Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement

Add topic
Active discussions

RfC on the "Implications for polygamy legalization" section of the Respect for Marriage Act articleEdit

There is currently an RfC on the "Implications for polygamy legalization" section at Talk:Respect for Marriage Act#RfC concerning polygamy.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Perennial sourcesEdit

I stated a list of sources at User:FormalDude/LDS RS that I'd like to add to the WikiProject. Can other editors please review the list to see if we can reach a consensus to maintain this here? ––FormalDude talk 20:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

FormalDude, the list looks great.I might suggest that we consider adding the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. That has been cited here as a source on some articles. I believe I previously stated I had found some inaccuracies or incorrect information in that source, but I was never able to relocate whatever it was that I had concerns about relating to the source. Also, I don't know what the general consensus would be on this one, but the Church teamed up in the 2010s with independent scholars of Church history, which consisted of such experts from both inside and outside Church membership. That team wrote a series of essays to explain controversial/misunderstood doctrine and practices of the Church. Although those essays are both published and endorsed by the Church, the fact that the project used a number of scholars of Church history who are not members of the Church could potentially factor into a determination of whether or not that is a source we can move. Again, I'm just throwing those ideas out. If either or both the Encyclopedia of Mormonism and the Gosspel Topics Essays are deemed sufficiently independent of the Church, that might provide sufficiently independent sourcing for content in articles related to this movement. Just some thoughts, FWIW. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
I think this is a FABULOUS idea. I would have it mirror the larger table Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources and include the legend and other columns. For the Deseret News, it should mirror the entry larger Reliable Source noticeboard, specifically, I think we should add "The publication's statements on topics regarding the LDS Church should be attributed." I recommend adding The Interpreter Foundation, FAIR, Mormon Stories, Reddit, Radio Free Mormon, Ensign/Liahona, Mormanity (Arise From the Dust), Book of Mormon Central, and Pearl of Great Price Central as "Generally Unreliable" sources. I would add Dialogue Journal and Sunstone Journal as Generally Reliable. The Church history essays are absolutely not independent. The editorial board was the First Presidency, and given that the authors are all anonymous, it cannot be said that it was written by a number of scholars of Church history who are not members of the Church. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism was created by a BYU professor. It also has claims in it that are far outside the mainstream science. I recommend both of these be used only as an example of Latter-day Saint beliefs.Epachamo (talk) 03:32, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
This is a great idea. I would agree with most of what has been said by @Epachamo here. The church history essays and encyclopedia of mormon are both aligned with the Church, and with the essays being published on the church website they are not independent. In regards to the Deseret News, I would say that it has sufficient editorial independence to be considered a reliable source, but probably could not be used to satisfy notability independent of other sources. Rollidan (talk) 04:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback everyone! Please feel free to edit User:FormalDude/LDS RS and add sources.
What are the "Church history essays"? Is that the Journal of Mormon History? ––FormalDude talk 13:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Notify: @Jgstokes, Epachamo, and Rollidan. ––FormalDude talk 21:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
The church history essays/gospel topics essays are a series of scholarly essays that have been published by the church in response to some of the more controversial topics within the church's history, such as race and the priesthood or polygamy. As Epachamo mentioned, there are no authors mentioned with the articles, and so we cannot say they are independent of the church. Googling "Lds church gospel topics essays" pulls them right up. Rollidan (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
@Awilley: Any thoughts on this? ––FormalDude (talk) 04:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
  • @Jgstokes, Epachamo, Rollidan, and Rachel Helps (BYU): Appreciate all the feedback this has gotten and though we can continue to improve it I think it's ready to be moved in to project space. Should it be given its own subpage or should we add it as a section of WP:LDS? ––FormalDude (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
    My vote is for its own page, but I don't feel strongly either way. Epachamo (talk) 09:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
    I also like the idea of it having its own page. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
    I've created the page at WP:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Sources and linked to it at WP:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement#Sources. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
    Would any of this be information that would be good to include in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints? I know that others have been pushing for changes to the MOS based on the updated style guide and parameters set by the Church in 2018, but I don't know whether any of the sources listed would be relevant to the efforts to resolve that question, and, as I've acknowledged previously, I have not seen anything that would lead me to change my conclusion that those guidelines from the Church, meant for media usage, are equally applicable to Wikipedia. By the way, my apologies to all of you other longtime contributors to this project. I kind of dropped off the grid there for a bit. My wife and I recently relocated to my father-in-law's old house, which we inherited following his death several months ago, so with everything going on there, my participation here has been sporadic/nonexistent. Parenthetically FormalDude, because I've been busy with everything associated with our move, I haven't made much progress on figuring out where to go from here with the notability guidelines you asked me to draft. I see some others have made recommendations on those, and I do want to contribute. But the last few months have been a bit crazy, between the passing of my wife's father, our recent move, and my dealing with the ongoing health challenges. That being said, I did want to thank all who have been participating in discussions about Church articles here recently for keeping things going while I could not. Hopefully once things are a bit more settled for me personally, I'll be back to fuller participation in editing article here, including getting back to the process of drafting those guidelines. My thanks once again to you all. Jgstokes (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

