Talk:Dieter F. Uchtdorf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.
Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

Please tell me how this demonstrates notability. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." There is no significant coverage in any third party source. A quick google search turned up one third party source on Dieter, which was a youtube video of one of his sermons. Hardly a reliable third party source. Tag will stay until notability is reached or article is deleted JRN 16:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I have included a link to a German newspaper article and a Utah newspaper article about Uchtdorf under references as third-party sources.Alanraywiki 19:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I can find numerous third-party sources, including newspaper articles and Mormon-related pages that are unaffiliated with the LDS Church. Must not be looking hard enough, or else you may not know how to properly identify a third-party source. Nominate for deletion if you really believe it is not notable. Snocrates 20:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Czech or German

I have removed the classification as a Czech emigrant until consensus can be reached on this page. I disagree with the classification on the grounds that his parents were ethnic Germans. The same logic could be used to classify George Romney as a Mexican immigrant, despite the fact his parents were "ethnic" Americans. Even the U.S. public gave tacit acceptance to the notion Romney was a natural-born U.S. citizen by allowing him to run for president. --TrustTruth 21:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand the category as being for people who emigrated from the former Czechoslovakia. It carries no connotation of nationality that I can see, since "Czechoslovak" as a nationality doesn't even exist anymore. If you don't think this fits, then what category would you suggest for people born in the former Czechoslovakia who emigrated? He certainly meets that standard. (For people who don't know what we're referring to, the category is Category:Czechoslovak emigrants.) Snocrates 21:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Would you apply this type of category to Romney? --TrustTruth 21:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think so, if the category was for people who emigrated from Mexico. That might not be as clear since "Mexican" is currently a nationality and the category might therefore be defined as persons of Mexican nationality who emigrated from Mexico. However, I'm not really concerned about Romney's category, I'm more interested in finding one here that works. I'll look more carefully at the Czech-related categories and see if one fits better. So far I can't find one. Snocrates 21:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The parent category of Category:Czechoslovak people gives as the definition: "People originally from the former country of Czechoslovakia, which split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993." It says nothing about nationality or ethnicity. Under this definition, Uchtdorf is a "Czechslovak person" since he was originally from Czechslovakia, so he can be placed in the sub-category of emigrants from. That's my reasoning, anyway. I'm not doubting he's "German" by nationality. Snocrates 21:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
It gets more complicated when you consider the area Czechoslovakia encompassed was a mishmash of ethnicities after it was created, and that the state itself ceased to exist about a year-and-a-half before Uchtdorf was born. When he was born the Czech part was technically part of Nazi Germany. --TrustTruth 21:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(:::Well, unless you believe that Hitler's annexation of Czechslovakia was contrary to international law, which it probably was. No where do I find statement's that Uchtdorf was born in the former German Third Reich. They say he was born in the former Czechoslovakia. You're right that nationalities/ethnicities don't always line up in Europe, but that's not an excuse for avoiding having a category for the person that refers to birthplace or emigrated from. Snocrates 21:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions for such a category if this one is not acceptable? It's quite common to categorize people by place of birth or nativity. Snocrates 21:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
This is definitely a tough one, but if I had to suggest a category it would be something along the lines of "People from the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia". I'm not sure when exactly his parents moved him to present-day Germany, so it's unclear whether he was ever technically living in the state of Czechoslovakia. (The church bio appears to be wrong, at least on this technical point.) Otherwise I might agree with your original category. --TrustTruth 21:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at Category:German-Czech people and the residents in it. This seems to be a better fit. Possibly Category:Sudeten Germans depending on where the birthplace is. Snocrates 22:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Category:German-Czech people. Nice find. He was born on the eastern edge of the country, within the "protectorate". --TrustTruth 22:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Category:Sudeten Germans won't work as the birthplace is in the far-east of present-day Czech Republic. I think that was outside of Sudentenland? Snocrates 22:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Right. Sorry I wrote my last edit before you posted this. --TrustTruth 22:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Would you be comfortable with Category:German-Czech people or would you prefer I create a new category for people born in the protectorate? Snocrates 22:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Category:German-Czech people works for me. --TrustTruth 22:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing, and nice fix on the description of the place of birth. What a nightmare! I wonder if he ever runs into trouble having to fill out "birthplace" on forms? Snocrates 22:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks -- the description was a rip-off from the Peter Grünberg article. --TrustTruth 22:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem with this discussion is the American viewpoint that it espouses. It is a very American idea that anyone born on U.S. soil is, by definition, an "American". This same perspective is not generally shared by Germans, Czechs, or other Europeans - and if not now, especially not by previous generations. Instead, one's nationality or ethnicity is primarily defined by one's parents, and secondarily, if at all, by where one was born. Even today, many Germans would not consider a person of Turkish heritage who has lived much of his life in Germany as a "German" - he is a Turk, even if carrying a German passport. Given that, a person who was born in Germany, relocated with his parents to Turkey at a very young age, and lived the rest of his life in Turkey would scarcely be considered "German" or a "German-Turkish person".

