Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Archive 10

White Horse Prophecy

I did some work this evening on the White Horse Prophecy article — added some images, rewrote some of the beginning, and incorporated a reference from Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling. I think this article is in serious need of a wider variety of sources. Right now, there is one source — an article in the Huffington Post, self-identified as a "blog post" (!) — that is being used 11 times; that really needs to be improved. Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

AfD for Mormon Expression podcast

Can someone with some familiarity on reliable LDS-related sources have a look at Mormon Expression and perhaps contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mormon Expression? Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

FAR for Latter Days

See here: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Latter Days/archive1 TCO (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikiproject Conservatism

Check out the proposed wikiproject Conservatism here.

Template:LDSproject

At User talk:208.81.184.4#Template:WikiProject Christianity I'm being informed that there is a consensus for replacing Template:LDSproject/Template:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement with Template:WikiProject Christianity in all cases. I agree that it's best to use Template:WikiProject Christianity on articles that would properly fit under multiple Christianity related projects, and see that there is a consensus for that. However the argument that this consensus therefor extends to completely replace Template:LDSproject in all cases with Template:WikiProject Christianity doesn't seem correct; if the subject of the article would not reasonably include one of the other Christianity related projects/workgroups/taskforces that are outside of what is covered by Template:LDSproject, then it seems reasonable that Template:LDSproject should be the template to use.

If Template:LDSproject has truly been deprecated, why does it still exist? I would think that it's continued existence indicates that there is a consensus by this WikiProject that it still should be in use, and the only bright line for when to use it that I can see is as described above. However if the members of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement do want to indicate a consensus that it should no longer be used, or wish to set limits on when it should be used, I would think that discussion should happen here, not at the talk pages of other WikiProjects or on user talk pages. - 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

As was discussed here. The consensus was not replacing Template:LDSproject/Template:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement with Template:WikiProject Christianity in all cases. The consensus was that the common banner was agreed upon because, when several articles contain material which is directly relevant to more than one group, but it would be problematic to have the individual banners of each and every relevant project on those talk pages. This means when more then one project under "Christianity" applies then the Christianity banner should be used. The edit you made, that started this issue, in my and user:John Carter opinion removed individuals that this applied to and those edits violated that consensus. For example the Quorum of the Twelve. This groups dose and did a lot of work outside the LDS church with other "Christianity". They also interact on behalf of the church with groups both religious and non-religious. Why is it that they then only go into the LDS workgroup?

This supposed "replacing" doesn’t exist.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 17:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The opening of that discussion started with Spalds (talk · contribs · count) questioning my reverting back changes he had previously made to substute Template:WikiProject Christianity in place of Template:LDSproject, where that user gave this edit as an example. As you see from the diff, there is no other Christianity related project/taskforce being used here that is not covered by Template:LDSproject, so this had nothing to do with any other Christianity wikiprojects being used in Template:WikiProject Christianity. Likewise at User talk:John Carter#me again it is clearly demonstrated that Spalds had been talking about exactly the topic of substuting Template:LDSproject for Template:WikiProject Christianity.

At User talk:Spalds/Archive 1#LDS temples it is stated by John Carter "I hope in time all those articles will have the Christianity banner, but am less than sure how quickly I will be able to replacing them all." I can see there is justification given for this goal when he later states at User talk:Spalds/Archive 1#LDS & Christianity "Right now, the LDS banner also provides quality assessments for the Christianity project, if not importance assessments." So using Template:LDSproject on LDS specific topics does everything but provide to the Wikiproject Christianity project an importance rating. At User talk:208.81.184.4#Template:WikiProject Christianity I suggested a way to remedy the need to substitute to Template:WikiProject Christianity to get an importance rating, but was told that was against consensus. I did not feel that it is, so I came here to gain consensus from this WikiProject and other interested parties that I've tried to identify & invite here to comment on the continued use of Template:LDSproject; if Template:LDSproject should continue to be used then the next question is how to also meet the needs of the Christianity Project to get an importance rating without substituting Template:WikiProject Christianity in place of Template:LDSproject. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the primary point of contention is, basically, that the Christianity banner includes separate importance rankings for the LDS project (and for the LDS Church work group as well) but that the same cannot be said for the LDS banner. I guess, in my own opinion, the question would be what the specific reasons for the use of the LDS banner are. I don't know that I have seen any clear reasons for that separate usage yet. Also, I am slowly in the process of developing lists of relevant books, journals, etc., for each project. I believe that there are some which relate to Christianity in general which may also rather regularly discuss the LDS movement, but believe that making it easier for interested editors to find and access sources would be a very valuable point, and that I think it is probably a bit easier to make that easier for editors by bringing them to the main relevant "Christianity" sections than by initially taking them to smaller, more dedicated, but possibly less immediately useful subpages. John Carter (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Family Research Council

Hello, there is a discussion relevant to this WikiProject going on here which involves some users who wish to state that the Christian group, Family Research Council, is in fact a "hate group" in the introduction of the article. Please see the discussion and consider the arguments for or against this inclusion there. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 15:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

New articles need categories

I created two articles about vanished Texas Mormon settlements that need categories from Mormonism. Browsing, I didn't see any category that was a good fit, except perhaps the subcategory of Danites. Both settlements were associated with Lyman Wight. I will give you a link to the two articles. Please feel free to add appropriate category or categories: Zodiac, Texas and Morman Mill, Burnet County, Texas. Maile66 (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:Book of Mormon

Please share your thoughts for improving and using this new template. ...comments? ~BFizz 17:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

As a general comment that I think deserves wider participation from those who read this list on a regular basis, I'm not sure where The Book of Mormon, the musical fits into some of these templates, or even if it ought to belong in them. I guess I'm being preemptive on this particular issue as I'm certain that at least somebody is going to try and shove a link to this Broadway play into LDS templates of some kind or another. A general template about aspects of the Book of Mormon seems to scream that this play ought to be included, yet I think it would be an inclusion of really bad taste and be incredibly controversial if it were to happen and stick with at least some edit wars going on with it.

Like it or not, Mormonism and the Latter-day saint culture is becoming "mainstream" in American society and starting to show up as references in creative content that isn't necessarily going to be something embraced by mainstream Latter-day saints. I'm not going to add these links, but I think it would be useful to decide when or if such links ought to be used in templates of this nature. --Robert Horning (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't try to set a hard-and-fast rule to it, but as a rule of thumb I would generally say "no" to that. For example, there's no link to Jesus Christ Superstar on Template:Jesus. There is, on that template, a link to Cultural depictions of Jesus, because it is a big topic. Including a link to a generic article seems a lot more kosher than linking specific musicals. I personally see no issue with a link to the musical from the Book of Mormon page, but linking the musical from the BoM template would seem out of place. ...comments? ~BFizz 23:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

ProtectMarriage.com is listed at DYK

The latest Catholicism-related article is listed for DYK here. Come join the discussion to help shape the hook.

