Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Church preferences

"Reference The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by full name first reference (there is currently a lack of consensus as to whether to capitalize The in the title), and "the church" or "LDS Church" thereafter"

The Church specifically requests it not be referred to as the "LDS Church", but rather the "Church of Jesus Christ" or simply "the Church" if a shorter form is required. Perhaps Wikipedia's standard should uphold this request?

The following is posted from Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Neutrality

Wikipedia has no other special in-policy naming convention or Manual of Style that is standard for any other religious denomination. LDS is the only one. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Submanuals.

Anglicanism - uses "adherents"

Bahá'í Faith - uses "adherents"

Buddhists - uses "adherents"

Chinese folk religion - uses "adherents"

Christianity - uses "adherents"

Calvinists - uses "adherents"

Eastern Orthodox Church - uses "adherents"

Islam - uses "adherents" (I also saw "followers" used, which I think is another good word to convey NPOV).

Judaism - uses "adherents"

Pentecostalism - uses "adherents"

Rastafari - uses "adherents"

Scientology - uses "adherents" (including in the cite of the court case that determined it was a protected religion)

Shinto - uses "adherents"

Spiritism - uses "adherents"

Unitarian Universalism - uses "followers"

"Members" can be appropriate in sentances such as "church officials claim [number] as members", when quoting, and as a balanced synonym to "adherents" or "followers", for example.

The point is to use language to convey NPOV, not to either discriminate or give special favor. Currently, the plastic-sounding naming uniformity helps contribute to the overall strong tone of sterilized officialdom from POV insiders that very clearly rings loudly in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Moreover, I would argue that the enforced naming convention may have a chilling effect on non-insiders who might otherwise wish to write on LDS subjects from NPOV. They see the policy and say to themselves forget it before they even start. It has that effect on me, for example, so it is not much of a stretch to see how it may have the same effect on others.

Wikipedia simply is not the place for LDS church officials to reach in through followers and stipulate its official language usage dictums. It is the place where standard academic language usage as applied across all religious movements should be used. To do otherwise is itself to contribute to POV in what results.

CyberAnth 07:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Trying to create a Wikipedia policy based upon official church statements is not NOPV. NPOV is acheived by language that is used across movements. For this reason, I am putting a NPOV tag into this Style Guide. CyberAnth

So, If I went to a Baptist Church site and refused to use the name Southern Baptist Convention -- that would also be NPOV? How about United Methodists? We use the formal name of other organizations -- churches, universities, charitable groups, sororities, etc. -- as a convenience to our readers, an accurate reflection of organizational structure, and as a courtesy, I would assume, to the organizations. But -- Mormons? No, we can't afford them the same courtesy as other groups. They are toooooo different and tooooo controversial. And they have opinions and preferences! How appalling! You will excuse me if I disagree with your logic. WBardwin 00:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what or who you are responding to except you are trying to paint me with persecutory motives. What has been going on in this style guide is preferential treatment, not discrimination. (Do any other religious movements have their own Wikipedia "style guide" with naming stipulates mandated by their top hierarchy? Answer: No.). I beleve the same standard I am speaking about should be applied to all religious groups without bias. CyberAnth 01:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I do think religious movements, organizations, tribes etc. have the right to state preferences on names & modes of address, and Wikipedia has an obligation to reflect those viewpoints. And yes, these viewpoints should be included in a manual of style for major groups, including religions, although they should not be the exclusive source. I would like to develop such a manual of style for Native people of the southwest. When I work on Southwest tribe articles, including archaeology articles, people often cite certain names and designations as prejudicial. In response, I am always careful to use the tribal preference, with appropriate source notes, whenever possible. I believe that it is a courtesy, not a POV, to reflect the preference of the people represented in the article. In the LDS movement, small distinctions in names differentiate the various sects and "old" traditional nicknames and slurs are offensive to some. Each sect has the right to decide how to designate their organization and followers and,yes, that should be reflected in a "style guide." And yes, I am offended by any outright rejection of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints preferences as a source and by the assumption that an all-powerful church is "imposing" their viewpoint on Wikipedia. Editors here, members or not, make these decisions -- not the Church. WBardwin 18:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Lamanites, Nephites, Jaredites, Mulekites - it is only to be expected that Native Americans should not be referred to by these names outside of LDS circles, since evidence for such naming is ridiculously abscent in scholarly consensus. One should use naming for these groups that have consensus among scholars and that conveys clarity to the broadest array of readers, even when that contradicts naming preference by specific Nat Am tribes, although their self-defined named is most certainly a fact to mention and could certainly be used irrespective if it does not affront other groups. CyberAnth 07:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the Wikipedia should respect an organization's preferences on how to refer to it, as long as those preferences don't contradict Wikipedia policies. It's just a matter of sensitivity and courtesy. But there are just a few matters on which the Wikipedia just can't follow LDS Church guidelines without violating WP:NPOV. For example, we can't really refer to the church as the Church or the Church of Jesus Christ, as that implies the church's POV that it is the only true church of Jesus Christ, and the terms are also ambiguous. Also, we can't refrain from applying the term Mormon to Mormon polygamists, because the polygamists themselves generally embrace the term. If we respect the preferences of the LDS Church, as a matter of NPOV we have to also respect the preferences of polygamist churches. COGDEN 18:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revised guidelines

I've revised the guidelines to update some dated material, and to respond to the above objections. Comments are invited. COGDEN 00:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

My concerns are satisfied. :-) CyberAnth 02:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand but would like to understand the rationale for this, however: "Articles on denominational applications of cross-movement practices, e.g. "Elder (Community of Christ)", are generally discouraged." CyberAnth 06:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That should be explained better. Basically, the naming conventions discourage articles that are to denominationally-specific, when the article could be written to cover the whole Latter Day Saint movement. We don't want separate articles called Elder or Temple for each specific denomination. COGDEN 16:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First reference should use full name of church

This is mentioned above, although that is specifically for one denomination, and I'm not sure if Wikipedia already has a guideline about this already, but I propose the following:

The first reference for any church should use the full name of that church rather than a shortened version such as "LDS Church" or "FLDS". The first reference should also contain a link to that church's article. If you will later use a shortened name, add the shortened version in parenthesis after the first reference, e.g. "the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS)" or "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (sometimes called the LDS or Mormon Church)"

Also, avoid linking the alternate names to a redirect page. The first reference will already contain the alternate names, as well as a link to that church's article. Thus, a second link is unnecessary.

I'll leave this here for a few days to get comments. --Lethargy 02:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This is covered at Acronyms and abbreviations, although perhaps we could state it here as well for clarity's sake. --Lethargy 02:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is relevant enough to restate here. Val42 21:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I gave up on waiting a few days, it is up now. :) --Lethargy 21:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)