A "German-Turkish person" would be someone of mixed heritage (one parent German, the other Turkish) - or someone who spent a major portion of her life (including significant life events) in Germany, but then emigrated to Turkey, where further significant life events occurred. One would expect this "German-Turkish" person to know at least a little bit of each of the two languages, participate in cultural traditions of both Germany and Turkey, and to otherwise have a fairly recognizable influence of both "German-ness" and "Turkish-ness" in her life.

There is simply little evidence to support a claim that Uchtdorf is a "German-Czech" person. Neither of his parents were Czech, nor (as far as I know) had any Czech ancestry. Uchtdorf left the occupied Czech lands at a very early age and probably has no recollection of his life before relocating to Germany "proper". I highly doubt that he ever learned any Czech, nor has he in his life since. He did not marry a Czech woman. I highly doubt that he has practiced any Czech cultural traditions during his life, or that there is otherwise much of any "Czech-ness" about his life. I highly doubt that Uchtdorf considers himself to be "Czech" or ever describes himself that way.

The "German-Czech" category itself is problematic. As appropriate, one could also use "German-Bohemian" or "German-Moravian" or "German-Czechoslovak". "Czech" is a relatively recent construct, as it only really has been applicable since the early '90s, fifty years after Uchtdorf left the area for good. Categories should be applied to articles about people because they define major and significant characteristics about a person, not on the basis of some trivial detail. Czechs wouldn't consider Uchtdorf a fellow citizen or countryman, just because he was born in the area their country now encompasses. Unless evidence can be provided that supports Uchtdorf's "Czech" identity, he is best categorized as a "German person", punkt aus.

-HLT 00:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Servus. You make compelling points, but you may want to take this argument up at the German-Czech category talk page, as it appears to be an accepted practice to classify these people as German-Czechs. That way you would have a broader impact on Wikipedia. Any change would then flow back into Uchtdorf's article. --TrustTruth 00:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Either or both of you may be interested in an ongoing CFD HERE. HLT's comments go to the heart of the conflict with categories like these, but the fact is they exist and are applied fairly widely right now. I can see the good and bad in this, but it may be a good topic for future CFDs. Snocrates 00:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


"Accepted practice" on Wikipedia tends to be creating multitudes of meaningless categories, that are then applied to any article that they might remotely apply to. I don't think these practices should necessarily be upheld, until they are eliminated one application at a time and one category at a time.

In any case, why isn't Uchtdorf being classified as a "German-Czech aviator", "German-Czech Latter-Day Saint", or "German-Czech religious leader"? and why not as "Czech-German"? after all, a "German American" would be an American of German heritage, so a German with Czech heritage would have to be a "Czech German".

The "German-Czech" category applied to Uchtdorf is misleading and should be removed. -HLT 00:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing stopping anyone from starting a CFD for this or any other category or in starting a discussion on category talk pages re: the definition of a category. That's how things change globally—not so much by fighting the battle on an individual page that the category is applied to. Snocrates 01:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Category titles should be as self-evident, self-explanatory and unmistakable as possible. If the category "German-Czech people" is for Germans born in the current area of Czechia, it should be renamed "Germans born in the current area of Czechia". It is not established on the "German-Czech people" category page that it is intended to include Germans born in the current area of Czechia, nor is this self-evident, self-explanatory or unmistakable. "German-Czech people" implies persons of legitimate dual citizenship, bi-nationality, or otherwise exhibiting characteristics of or professing ties to both Germany and Czechia or the languages and cultural traditions of the two nations - none of which apply to Uchtdorf. Including him in this category is quite a stretch, is misleading, and renders the category essentially meaningless as it would list persons together who are not alike (some with German and Czech heritage, others with German but no Czech heritage). - HLT 06:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