John W. Bryant

It would be helpful if any members of the project who are knowledgeable about Mormon fundamentalism topics could comment at Talk:John W. Bryant#Proposal #2.

Brief background: An IP user, who says he is a son of John W. Bryant, removed a cited quote from the article. This led to a bit of an edit war. The removed material was a quote from one of Bryant's wives found in Richard S. Van Wagoner's book Mormon Polygamy: A History. Basically, the IP user doesn't want the Van Wagoner source used in the article, apparently because it quotes this wife who the IP user says is an unreliable source of information (he hasn't been entirely forthcoming about the exact reasons, but it appears he is OK with the information in the article, just not the Van Wagoner source). Long discussions have ensued, and with the help of other editors we seem to have come to a sort of consensus that Van Wagoner is a reliable source and that it should be used. The section contains a proposal of how to word the information that is about to be re-added to the article. Any comments on whether the proposal is appropriate are welcome. — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Relief Society

There is an open Request for Comment at Talk:Relief Society#NPOV Question ... that hasn't had much attention and could use some more opinions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for input

If anyone would like to chime in at a discussion of whether Mormon should refer specifically to the Latter-day Saints in Wikipedia articles, please visit the MOSLDS talkpage here: "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints)#Suggestion." Thanks.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: merge the LDS Church work group page back here

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

A couple of years ago, there was an experiment to start an "LDS Church work group" as a sub-group of this workgroup. Now, over two years later, it seems that the effort was unsuccessful. There have been, for example, only four (4) edits to the project page in the last year, and only six (6) edits in the last two years. Clearly, the workgroup has died.

Moreover, it is not clear to me that there is a need for a separate group to work on only LDS Church related articles. Almost all the same people who are interested in working on those articles are the same people who are interested in working on articles relating to Mormonism/LDS movement in general. So having to maintain two projects causes us to divide our efforts and decrease the effectiveness of both groups. I think it's time to give the work group the honorable death it deserves, and to merge it back here. Its better to funnel all Mormonism-related efforts into a single project. COGDEN 22:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Agree - I know of few editors that would not be interested in both the group and the work group and see no reason for there to be two. --Trödel 21:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Agree - willing to assist in the merge as well.--Descartes1979 (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2011 (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.

One voice could make a huuuuge difference

There is a discussion of the use of the term LDS Church on Wikipedia--as well as the distinction, if any, between Mormon and Latter-day Saint--here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints)#Regarding term "the Mormon Church". If you happen to be among the very few Wikidenizens that see this notice on this page, if you'd read the somewhat technical material in that talkpage section and provide us with your opinion/insights, the lone pair of Wikipedians that have chimed in so far will be truly appreciative.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Photo request - El Capitan School

Since the El Capitan School was involved with LDS movement, I would like to post this request here.

Is anyone in proximity or will be in proximity to Colorado City, AZ? If so, would you mind taking:

• El Capitan School - Colorado City Unified School District - 255 North Cottonwood Street Colorado City, Arizona, 86021

Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Avraham Gileadi

The article on Avraham Gileadi has been pruned back to essentially a wp:stub today by an editor citing wp:BLP issues, and a wp:PROD was placed on it for notability. I removed the PROD, and suggested that the interested editor take the issue to a wp:AFD if they wanted to pursue that any further; however that article needs to be fleshed out (again). Any takers? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The article for LDS scholar Avraham Gileadi has been nominated for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avraham Gileadi). -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Just an update... I went through the deletion logs, and the user who "pruned" it and then nominated it for deletion was a sock puppet. Incidentally, the other user who voted for deletion was also a sock. I read up a bit on the sockmaster, and he has hundreds of blocked socks, and a history of "hacking" the substance out of articles about progressive Jewish figures and then nominating them for deletion. I figured it was foul play, so I reverted the article back to the state before the sock hacked everything out of it. Hopefully the article is off his radar now, as he is still creating socks by the dozen. -- Adjwilley (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for input in discussion forum

Given the closely linked subjects of the various religion, mythology, and philosophy groups, it seems to me that we might benefit from having some sort of regular topical discussion forum to discuss the relevant content. I have put together the beginnings of an outline for such discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/2011 meeting, and would very much appreciate the input of any interested editors. I am thinking that it might run over two months, the first of which would be to bring forward and discuss the current state of the content, and the second for perhaps some more focused discussion on what, if any, specific efforts might be taken in the near future. Any and all input is more than welcome. John Carter (talk)

_{Automated message by Project Messenger Bot from John Carter at 15:44, 5 April 2011}

Grampa Bill's G.A. Pages

A question about the uses of "Grampa Bill's G.A. Pages" has come up on Talk:William E. M'Lellin. Since this source is used on a large number of LDS pages I think comments are by this project.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

LDS Humanitarian Services vs LDS Philanthropies

What is the difference between LDS Humanitarian Services & LDS Philanthropies, & how can we better make clear that difference on those separate articles? Both articles seem to be talking about essentially the same effort. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

LDS Philanthropies is responsible for philanthropic donations to the church and its affiliated charities (how do I give or make a donation - see http://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/ldsp/about/). LDS Humanitarian Services is one of the affiliated charities that deliver the services that the donations fund. It includes several funds/efforts: Humanitarian Aid Fund, Clean Water, Humanitarian Food Initiative, Neonatal Resuscitation Training, Vision Treatment Training, Wheelchair Distribution are among them. Humanitarian Services is administered through Welfare Services so that donated funds are delivered to the intended recipients rather than paying administration and fund raising fees. See http://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/humanitarian-services/ --Trödel 21:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Kevin Garn

The Kevin Garn article is being used by User:Nottoohappy as a wp:Coatrack to attack the LDS Church. It has been reverted, but the user has been repeatedly reinserted his claims into that article. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

In tone and claims made, this also appears to have some kind of a relationship to the previous issues that occured on the West Ridge Academy article. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC).