RfC on the independence of Deseret NewsEdit

Please see the RSN discussion. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Title capitalizationEdit

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints § Capitalization issue concerning a provision at MOS:LDS which affects a large number of LDS-related articles. Thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Requested move 18 December 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. -- lomrjyo talk 02:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

A ton of LDS' articles on Polish Wikipedia that are missing from EnglishEdit

I noticed that on Polish Wikipedia there is a ton, well, many dozens of high quality, very detailed and very referenced articles related to Latter Day Saint topics that generally have no English (or any other) interwikis. They are generally created by one Polish editor: They are in Polish, but Google Translate (in Chrome, etc.) allows anyone to do a one-mouse-click translation if you want to take a look.

First, I'd appreciate if someone could confirm they are, well, not hoaxes (see Zhemao hoaxes). I did a check on a few topics/sources and I didn't see any obvious red flags, except, well, it's a ton of articles in Polish about a topic that is not well known in Poland and the lack of interwikis for most (not all) is a bit of a red flag. Again, on that level this looks very much like Zhemao incident. In some cases it could be just a bit of OR, of course, and hopefully it just represents a case of a Polish researcher/editor finding many topics that somehow did not come to the attention of the much larger and active English community of editors interested in LTS topics.

Second, assuming this is all good content, this is treasure trove of topics that can be translated to English, with just minor copyediting after machine translation. It's all seemingly well referenced (usually to English books, with page numbers and ISBNs; often to websites with links that allow verification), possibly at GA level in many cases (some of those articles received GA status on pl wiki). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Interesting! I looked at two of the book pages and the one for Joseph Fielding McConkie. They look like legitimate pages. There are a LOT of books in Mormon literature, including devotional literature, that could have their own pages, but which don't currently have pages on enwiki. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
@Rachel Helps (BYU) Thanks for looking. A passing thought: since you are connected with BYU, do you know of any professors who assign their students to create Wikipedia articles related to LDS' topics? The students could try translating the articles from Polish to English (no knowledge of Polish required, machine translation should produce passable drafts that just need some language copyediting for jargon and occasional grammar issue). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
User:Rachel Helps (BYU)#My students :)Naraht (talk) 06:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, in the past I have done trainings for BYU linguistics classes with Wikipedia assignments, but I don't know of any classes that are going on right now (you can see some current classes at BYU that have Wikiedu assignments by scrolling down here). Assigning students LDS topics to a class of new student editors at BYU has some big potential issues for non-neutral editing... most students understand NPOV, but it is not always obvious. I do have a copyediting intern right now though, and I told her that it could be a good way to get some editing experience. Because of some recent Wikidrama, I'm a little cautious about trying new things right now, but it is definitely something I want to try, maybe in a month or two when I'm feeling braver, haha. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
As someone who also directs students to edit Wikipedia, I understand. Do let me know if I can offer any assistance, wikidramu-related or otherwise. Fellow wiki-teachers are few enough that it's always a pleasure to meet another one around here :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Piotrus See her talk page, *IF* *YOU* *DARE*. 1/2 :) Naraht (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I see. The COI issue seems IMHO rather far fetched (from my cursory review, I don't think COI was broken), and the discussion(s) ended few weeks ago so I don't think there is any point in me commenting there (let the sleeping dogs lie, etc.). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
yes, I think I'll move that stuff to my talk page archives. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I recommend automation through User:Lowercase_sigmabot_III :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Revisiting a Capitalization IssueEdit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello again, everyonne! In a recent discussion here on Wikipedia, a consensus was reached that "The" (with a capital "T") was part of the name of the Church, and that policies advocating for a lower-case "the" or the omission of "The" or "the" was not consistent with established policies. As some of you are also aware, discussions at the talk page for the manual of style led to another discussion elsewhere that determined that using the lower-case "the" in the name of the Church mid-sentence or mid-article title would be more consistent with policy. I feel that the mid-sentence determination consensus might be moot now in view of the more-recent consensus that "The" in the capital case is part of the Church's name. Another reason to restore the mid-sentence or mid-title capitalization of "The" in the name of the Church would be so as not to confuse it with another Church with a similar name that does use the mid-sentence lower-case in its' name on the pages of its' website. Given that, and the clear recent precedent from the talk page of the article about the Church, I would like to propose here for discussion that any mid-sentence or mid-title reference to the full name of the Church should be restored to utilize the capital case "The", effective immediately upon agreement by consensus, and that any article titles changed to use the lower-case "the" in the Church's name would also revert to the capital case, consistent with that consensus. I will not unilaterally be bold on this matter and move the articles back to their names with "The" capitalized, but thought it would be worth considering, given the determination that "The" in the capital casee is part of the full name. I welcome discussion on this. @Rreagan007, Ortizesp, Lomrjyo, Necrothesp, FyzixFighter, Rollidan, Shwcz, BarrelProof, FormalDude, AjaxSmack, Cinderella157, Zfish118, GoodDay, Epachamo, RomanSpinner, YorkshireExpat, and P-Makoto: for their input on this. If any of you know of anyone I've forgotten who might want to weigh in on this, please feel free to ping them as well. Thanks for your consideration of this proposal. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