So nominate it for discussion per above. Snocrates 07:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Due to one editor's repeated unilateral removal of Category:German-Czech people (which goes directly against consensus gained here between me and another editor), I've created Category:People from the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia and included the subject in it as a decent substitute category. Snocrates 02:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

After seeing this page reverted back and forth between two different editor's opinions, I reverted the page to reflect Snocrates's last edit. This constant changing back and forth is, in my mind, ridiculous beyond belief. Unless there is a concrete objection to Snocrates's viewpoints, I see no logical reason for the omission of these categories. Consequently, it is changed back. I would recommend (though I cannot enforce such a recommendation and have no desire to) that this change not be reverted without a good concrete reason why.--Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Unless and until someone else expresses a view on this, I think so far the "consensus" so far is to include the categories. I see 3 users who have supported including them, and only one opposed. I see nothing wrong with including the categories, so that makes 4 out of 5 so far. I realise it's difficult to speak of "consensus" when only 5 users have commented, but I think with a 4–1 opinion so far, we have to go with what the 4 are advocating. Zoporific 20:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, yes, Dieter U and the categories! I'm amazed that this is still an issue; judging from the edits, HLT seems to be a one-issue editor (i.e., this one). I'm loath to become involved again, but I would just say that I agree with that assessment of the assessment of consensus. This is subject to change, of course, when further comments can be made on this issue. But right now 4 in favor of inclusion and one (single issue editor) opposed seems to militate in favour of inclusion. Snocrates 21:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"Consensus" does not make fact. Have you people even taken a minute to consider what the categories you so stubbornly advocate for inclusion here actually mean? Uchtdorf is not a "German native of Bohemia". This category has been applied solely on the basis of Uchtdorf's birthplace; however, the place where he was born is not, nor ever was, in "Bohemia". HLT (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That's at least 4 reverts for you in the past 24 hours. Maybe you should ease up a bit? Incidentally, he was born in the area called "Bohemia". Just because there's no political organization named that doesn't mean the historical name doesn't apply to the area; read the article you've linked to. It's like saying someone's born in "Siberia" or "the Caribbean" — there may not be a country or administrative region with this name, but it's a legitimate name for an area of the world. That's the inherent danger of thinking your argument is based on "fact" while all others are not; perhaps they are using the word in a sense that is different from your own assumptions. Really, though, it wouldn't hurt to wait a few days to see if someone else could comment on this. Perhaps you should put in a request for comments to spur this on. :) Snocrates 03:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
And if he's born in Moravia, then use Category:German natives of Moravia, don't just use it as an excuse to remove the category. As I said, it would be good to wait and get some other opinion on this, requesting it if necessary. :) Snocrates 04:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Snobrates, maybe you should ease up a bit? He was not born in the area called "Bohemia". Have you even looked at a map of Bohemia, historical or contemporary, to see if his birthplace is in this area? The place was called "Moravska Ostrava", (in German, Mährisch-Ostrau) - Moravska or Mährisch referring to a region called "Moravia". Bohemia and Moravia are two distinct regions, which is why the "Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia" is referred to as such. Thanks for your lengthy explanation, you really think I have no idea that Siberia can refer to a place even if there's not such a country? Looks like there are actually inherent dangers to your way of making edits. HLT (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, yeah. See my comments directly above yours. I anticipated that you would say this, so I included that. Snocrates 05:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
HLT, you need to chill out. There's no call for name calling. One can always dig up "dirt" about one's associates if one tries. And a rose by any other name smells as sweet. It's obvious here that you fail to overlook the consensus. Your apparently personal vendetta against Snocrates has gone too far, in my opinion. If you disagree with his viewpoint, that's fine. You certainly have a right to do so. But I believe, as my signature states, that we can disagree without being disagreeable. And in my opinion, you've crossed a line into disagreeability. If you disagree with what appears to be a consensus decision, then revert the change or lodge a complaint. But you are actually PROLONGING a move towards an amicable solution all the way around by resorting to petty, childish name calling when there's no call for it. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but I don't believe you should start calling names simply because you disagree with and/or have a personal dislike for the editor with whom you take issue. If you do, you're on the road to being disagreeable yourself, and that's not good for anyone. Btw, before your last response was even posted, Snocrates had edited the page to allow for the additional light you shed on the subject. I personally think he was right in his last viewpoint. But my intention here is not to rehash an argument that's gone on, in my opinion, for much too long. I merely wish to remind you that none of us are perfect and that you should cast the beam out of your own eye before you try to pull the mote out of Snocrates's eye. It's my opinion, though, that your beam is very real while Snocrates's mote is nonexistent. I've said what I've come to say. HLT, the rest is up to you. You can attack me for defending Snocrates if you wish, but that would just go to prove what I just said far better than any more talk from me or anyone else could. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 04:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proliferation of Categories