User:Nottoohappy continues to insert wording such as "No action was taken as the sexual abuse of underage women is a tradition in the LDS Church" into Kevin Garn article. What can be done about the BLP & COAT issues that keep being re-introduced to this article? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but I am not sure what can be done. I have up the User warning to a level 3 warning and asked for help on the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 19:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistency on coverage

At Christian population growth#United States Mormonism is listed as non-christian, Religion in the United States#Christianity list the LDS Church as the 4th largest Christian denomination in the US, but then Christianity in the United States just gives a oblique mention to Mormonism as stemming from the Second Great Awakening/Revivalism. It would appear that there is an opportunity to expand &/or fine-tune coverage of the Latter Day Saint Movement in these articles. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The issue on Christian population growth was fixed; possibly a polemic attempt to classify Mormonism as non-Christian (yet again), but the cited reference actually list Mormonism as both Christian and also not a NRM. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Church naming issues (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)

There are some disputes going on at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regarding preferred neutral forms of reference to this church and the question of how its early history should be described. See here and here for representative samples, as well as most of the current content of Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The dispute has already resulted in a certain amount of edit-warring, and the main participants so far seem to be having a hard time agreeing on what phraseology is neutral or unduly pro-/anti-Mormon. We could use some more input here from a wider spectrum of interested editors. Richwales (talk · contribs) 14:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Marsh and Patten

I have been debating with myself about uploading the images of Thomas B. Marsh and David W. Patten found here and here respectively. The problem I have is a matter if Verifiability (even though I have not been able to find rules regarding images and Verifiability). I would love to add an image of Marsh and Patten to their pages and the lists they are on, but I'm concerned that these aren’t Marsh or Patten, so I thought I would ask those of you that seem to know more about Latter Day Saint history.

I would use theses image since:

For the Marsh image:

• 1. Grampa Bill's General Authority Pages (GBGAP) is usually a very good source of information. Normally I would trust the pages and have even used him as sources.
• 2. The pages do supply a source, "Brother Fredrik Paxen". Although I contacted GBGAP and asked him to pass on an e-mail requesting a source from Paxen I never got a response. However, the fact that a source was even mention dose says something.

For the Patten image

• 1 This image is supplied by Gale Boyd , Managing Editor of moregoodfoundation.org, which operates independently from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

For Both images

• 1 The images are used on mormonwiki.com. Although this is a wiki, only limited people can edit pages (not including myself). I don't know what this mean for the images.
• 2. Due to the date of death of both these people, I don't think it's possible to prove 100% that any image is of them. Some "faith" is needed, but I admit that there should be some evidence to support there use. However, perhaps there is enough information for there use.

I wouldn't use theses image since:

• 1. There is no other "source" for these images. We only know "Brother Fredrik Paxen" and "Gale Boyd' supplied these images. For all we know they are assuming these are Marsh and Patten. I would not use these people as a source for an article as they are.
• 2. The biggest reason for concern is that most the educational and religious source for information on Marsh and Patten, DON’T have images for them. For example the LDS Doctrine and Covenants Institute Student Manual says no picture available for both. Some educational sources even say “No known photograph in existence” here here. I find it hard to believe that BYU and the LDS church wouldn’t LOVE to have images of these people, but perhapes they just aren't willing to use an image that isn't 100% for sure real.

So what do you all think. Are these image real or not? Should they be used or not?--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree with a lot of your conclusions. My understand was always that a photograph of neither is available; if they were available, the LDS Church surely would have snatched them up. Regarding the Marsh one—maybe that's him, maybe not. I have no way of knowing. But that Patten one linked to is definitely not Patten. For starters, Patten was only 38 or 39 when he was killed, and that guy looks far older than that, and the photographic technology in the photo looks more advanced than was available in 1838. Second, Grampa Bill uses a different image of Patten here, and they don't really look similar. (I've no idea if GB's image of Patten is real either.) Third, the Patten image looks a lot like Charles C. Rich. I'm pretty sure it's Rich, not Patten. In fact, it seems to just be a version of our image of Rich. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You know ironically the image was more sure about was they one you proved wasn't correct. I sent an e-mail to the admins on www.mormonwiki.com. Hopefully they will fix it. I think I'm just not going to trust either of the images and leave them off. Thanks for your input.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 12:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Pro-life, Abortion-rights

The effort to rename Pro-life and Abortion-rights continues unabated. The discussion is here. It is in mediation. – Lionel ^(talk) 08:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

DNA and Joseph's children

We need some opinions on the article about Fawn Brodie's book No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith. Recent DNA testing has found that several of the children Brodie mentions in her book as being possible kids of Joseph Smith, are not in fact his children. I think she says something like the evidence "seems to weigh the balance overwhelmingly on the side of Joseph’s paternity"; meaning the children are progeny of Smiths. User:John Foxe believes adding a single sentence stating that some have come to criticize parts of Brodie's book because of this new information—meaning the DNA testing—is WP:UNDUE, apologetic and "at best footnote stuff." See Talk:No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith#Brodie and Joseph Smith DNA. Any other opinions? As it seems an edit war is brewing! 97.117.1.53 (talk) 03:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:Cire news

Should Template:Cire news exist? It is the oddest attempt at a template I have ever seen here at WP. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

No, and as far as I can tell it's not used anywhere. I have marked it for deletion.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 02:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

List of publications critical of the Latter Day Saint movement

I have commented on the talk page regarding this list, and would welcome further input there: [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Smith Family Farm

I would welcome comments at Talk:Smith Family Farm about what I see as an wp:UNDUE issue with a recent contribution to that article. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Signpost article

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-08-15/News and notes has managed to completely mess up the name of the LDS Church and mistakenly attribute comments by FAIR to "elements" of the LDS Church. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed this the best I could, but would appreciate additional review by members of this WikiProject. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Lds

The LDS scripture template (Template:Lds) does not seem to be working properly in all instances anymore. It seems to work in some instances (e.g. Alma 39:5; Leviticus 18:22; Doctrine and Covenants 131:1–4; Doctrine and Covenants 121:45–46), but not in others (e.g. 2 Nephi 13:9 for http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/13.9?lang=eng#8 or for http://lds.org/scriptures/jst/jst-gen/19?lang=eng). It seemes related to the change in the URl used by the LDS Church (i.e. from http://scriptures.lds.org http://scriptures.lds.org/john/3/5#5/john/3/5#5 to http://lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/3.5?lang=eng#4 for this same example verse). This is beyond my ability to troubleshoot/fix, so I was hoping someone might take a look at it to see what can be done. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a Template genius, but I will take a look. I think you are correct in your belief that it has to do with the change in the URl used by the LDS Church. I think they set up some kind of redirect system from the old versions, but not all are working.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 18:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