  • The RM you reference bases its conclusion partly on the MOS discussion, so I don't see how you can view it as a reason to override said discussion. I see this as a settled matter given the thorough discussion at MOS. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I have no opinion on mid-sentence capitalization. However, "The" is clearly part of the proper name of the church and should be included in the article title regardless of how the mid-sentence issue is settled (albeit in my weak opinion, "sorted" by second word "Church"). –Zfish118talk 14:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I concur with User:FormalDude; the RM discussion plus the previous MOS discussion together settle on all titles and text including "the" but only capitalized in the initial position, i.e. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints but History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There was no rationale or comment given in the move closure and no endorsement of mid-sentence caps in the discussion that would warrant introducing rehashing the recent MOS discussion. —  AjaxSmack  15:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I agree with FormalDude. As was noted in both the MOS RFC and the RM, the mid-sentence capitalization and use of "The" at the start of the article title are not explicitly connected. The wording of WP:THE allows for cases where the two will be different in general. I disagreed with the argument that the MOS RFC drives a need to change the article title, I would also disagree that the RM result would necessarily drive the MOS to change. --FyzixFighter (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
FormalDude, I see your point. I somehow mistook a consensus for "The" as an official part of the name of the Church as an agreement that applied specifically to the capital "T" when that was not accurate. Can't believe I missed that. The others I pinged can certainly weigh in on this if they feel a need to, but if everyone is in agreement on that point, it might not be wise on my part to argue or belabor the point further. I apologize if opening up the question was a waste of everyone's time. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Per FormalDude, I see this as a settled matter. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Jgstokes, I see this is not (or is no longer) marked as an RfC. Given your own acknowledgement, it might be appropriate for you to close/archive this discussion using template:archive top? Cinderella157 (talk) 08:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Book of Mormon citationsEdit

I'm working on a template {{Mormonverse}} to use to cite Mormon verses, styled after {{Bibleverse}} and {{Tanakhverse}}.

The big difference at the moment is that Bibleverse can handle input like {{Bibleverse|Genesis|1:1-2}} whereas to do something similar in Mormonverse it would be like {{Mormonverse|Alma|1|1|range=-2}}. Bibleverse is based off of Lua code, while Mormonverse is based off on {{sourcetext}}.