It's just as I wrote here a few days ago - "'Accepted practice' on Wikipedia tends to be creating multitudes of meaningless categories, that are then applied to any article that they might remotely apply to." Two new birth-related categories have been added to this article, and it looks like they're not going away (for any length of time, anyway). If I remove them, I'll be told that I have to go start a "CFD" for each of them to get rid of them. So, this is a system that tends toward chaos - with a few simple keystrokes, I can create category after category and quickly begin adding articles to them. Since it takes so much more effort to go through a CFD process to remove a category, as compared to creating one, there's an inherent inertia that will keep a clutter of meaningless categories on this article and hundreds of others.

I've just done a quick little survey in a place where reason still prevails - in European versions of Wikipedia, specifically the German- and Czech- language Wikipedias. One would expect that the Germans and Czechs would best know how to write encyclopedia articles about their own fellow Germans and fellow Czechs. One would expect they would be the experts at categorizing Czechs and Germans. So, what are my findings? Of all the people that are currently categorized as "German-Czech people" here on the English-language Wikipedia, not a single one of them is categorized in the German Wikipedia or in the Czech Wikipedia as "German-Czech" or some other similar formulation. In other words, they are either categorized as "German" or as "Czech". There is a single person that is categorized as both a "German" and a "Czech". This is a survey of about fifteen articles, and on none of them did our Czech- or German-language fellow Wikipedia editors feel compelled to add a German/Czech category (let alone a German/Moravian or a Bohemian-Moravian Protectorate one).

Does anyone reading this see some element of absurdity creeping into all of this? Does anyone really feel that these obscure categories add to the value of the article? or are the Czech and German Wikipedias spare skeletons of information, severely lacking in content, nuance and depth? HLT (talk) 05:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Spare skeletons of information, severely lacking in content, nuance and depth. But seriously, folks, I note that despite your many protests, you still haven't bothered to start a single CFD to try to resolve things, when this is the typical way of dealing with issues like this. As a result, I have little sympathy for cries of "woe, woe". A lot of people put a lot of time into CFD, because they too feel it is warranted. Snocrates 06:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This has become a magic page of sorts - whatever I write here comes true. A few days ago, I observe how useless categories proliferate on Wikipedia, and then it happens on this very article. Then moments ago, I wrote that I'll be "told to go start an 'CFD'", and lo and behold, within a half hour: "you haven't bothered to start..." What a surprise! Interesting though, Snocrates doesn't respond at all to my points about the clutter of meaningless categories, the resulting absurdity, and whether or not obscure categories add value. Must be, that s/he secretly admits to her/himself that there is chaos, there is absurdity, and that the added categories are simply a means by which to feed the CFD machine - and don't really add substance to the article. HLT (talk) 07:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Just sayin'. You have the ability to make a difference. Whinging does little good. Snocrates (talk) 07:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uchtdorf filled what vacancy?