After looking into things I'm sure that the automatic redirect on the old "http://scriptures.lds.org/en/" pages are the issue. The LDS Church has changed it "http://lds.org/scriptures/" with OT, NT, bofm representing the different over all book (ie "http://lds.org/scriptures/ot for the old testament). The issue is, with the current setup, you can't just add those terms (as far as I can tell) without messing up all the old links. I have been working on a brute force solution, but I've run out of time until Monday.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 21:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Thanks for pointing out that the template isn't working anymore. --Trödel 21:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe I've fixed this with a test on the book and adding in the scripture type (standard work: ot,nt,bofm,dc-testament,pgp). Please let me know of any examples that don't work. The prior version (of the scriptures on lds.org i.e. http://scriptures.lds.org) allowed you to bookmark to a specific footnote - the new one (http://lds.org/scriptures/) does not - so I've not tested that. The template parameters need to be deprecated to indicate that linking to a footnote is not longer supported. --Trödel 02:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

This is what I was planning on doing (adding a switch statement), so I also think it should work. --ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Twilight and Mormonism

Removed duplicate cross thread posting already found in a better location: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Twilight task force#Twilight and Mormonism; please discuss this topic there. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

White Horse Prophecy nominated for Good Article

I've nominated White Horse Prophecy as a Good Article candidate. Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

William Smith, Lyman Wight and the Williamites?

I have started a discussion (here) on William Smith and Lyman Wight. How the events, regarding Smith and Wight, unfolded could effect several pages (i.e. Lyman Wight, William Smith, RLDS, List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement, Template:Smith family lineal succession, etc.), so input by those who understand this topic, would be greatly appreciated.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Militant atheism RfC

There is a raging RfC at Militant atheism. Don't miss out on the discussion of the year! Click here. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Elijah

The article on Elias has recently been merget with that of Elijah, and this resulted in duplicate sections Elijah#Elias in Mormonism and Elijah#In Latter-day Saint perspective. A cleanup would be desirable.  Andreas  ^(T) 22:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done  Andreas  ^(T) 19:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Hong Kong, etc

Members of this project and other interested Wikipedians may wish to look at Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Hong Kong and Talk:Christianity in Hong Kong. Among other things STSC (talk · contribs) is dragging out the "Mormons are not Christian" dead horse yet again with these articles, and other related articles & categories. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Polygamy: What Love Is This?

Is there enough reliable sources currently published to properly source the Polygamy: What Love Is This? article? If not, should that article continue to exist? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Mormon (redirect)

There is a discussion on Talk:Mormon over where the page should redirect. This is a very high traffic redirect that averages around 1k hits per day. Please see the discussion for more details. -- Adjwilley (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

User created illustrations usage on Book of Mormon articles

I would welcome comments at Talk:Teancum#Images without reference by members of this WikiProject, and other interested parties. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in California

There is a discussion at Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in California about if Latter-day Saints played any significant role in the history of Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco. Members of this WikiProject and other interested parties would be welcome to weigh-in on this conversation. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon

Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon has recently had about 20 paragraphs worth of material deleted from it without any discussion. All of the material removed appears to be pro-Mormon, with information from FARMS heavily represented in the redaction. The edit summaries provided make this appear to be a POV move, with such enlightening explanations as "rubbish", "More nonsense", "who's adding these silly arguments?", etc. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It appears that the editor is making a sweep through a large number of religious articles, making big changes, sometimes good, sometimes POV heavy. I've reverted the edits for now and have added the page to my watchlist. -- Adjwilley (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Grampa Bill's G.A. Pages

It looks like Grampa Bill's G.A. Pages has been taken down. I find it a great loss, so when you are editing pages with this link I would suggest removing them.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest updating the link to the Internet Archive, web.archive.org as it has a pretty good collection of the pages. The Main Menu is here. --Trödel 21:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Good idea.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Categories Per-Succession

I have found a large number of images for individuals that were leading in the Per-Succession crisis Church. While these image are normally uploaded to commons, both Wikipedia pages and Commons images have the same Category issues, so I am bringing it up here, and will then move into "fixing" the commons Categories.

I am having a hard time with putting them into the correct categories. For example, Hyrum Smith. He was the Presiding Patriarch. However, both the LDS Church and the Community of Christ claim him so he is in the "Presiding Evangelists of the Community of Christ" and "Presiding Patriarchs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". It gets even worse when you notice he is in the "Counselors in the First Presidency (LDS Church)" and "Members of the First Presidency (LDS Church)", but not the "Members of the First Presidency (Community of Christ)" category.

I noticed that, when it comes to "Apostles" the Per-Succession crisis Apostles have a separate category )(ie Category:Apostles of the Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints)) which is a subcategory of both "Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and "Apostles of the Community of Christ". I like this arrangement, but I am concerned that, if I were to make this kind of change, it would be controversial, so I thought I would bring it up here first.

What do all of you think. Should we make matching "XXX of the Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints)" for the "First Presidency" and other Latter day saint leaders who were Per-Succession crisis?--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 18:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Stick of Joseph

Wikipedians with an interest in this WikiProject may be interested in the following closed deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stick of Joseph, given the important place that concept plays in the theology of Mormonism. This article was attacked based on the concept being "fringe" (i.e. not generally accepted), even though documented reliable sources were provided that this is part of Mormon theology. Given that the value of theological beliefs of one faith system should not be measured based on the arbitrary criteria of it's acceptance by other faith systems, it would seem this deletion should be overturned. However I do not feel I can champion this thru an undeletion request, so I was hoping that another interested party would take this up. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints work group

In light of the fact that the LDS Church work group was folded back into this WikiProject several months ago (link to the discussion), would there be any objection to deleting and/or upmerging, as appropriate, the contents of Category:Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints work group – consisting primarily of the now-empty assessment categories and two project pages that appear to be deprecated? Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 08:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd say Be Bold --Trödel 15:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

All done! I retained and upmerged Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints work group/Categories, which in used by (linked from) one of this project's internal pages, Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Categories. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Mormons Good Article review

The Mormon article is undergoing a GA review, and has been put on hold to deal with concerns. More details at Talk:Mormons/GA1. Input would be valued. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pratt–Romney family. BigJim707 (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed redirection of Christianity subproject talk pages

I have recently started discussion about possibly eliminating the use of a separate talk page for it here. Input from any interested editors is very welcome and encouraged. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments added to this talk page receive attention specifically because they are added here. I see no value in including this talk page with the consolidation being proposed. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Council of Fifty

Could someone restore the citations and catagories that were on Council of Fifty prior to the recent difficulties on that article involving Mormonfaith101 (talk · contribs)? Looks like the last good version for that was by User:ProfPolySci45 (dif). I have also tried to cleanup & expand slightly Council of Friends, but it could use more work. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I've restored that version. How do you feel about the World-government illustration that was added (which I've now removed)? It seemed helpful to me, but I'm no expert in that area. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It appears to me as the users personal interpretation (wp:OR), and I don't see it as all that helpful to clearly indicate the unequal relationships that were described between these organizations. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Geographic maps

Been a while since I've been very active around here so it's taken me this long to notice the updates to the maps with the self-updating color dots to reflect status. Pretty cool. I do have a couple of points to bring up about the changes, though.

