spinning, it looks like what we have here is a fairly clear-cut case of someone who believes our BLP policy has been violated by linking to news articles that contain unflattering information about a certain individual. Frankly, however, I do not see what the big fuss is all about.

Regarding Unfrayed's demands - the first demand is absolutely ridiculous. A cursory glance at Good Olfactory's edits to the article in question don't show any problems and I don't think there'd be anything remotely useful in going through them with a fine-toothed comb. If some specific diffs can be provided that show problematic editing behavior, by all means share them here - but don't rant and rave and demand someone else dig around for purported misbehaviors. If someone honestly believes that there is some sockpuppetry going on here, take a gander at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, but making breathless accusations either here or at Jimbo's talkpage is unconstructive.

The second "demand" has already been dealt with. As for the third and fourth, again this boils down to whether or not BLP is being violated. Frankly, looking at the section of the article in question it is hard to imagine this being a BLP violation, let alone a problem worthy of the reams of text being devoted to it here and elsewhere. If there is something constructive and sourced to be added to the article as a counterpoint, add it. If not, please back off the rather paranoid claims about some kind of conspiracy to malign individuals or groups - it's just not happening. The Wikipedia article does not mention Jordan Smith by name, it does not mention claims about his trying to "cleanse the church", it does not mention statemenst about communications from god or anything of the sort. It's a benign statement about a man who burned down a building. Let's move along. Shereth 22:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

More nonsense. Your prejudice is showing. Let's take your own claims and assertions one at a time and see how they hold up to the facts. You write "..Someone who believes our WP:BLP policy has been violated by linking to news articles that contain unflattering information about a certain individual." Um....no. I believe your BLP policy has been violated by linking to news aticles which contain completely false and defamatory information about an activist LDS priest from Utah and California, false and defamatory information which was provided to and widely published by the Kansas City Star Corporation, the Associated Press, and still today by the Watchman Fellowship. My brother's complaint in this regard is identical to that of Scott Eckersley who sued the Governor of Missouri and other Missourians for distributing false and defamatory information to the Kansas City Star, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and the Associated Press beginning in late October 2007. As with you and CoolHand and most every single other Wikipedia "editor" who have supposedly reviewed my brother's complaint, most observers believed that Scott Eckersley didn't have a valid complaint. All of those "commentators" finally quit yakking when the Missouri Attorney General on May 22, 2009 announced a $500,000 settlement for Mr. Eckersley, and further announced that the Governor and his co-defendants had wasted $1.3 million of Missouri's money in an unsuccessful attempt to further discredit Scott Eckersley and he and his family and friends' concern for him.

You write "...The second "demand" has already been dealt with." Yes, and no thanks to you, but to Griffinofwales, who actually reviewed the problem, pondered it and made a constructive suggestion, unlike yourself. You write "... Frankly, looking at the section of the article in question it is hard to imagine this being a BLP violation." Apparently you've not looked at the article in question, it is at watchman.org. You write "..The Wikipedia article does not mention Jordan Smith by name, it does not mention claims about his trying to "cleanse the church", it does not mention statement about communications from god or anything of the sort." In late July, 2007 this Wikipedia article published those falsehoods, and people such as CoolHand did everything they could to maintain the slander and the person's name in the body of the article, until the latter half of December 2007. How about an apology? But of course not, people like you and CoolHand go kicking and screaming all along, issuing snide and uninformed remark after snide and uninformed remark about my brother. And are you suggesting that a prominently-displayed link to an article on the internet "hides" or obscures the identity of the false report's subject?

You write "...If there is something constructive and sourced to be added to the article as a counterpoint, add it..." Oh, I have, and I can. And so has my brother....and Snocrates and GoodOlfactory and Trodel and Americasroof and Coolhand and so forth, these are quick to delete the information. See, you would know this if you had actually reviewed all of GoodOlfactory and Snocrates' edits. Here are one of many examples of information added to the articles by my brother, and deleted within minutes by editors/administrators biased against my brother...biased against him because they believe the false statements in James Walker's report, the Kansas City Star report(s), and the Associated Press reports. (doh!!!!!!) first,second and third. And notice that none of this supremely-pertinent info is incorporated in either article. Compared to what they could be, the articles Temple Lot and Church of Christ (Temple Lot) are a mess, but watch what happens when members of that sect who are also accomplished researchers and journalists, try and add new and interesting information. It's censored...because so many editors think they despise my brother because they think that false allegations about him are true.(doh!!!!!)

Last but not least, you write "... It's a benign statement about a man who burned down a building. Let's move along." LOL. Some guy burned down a building? When? Where? certainly not on January 1, 1990. Whether you were feeling masochistic or not (another snide remark by yourself), you obviously did not actually read the text you were commenting on, which state: "...the Associated Press report replicated in those and hundreds of other newspapers are not credible or verifiable sources, they don't just make "arguable" or disparaging claims about Jordan Smith, but a series of completely-false claims. For example, the church building was not destroyed, burned down, or totaled, nor even close to it: those were falsehoods intentionally expressed by the faction's Business Manager (doh! follow the money!!)...." and earlier I address CoolHand thus: "...It's all in the spin, and your spin is disparaging of at least three separate Mormon activists named "J. Smith." You state that the "Temple Lot church was razed by arson..." when it was not, and not even close. I have offered to email Wikimedia several photos of the building after the fire was extinguished, only the second-floor meeting hall was seriously damaged. Jordan's fellow church members contemplated renovating the building, but decided that because it was so old and unattractive, that the time was right to demolish it and rebuild, after retrieving all valuables and papers from the church, none of which were destroyed by the fire which supposedly "razed the church." Nor was my brother ever excommunicated, expelled, disfellowshipped or otherwise ousted from membership in that church..."

So let's not move along, until someone actually reviews my complaint, reviews the facts, reviews what's been happening in page and Talk Page history in regards to Temple Lot and Church of Christ Temple Lot, and makes informed and constructive advice or edits. You know, like with Griffinofwales and Versageek and Kim Bruning to name a very very few. jared d. s.mith 02:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unfrayed (talk • contribs)

What prejudice are you talking about? I'm tired of you attacking productive users. I've posted to ANI. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Unfrayed. Cool Hand Luke 15:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow - you guys have been busy fighting this little battle. Looks like Unfrayed was blocked - I move to archive this whole thread.--Descartes1979 (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)