In theory the Mormonverse Lua code could/should be a very cut down version of the Bibleverse code, so the input could be given more succinctly as {{Mormonverse|Alma|1:1-2}}. I find the Lua pretty daunting and need some help.

I began using the template on the pages Zarahemla and Book of Mormon, and then realized I should get the template syntax completely ironed out first. If we can have syntax more like {{Bibleverse}}, with the colins and hyphens rather than pipes, I think that'd be better. Eievie (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I just found there's already a {{LDS}} template, which does something similar to what I was attempting. However, the parameters in it are really repetitive and messy, and I don't think this really what we want. That said, there may be something useful in it to draw upon. In the end, both should probably be consolidated into a single template. Eievie (talk) 07:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Wikisource vs. . I think the *PRIMARY* question is which we link to. If it is wikisource, then we can make a wrapper for sourcetext, probably to , if, then the question of going to a non-neutral site needs to be dealt with (however the biblica source on bibleverse appears to be very much pro-christianity/prothetizing). Naraht (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
If we decide to go with I'd be willing to try to interpret the LUA, it looks like most of the code is handling differences between possible code. With this one, none of those *should* be necessary. Note, I have no idea how to put LUA code into a sandbox. I'd also suggest that the name be BoMverse for parallelism. (perhaps with Mormonverse as a redirect). Note, the URL to the LDS website should be of the form (for 1st Nephi 7:14( (1-ne, 2-ne, jacob, enos, jarom, omni, w-of-m, mosiah, alma, hel, 3-ne, 4-ne, morm, ether, moro).Naraht (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Another question, if this is for the Latter Day saint movement, does it make sense to use multiple versions (somehow). I went looking for the Community of Christ (formerly the RLDS), but I can't find an online version from them. Otherwise, does it make sense to allow versions to be specified such as the 1920 and 1991 (I don't know if there is any easily accessible version of the 1920, See for a list of the possible choices among the two groups.Naraht (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I did create a module and start poking around with the Lua code, but I quickly got confused. It's here. It doesn't have "sandbox" in the name. Maybe it should for now?
I don't have strong feelings about wikisource vs Even if we stick with wikisource, I'd like to be able to eliminate the |range= which I think requires Lua.
{{Bibleverse}} has an optional last parameter to specific different versions, and we could totally do that too. Except the only other version I could find is the wikisource 1830 version, which does not have the verse numbers, so we couldn't link to verses. Eievie (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
The RLDS are working on an online version of their Book of Mormon It's not up yet, but we might want to consider making the template adaptable for that later on. Eievie (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't think I've *ever* seem anyone complain about something being created in Modulespace. If someone complains, we'll deal with it. I'm not sure what the results of using "range" in what is linked to , I think it is only what is displayed. ( John 3:14 vs. John 3:14-16 for example), I think the link generated is the same. According to , the verses were first indicated in 1879 (which means that the LDS and the RLDS/CoC are likely to have different numbering). So unless some of the groups like AUB have an online copy (unlikely), it looks like the only versions would be 1879, 1920 and 1981. (I guess we could link to that if we ignored the verse...) Unfortunately, the easiest references to the differences are from anti-LDS sites, but that doesn't mean they are wrong.Naraht (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm pretty indifferent as to what site it links to; I'll let someone else decide that one. The main point I care about is that {{Bibleverse}}'s syntax is so succinct:
{{Bibleverse|Bible book name|c:v–c:v|version}}
and if we can have syntax modeled after that, it'd be great. Eievie (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Having an exhaustive listing of every single edition would be cool, but a more useful question would be, "Which other editions would actually be cited in Wikipedia articles?" Like, are there any contexts were we actually need to cite C of C, or AUB scripture? Eievie (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I think you've considered all of my comments. Please let me know how I can help including trying sandbox entries.Naraht (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
I've started playing around with the Lua code here and testing it here. I've clearly broken it, though. The first goal is to get it working for just the version. Eievie (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Removed a couple of variables we don't pre-generate, the question is whether there are any in the BoM that are no_chapters, the way that 2John is.Naraht (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Looked up the single-chapter books and added them 👍 Eievie (talk) 05:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Here's another module, which exists: Module:LDSverse. Eievie (talk) 04:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)