First, and foremost, I'm not sure I like how temples such as Boise or Ogden are showing up with a black dot and the status of "closed". This is compounded by other maps that use the black dot to lump the "closed" temples in with those that have been destroyed or simply no longer exist; to me, anyway, this creates the implication that the temples are closed permanently. It would make more sense for these temples to be lumped in under the blue dot for "under construction" as to me, this is logically a bit closer to what is going on than simply being closed. Perhaps the language being used for their status should be changed; "closed for renovation" or something that is more succinct but more accurate than simply closed.

Second, I wonder at the utility in including dots on the maps for "efforts suspended" temples like Harrison, Far West, Independence and Adam-ondi-Ahman. This may be more personal taste than anything else but to me it seems a bit superfluous to include non-existent structures on a geographical representation of said structures. In the case of the latter three, their inclusion on the map has necessitated a rather visually displeasing inset of Missouri on the Central US Map. I'd personally prefer not to see them listed on a map at all.

Finally, and I want to make sure this isn't just my browser that is doing this, but I've noticed that on some maps (particularly the more crowded ones in the western US) the new increased font size of the currently selected temple is causing some overlap issues that probably be fixed with a little judicious repositioning of the labels, but I wanted to make sure this was something others were noticing before I embark on some kind of map editing mission. Shereth 16:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Featured list removal candidate

List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been nominated for the removal of Featured List status, as it is thought to no longer meet the Featured List criteria. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:New Religious Movements, Cults, and Sects

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is currently listed on Template:New Religious Movements, Cults, and Sects since this edit by Borock (talk · contribs) on 22 October 2011. I disagree with it being included on that template, and removed it, but was quickly reverted. Before pursuing the matter any further, I wanted see what members of this WikiProject thought: should the LDS Church be included on that template? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

As a followup, Mormonism is also listed at List of new religious movements, even though the LDS Church does not. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC).

Joseph Smith is also listed at Template:New Religious Movements, Cults, and Sects. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

2012 WikiGrail

Greetings! Ii gives me great pleasure to announce the inaugural 2012 WikiGrail. It is a friendly competition for Christianity-related project members that awards points for good articles, featured content, and other markers of editing skill. You simply just have to list your name here. Hope to see you there! Warm regards, – Lionel ^(talk) 10:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

First Presidency article has had zero references since 2007

Would someone take a look at the First Presidency article? It currently cites no sources at all for its content, a situation that has existed since October 2007 based on the date of the {{Unreferenced}} template added, and even longer if you look at its history. This seems like too important a topic within your wikiproject for it to remain unreferenced for that long. I just made a few changes in an attempt to improve the article, but those changes were mere copy-editing. Thanks. 72.244.200.108 (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I did some editing to this article today and added some references.~R. Pfnaerker — Preceding unsigned comment added by R. Pfnaerker (talk • contribs) 21:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure you committed those changes by clicking on the save page button? The last change I see to that article is from 9 March 2012‎. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I see you proposed a change on Talk:First Presidency, and probably wanted to get some feedback before making the change on the article itself. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk)

LDS Church related IP editors trolling user talk pages

It pains me to have found this, but it looks like we have yet another LDS Church related IP user trolling User Talk pages (saying things like "I have learned for myself that your beliefs are not true") this time from a BYU IP (diffs) instead one from the LDS Church (previous talk). This is the first time for this user, and I placed a comment on their talk page that will hopefully assist them in understanding that they are behaving in a shameful manner; however there are lots of BYU & LDS Church related IP addresses, and I'm not sure how to keep an eye on this if this becomes a wider trend. Any thoughts? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Input requested

The template of the tree of the P.P./O.Pratt family, which the wikiproject may have contributed to, is the subject of a deletion discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Pratt Family Association .--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oops: Here.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Article needs references

Hi, there is a unreferenced tag at God_the_Father#Mormonism. Could one of you guys check the text there please and add a couple of sources? It is a key article and should not be unsourced. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 04:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Was the recent addition of references adequate? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, looks good to me, Thanks. And ‎Adjwilley also added refs. But I am relying on what you guys know about it, given that I do not really know the topic, and hence asked here. But now that two people form this project have added refs, it should be fine. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Heh. I added one, and 208.81.184.4's were a lot better than mine :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks in any case. History2007 (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Mormonism and violence

There is something hinky going on over at Mormonism and violence; Amadscientist (talk · contribs) has accused an LDS.org url of containing malware, and has also opened this ANI to report me for spreading malware by adding an LDS.org reference. I have no idea what he's talking about, and opened a discussion about this at Talk:Mormonism and violence just before getting the notice of the ANI report. Can someone, maybe an administrator with knowledge of this project, help me? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hinky? Well, perhaps... as malware would suggest that. But there is no claim upon you specificly as "you" are a mass account used by different people and I have not made a claim stating a purpose, just that there may be some malware in content on one of the pages. But the sources being used for the claim are primary and should be sourced with secondary reliable sources to make claims that may be disputed. This doesn't seem like it would be that hard to find academic rebuttal to the claims being made from the other two sources and a balance between the opinions is likely to be possible. Better sourcing is required. I may look into it myself as I have not contributed to the project in some time. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amadscientist (talk • contribs) 21:14, 18 April 2012‎

"May be malware" (as said here) and "is malware" (as found in both the edit summary and the ANI report) are two very different things. You initially claimed that there is malware at one of the two urls, but haven't specified which, or given enough details to validate. Based on the ANI report, I feel a need to resolve both the claims that (1) any editor from this IP address added a malware URL, and (2) that the URL in question did indeed contain malware. I think further discussion on this should be at Talk:Mormonism and violence, to avoid too much cross-site posting. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It was a near by reference associated with a mass type attack associated with a similar IP. It was malware. The proper reference has been deleted and the ANI report struck out and updated with full details.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

As WP:WikiProject LGBT studies has been invited to comment on the Mormonism and violence article here, it seems appropriate to make a similar invitation here with the end of having a well-balanced article. 72Dino (talk) 05:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

208.81.184.4

The editor(s) using 208.81.184.4 which have been previously contributed to articles, talk pages, etc... related to this WikiProject are unfortunately unable to do so going forward; for more information please see User talk:208.81.184.4#Restricted editing from this IP address. Since editor(s) from this IP have been actively participating in this and related topic spheres for quite some time now, it seemed appropriate to notify this project. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The editor(s) will certainly be missed. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in taking up a couple of the tasks I've frequently worked on, here's some details that could make it easier:

• I have been using Tim1357's Wikiproject Watchlist (on the toolserver) with the following settings (as found in the URL):

http://toolserver.org/~tim1357/cgi-bin/ww2.py?template=WikiProject+Latter+Day+Saint+movement&limit=200&order=desc

• This gives editors a view into recent changes on all articles where template:LDSproject exists on the talk page, allowing one to keep an eye on articles related to this WikiProject without having to have them all on your watchlist (very convenient for IP editing too, given that IP editors lack a watchlist)
• That tool however will not display updates to articles that use template:WikiProject Christianity which then lists the WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement as an optional parameter, unless template:LDSproject is also listed separately on the talk page.
• There is a simple option you can enable that will switch to recent changes to the related article talk page instead; this makes it really easy to see if there are any new questions/issues that are being discussed on the talk page

• On Wikimedia Commons, I've been keeping an eye out for Latter Day Saint related images that had not been curated &/or categorized correctly. I've been using the following two searches to do that:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&ns6=1&redirs=1&search=Mormon+-latterday+-Anabrus+-Apodemia+-Coluber+-Ephedra+-Mopsus+-Papilio+-Speyeria&limit=500&offset=0

• This first URL does a non-case sensitive search for images with the word "Mormon" in the media description, but excludes results where latterday (including latter-day but not latter day) is also found, as well as excluding several insects/animals that use the word Mormon in their common name

• I found this particularly helpful in finding images added to commons that are directly related to the LDS Church but do not use the full name of that church, which is by far the most common type of Latter Day Saint movement related image that have been added in the last few years; the most common images types that have come up with this search are LDS Church meetinghouses (often misidentified as temples, "churches", or chapels), LDS Church temples (often misidentified as "churches", or chapels, or even meetinghouses), tabernacles (often misidentified as temples or "churches"), and other buildings related to the LDS Church, especially those that are/have been listed on the NRHP in the US
• This search also displays many images that are not directly related to the LDS Church but where the term Mormon indicates a relationship to the Latter Day Saint movement, including pre-succession crisis matters, as well as images related to non-LDS Church denominations in the Latter Day Saint movement, of which there are only a limited number currently found in Commons, making it relatively easy to skim thru to look for newly contributed images.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&redirs=1&profile=images&search=%22Latter+Day%22+-latterday&limit=500&offset=0

• The second URL searches for images where the description has a (non-case sensitive) usage of "latter day" but excludes "latter-day"

• This also finds instances where others have some knowledge of the name of the various denominations of the Latter Day Saint movement, but may not be familiar with the nuisances of the use (or non-use) of the hyphen in latter-day/latter day

• Between the two searches I usually pickup on somewhere around 80% of new Latter Day Saint movement related images, which usually need to be (re)categorized or have a better description. To get the rest I uses a number of other basic searches related to specific denominations, or I comb thru the various sub-categories of commons:Category:Mormonism.

Thanks again. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I was actually just about to ask you if you would be willing to provide these kinds of details. I've appreciated all the work you've done to keep the project running smoothly, and I had thought about trying to take up a little myself, but I wasn't sure where to start. Talkpage templates are still a mystery to me :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Addition of Criticism to Temple Pages

The following comment was added to the project page by an IP editor at 74.253.18.168. I have cut and pasted it to here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Right now, it doesn't seem like there is a "Criticism" section on a lot of the pages about LDS Temples and what happens inside them. Discontent and criticism of the closed nature of temples, especially surrounding weddings that exclude non-Mormon family members, is well-documented, and much criticism is founded on the fact that no one really knows what is happening inside temples. This content needs to be added because, as it stands now, the articles read very pro-LDS and lack neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.253.18.168 (talk • contribs)

What happens in temples is not secret. It's sacred. And the temples are not "closed". There's a HUGE difference. Anyone who qualifies as worthy to enter the temples can find out what goes on in them. The articles are not biased in favor of the Church. Groups of editors work together to ensure that a neutral point of view is achieved. If you have any specific concerns, please state them. If not, then it's pointless to suggest the degree of criticism you are recommending, as this would violate the above WP policies. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Democratic LDS members?

Hi folks, I was going to ask this at Category talk:American Latter Day Saints but figured there would be more knowledgeable people here to answer. Would it be appropriate to create a subcategory of Category:American Latter Day Saints who are members of the Democratic Party? Given that the majority of LDS Church members identify as conservative and/or Republican ([2]), this seems like a notable intersection. I couldn't tell from WP:COP, although that made me think a list might be more appropriate. Would the answer be contingent on coverage in WP:RS, or would such categorization be inappropriate on its face? Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Good Olfactory would be the one to ask about category stuff. I'll see if I can get his attention. Also, it should be noted that though American Mormons today are predominantly Republican, this was not always the case. The large shift, I believe, happened around the 1970s, and at the beginning of the century the concept that one could be LDS and Repuplican was strange indeed. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about people like Harry Reid, whose political affiliation is rather apparent, as is his LDS affiliation.

I know there are other notable members of the LDS Church who are affiliated with the LDS Church, so I don't think it is necessarily an inappropriate category. The whole point of the category system is to help find a topic of interest and to identify related articles in some fashion. It wouldn't be just a sub-category of Latter Day Saints, but also for perhaps identifying religious affiliation of politicians. It doesn't have to be an exclusive thing. The only real rule of thumb for a category is if you can fill the category with more than a couple of articles, which in the case of political affiliation isn't too hard to do. I wouldn't remove people from Category:American Latter Day Saints just to put them into this sub-category though. --Robert Horning (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Depends on how you define removal. I think it would be appropriate for such a category to be a subcategory of American LDS, as I'm strictly talking about Democratic Party (United States) here. --BDD (talk) 01:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It is both good and bad that Wikipedia uses a free form category system rather than a strict hierarchy for categories, where you can even put categories chains into loops, due to multiple "parent" categories. All I'm talking about in terms of removal of categories is in terms of say removing the American LDS cat from the Harry Reid article and instead putting him into this new category being proposed. Perhaps it is appropriate, but you can divide up members of the LDS church by the kinds of music they love, their gender, race, and other ways as well. I don't know how many notable black female Democrat members of the LDS Church there might be, but there might be a couple. That is where it gets sort of weird with the categories. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

If we do create such a category, I believe (per the spirit, if not explicitly the letter, of WP:BLPCAT) that it should be applied only to individuals whose political affiliation is relevant to their public life or notability and can be substantiated via reliable sources. — Richwales 02:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

A list might be the way to go for this topic. I think a category would not fly, mainly because we don't categorize any other Americans by intersection of religion and political party. Being a Latter Day Saint and a Democrat may be something that has been relatively unusual since the 1970s, but prior to that—and especially prior to the Second World War—there was nothing unusual about it at all, so I'm not even sure about the viability of a list. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is currently a redirect. I think that the corporation meets WP:GNG and deserves an article of its own. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Name_and_legal_entities is a starting place. One useful source of secondary coverage is:

• Winter, Caroline (July 10, 2012). "How the Mormons Make Money". Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved 2012-07-16. (http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/61752-how-the-mormons-make-money)

67.101.5.42 (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

LDS sources

Yet again, some editors are apparently discounting the validity of sources on LDS topics when there is a relationship with the LDS Church (e.g. BYU, Deseret News). See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ogden Stake Tabernacle -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no problem with using sources of information that have a particular bias. That is the whole point of the NPOV guidelines, as you can certainly use such sources. Frankly, I think you would be very hard pressed to find a source that isn't biased in terms of anything having to do with Mormonism or Latter Day Saints in general. WP:UNDUE may be reasonable to mention and a few other similar policies, and you should be careful to try and maintain a neutral tone to what you write, but it is the height of ignorance to claim that the Deseret News isn't a reliable source. Biaed.... no doubt in terms of LDS matters. Try reading what the Deseret News published in the 1850's and 1860's if you want to see some really strong points of view. Then again the same could be said of most newspapers of that era too.

As for the Ogden Stake Tabernacle, I didn't fight that AfD because of notability grounds... which seemed to be the main argument there. I don't want to re-open that AfD, but in spite of some very wrong information that was discussed in that AfD, I couldn't make a convincing argument to keep the article because I couldn't find reliable sources which discussed that particular building and could be used to create a viable article. The whole issue of refuting sources associated with the LDS Church was presented as rationale for deletion, but the point was that there were many reasons that article needed to go. Raising the issue that biased sources required deletion was a red herring and not really a rationale, but there were other problems including some not mentioned that I think the conclusion was justified. That was also a tar pit discussion I didn't want to be trapped in, so I stayed out. --Robert Horning (talk)

Nomination of Montréal Québec Temple for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Montréal Québec Temple is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montréal Québec Temple until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --BDD (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

...and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montréal Québec Temple there again are disputes about "LDS sources" being invalid. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Are temple presidents notable

Members of this WP project and all interested parties are invited to comment at Talk:Laie Hawaii Temple on the questions: (1) are temple presidents notable for their service in this role; (2) should a list of these gentleman appear on the Laie Hawaii Temple article, &/or any other LDS temple article? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that temple presidents are not notable for being temple presidents alone, and definitely don't merit their own articles or redlinks. As for inclusion on the articles about temples, I think it may be ok to name the current president (yes, I know it smacks of recentism) because that information is often available/verifiable in a variety of sources. I don't think having a laundry list of past presidents is a great idea for an encyclopedia, especially if most of the people aren't notable. (The ones who are notable for others reasons will have their own articles that will mention their tenure as president.) Anyway, that's my opinion. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Help requested at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Warren Peter Aston

Mentorship for an aspiring editor on the topic of this LDS archaeologist would be appreciated: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Warren Peter Aston. I ran across him at WP:AFC and had to Decline at first due to lack of sourcing, though this figure may indeed be notable. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Good Neighbor policy (LDS Church)

There's been some nonsense recently over at Good Neighbor policy (LDS Church) that members of this WikiProject and other interested parties might want to be aware of. One or more editors from Korean IP addresses have made multiple efforts to include text to the effect that the oath of vengeance is still occurring, using a YouTube video of supposed "[h]idden camera footage" as a reference. Oddly enough they are trying to claim the video and the related comments posted on YouTube prove it is a modern practice that happens during a "traditionally secret Mormon wedding ceremony". Given the oath of vengeance doesn't happen anymore in the mainstream LDS Church, and it was never part of the temple sealing (Mormonism) ordinance, but was instead part of the endowment (Mormonism), this effort seems to indicate that the posters are either incredibly uninformed (apparently not even bothering to read/understand the related WP articles), naive/gullible, &/or may even be intentionally trying to perpetuate a hoax. It seems like a good idea for multiple interested parties (both LDS and non-LDS) to watchlist Good Neighbor policy (LDS Church), oath of vengeance, endowment (Mormonism), sealing (Mormonism), and any other related articles to keep an eye on this. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS Church)

Could members of this project and other interested parties please take a look at the current state of Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS Church)? Feedback would be appreciated specifically on the references that have been recently added to the article to address issues discussed at Talk:Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS Church), as well as how to improve the structure and wording of the article. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Two thousand stripling warriors

The following was incorrectly placed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, when it should have been on the talk page, so moved here. -- 71.223.123.164 (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Two thousand stripling warriors is disputed by someone who prepended the source with a marker that produces "This article improperly uses one or more religious texts as primary sources without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them." That seems inappropriate to me, since all articles from the Book of Mormon stand or fall together. Appropriate seems to have such articles point to the Historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon article, and omit the marker, such as in the style of Book of Exodus. Shall I change Two thousand stripling warriors that way and let people review it? DavidForthoffer (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

M'Lellin vs McLellin

Haven't we already been thru this before? I thought there was a consensus that the most historically correct usage for this particular individual is William E. M'Lellin not William E. McLellin. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not. In a sans serif script it makes no sense. McLellin is used in modern editions of the D&C, and as a Scotsman myself, I can assure you, "M'" is virtually NEVER used anymore.--MacRùsgail (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Notability guidelines

I'd like to know if there are any guidelines/discussion/consensus on who/what is notable enough for an article. I feel like there is sort of a working consensus, but it is frequently challenged, so it would be nice to have some sort of consensus-forming discussion to point to in these cases. If there is not such a discussion, I recommend that we start one here. Here are my thoughts regarding a possible guideline:

Notable

• Church presidents/apostles, and possibly their wives
• Members of general presidencies, presiding bishops, etc.
• Members of the 1st Quarum of the 70
• Obviously any others who have significant coverage in sources, fame, etc.
• LDS Temples

Not notable

• Members of other quarums of 70s
• Stake presidents and other local leaders
• Temple presidents
• Mission presidents

Are there any suggested additions or subtractions to this list? ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I would disagree that an office is of an by itself grounds for notability. Any office, like ward bishop or elder's quorum president could be notable even for the office if they were active in the community they lived and received quite a bit of publicity for the work they were doing... including something just related to their church calling and not for other purposes. On the other hand members of the seventy (including the 1st quorum) may not have the reliable sources needed other than something that should be treated as a primary source. The Sunday School General Presidency, to name "general presidencies" in the guideline, may not have that kind of notability outside of the Church News magazine.

I find it incredibly hard to believe that changes in the 1st Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve wouldn't get some widespread press coverage at least in the Jello Belt if not elsewhere. There might be local newspapers that would also give some press coverage to a local person who was called to high office as a general authority.

If this guideline is to set up something of a rule of thumb for AfD considerations as applied to LDS leadership, I would generally be opposed to anything that might give rationale for somebody to PROD an article about a mission president. There should be a bit more caution with such positions in terms of checking for notability, but it shouldn't be automatically presumed that such sources are non-existent either. I would say that is especially true for historical articles about people who were mission presidents or temple presidents (19th century and early 20th century). Changes in a stake presidency used to get a similar kind of coverage as the installation of a Catholic Bishop or even Archbishop, even if it isn't that big of a deal any more. Wards and stakes have actually become smaller from historical examples, which is why notability isn't as likely with people currently in those positions. --Robert Horning (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

proposed deletion of Category:Doctrine and Covenants people

I thought it would be useful to put some of the people mentioned in D&C into a category, unfortunately someone has proposed deleting it before I've even finished.

I would be happy if some project members weighed in on this. The user proposing deletion didn't bother listing it here.--MacRùsgail (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Can someone from the project weigh in on this please?

POV violation at Portal:Latter-day Saints

I've raised this at WP:NPOVN#Latter Day Saints portals. This has existed since August 2006 - how could it possibly have been missed? Dougweller (talk) 10:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I've added the portal to my watchlist, and I hope other editors watching this page will do the same. (As far as I can tell, the edit introducing the POV happened last week.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Northbank Industrial Estate based editing

In the last few weeks there seems to have been many less than useful edits about Mormonism being contributed from multiple (possibly rotating?) IP addresses that come from the "Northbank Industrial Estate" (Irlam, City of Salford, Greater Manchester, England). I just noticed the trend, so thought that others might not have seen it yet, and wanted to make the project aware of it. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Is it the 89.24x., 78.146., and 92.xx range IPs that you are referring to? If so, I have noticed, though I probably haven't seen as much as you. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Chronology of Mormonism & 20th century (Mormonism)

There are two distinct, but somewhat related conversations underway at Talk:Chronology of Mormonism & Talk:20th century (Mormonism). Members of this WikiProject and other interested parties would be welcome to weigh-in on these discussions. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Nephite Church of Christ

The redirect Nephite Church of Christ is being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 February 21. Unfortunately, the nominator found a defunct blog with the name and the discussion has mostly revolved around the assumption that the only use for this phrase is the name of the blog. This doesn't seem to be the case, and I'm concerned that it might be wrongly deleted without knowledgeable people voicing in on this. Please comment there. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Gregory L. Smith

Gregory L. Smith, a Mormon historian and apologist, has been listed for AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory L. Smith. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Article request - Anti-Mormon bigamy prosecutions prior to 1890

If there isn't one already, there should probably be an article on bigamy-related prosecutions of Mormons in the United States prior to 1890.

This request is prompted by a recently-declined WP:Articles for Creation, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Austin Greeley Green. Please see the comments I added near the top of this page for possible references for a future article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Beatitudes

Hi, you guys probably know more about the issues on how this project may relate to this discussion than I do, so comments will be appreciated. I may stop watching that page after a while anyway, if you guys want to watch it. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

However, please do not come to the page to edit war, and push a particular POV, as I fear the above user is attempting to bring you there for this purpose. Cheers. IcarusVsSun (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any bad faith in the invitation above. It seems the user just wanted to notify people of a discussion who know more about the topic than he does. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Given the fact History2007 will not engage in discussion on the talk page, that he edit wars on the article page, and that he attempts to have users blocked/banned in an attempt to shut down discussion, it is not a stretch to assume he has canvassed here in an attempt to sway discussion. IcarusVsSun (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliments IcarusVsSun. But trust me, I know policy. I have only done one edit to the article in 2 weeks, so no edit war on my part and my post here was fully within policy, because I did not ask for a specific response, but only asked for an opinion. And given that this project relates to the topic, my post was fully within policy. Trust me, I know policy and I follow it. History2007 (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I feel this notification fell within the guidelines at Wikipedia:CANVAS#Appropriate notification. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

History2007, you are again misrepresenting your edits to the page. Over the past fourteen months you have continued to revert the article to a version you agree with without engaging in any discussion. To come here and canvass for other Mormon editors to push your POV is a direct policy violation. IcarusVsSun (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

No, per approp notification it is perfectly fine: I posted to "The talk page of one or more WikiProjects (or other Wikipedia collaborations) directly related to the topic under discussion." as required there. I will say no more, please read that section. History2007 (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I know all of the polices; been here since 2005. Given your insistence that you acted appropriately, I suppose you won't mind then, when I copy/paste word for word your message here on both the Christianity and Catholicism WikiProject pages? IcarusVsSun (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Be my guest: it is your keyboard. History2007 (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a note: posting a message here isn't guaranteed to get you a "Mormon editor" so much as an editor who is is involved in editing articles related to Mormonism. Likewise, posting at the Christianity wikiproject isn't guaranteed to get you a "Christian" editor so much as someone who has an interest in and knows about Christianity. I hope you will agree that my comments on the talk page were informative and that my edits to the article were helpful and not POV motivated. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)