There seems to be a misunderstanding of editors going on here. Certain editors, including users only listed by IP address and Snocrates, keep insisting that Uchtdorf filled the vacancy created by the death of Elder David B. Haight. I present the following two counterexamples as evidence that this change is unwarranted and inconsistent, not to mention inaccurate. 1. David B. Haight died on July 31, 2004, while Neal A. Maxwell died 10 days earlier on July 21, 2004. How could Uchtdorf, called and ordained before Bednar and therefore senior apostle in comparison with Bednar, fill a vacancy created by the death of Elder Haight if Haight died after Maxwell? It's not logical. 2. Snocrates rationalized his revert of my previous edit by referring me to the David A. Bednar article, claiming by implication that it would show that Bednar filled the vacancy of Maxwell. However, his cited Wiki article clearly states that Bednar filled the vacancy caused by Haight's death. He obviously failed to read his own citation closely enough. For these two reasons, the changes are reverted. Thank you. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

My point is we need a citation before we go changing them. Without a citation, it's just as "logical" to assume that the first apostle ordained replaces the more senior apostle who died rather than the apostle that died first. Snocrates 01:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
With that rationalization, you must also be prepared to say that your understanding of the way succession works in the Church is that if the most senior apostle (Hinckley) were to die, then the newly called apostle would be Hinckley's successor. That's not the way it works. I hope you know that. Besides that, I believe you have forgotten my number two point, overlooking it based on the content of the number two point. Uchtdorf and Bednar succeeded Maxwell and Haight. Maxwell died first, and because Haight died 10 days later, there was no time to call an apostle to fill Maxwell's vacancy. Then, with two apostles dead, it was even more difficult. If you go looking for ways to nitpick at a choice of words, you'll find them. You have yet to answer my number two point. Bednar's Wiki biography clearly (and rightly) states that he filled the vacancy created by the death of Haight. If Haight had not died at the time, Uchtdorf would have filled Maxwell's vacancy, and that would have been the end of it. It's true that when talking about Uchtdorf and Bednar's calls in connection with Maxwell and Haight's deaths that most sources say merely that "Uchtdorf and Bednar were called to fill the vacancies created by the deaths of Haight and Maxwell." I suppose if you want to be really fussy about this, there should be some sort of merged biography for both Uchtdorf and Bednar stating merely that they filled the vacancies created by the deaths of Haight and Maxwell, but that strikes me as being a bit extreme. In the meantime, while you're nitpicking at my defense of the current revision and choice of words, let me do a little nitpicking of my own at YOUR choice of words. You said that "the first apostle ordained replaces the more senior apostle who died rather than the apostle who died first." First of all, called apostles DO NOT "replace" deceased apostles. According to all sources I've read, they merely "fill the vacancies occasioned by the deaths" of the deceased apostles. Otherwise, Uchtdorf and Bednar would be far more senior in the quorum, since Maxwell and Haight were far more senior in the quorum at the time of their deaths. I tell you what. I can't find a source to substantiate my position. I'd like to see what source YOU come up with to substantiate YOURS. I laid out some logical points to indicate the truth of my point of view. Your only contention is "we need a citation" and that it's "logical" to assume that the first apostle ordained replaces the more senior apostle who died rather than the apostle that died first. So, you show me a source behind the "logic" of your viewpoint, and I'll believe it. Until I see evidence to the contrary, I will hold to my viewpoint.--Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
My point, if you missed it before, is that this is all WP:OR without a citation. Both positions are equally "logical" and able to be justified through reason, but without a citation it's just speculation, and we don't do that on WP. I'm not advancing either position without a citation and you're wasting your time nitpicking at word use on a talk page, where editors write using colloquial language. Snocrates 00:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
If that's the case, then the one you should raise your "point" to is to the original person who put in that Bednar filled the vacancy created by the death of Haight and Uchtdorf filled the vacancy created by the death of Maxwell. After all, both citations remained unchanged until you put in what you thought was accurate information. My point is that you should go to the user who originally put in the information that way, and query it through him/her. I don't know who that is, but it's pointless to quibble with me when all I'm doing is defending the position of whoever put that information in based on the reason they put it in. I can assure you, it wasn't me. I joined Wikipedia long after these pages were created. But I have no qualms about defending the position of the editor that DID put this information in based on my understanding of the reason the information is as it now stands. In the meantime, while you're defending an edit you reverted, I notice that Bednar's article, which, as I pointed out at the beginning of this topic, remains unchanged. And his Wiki article clearly states that he filled the vacancy created by the death of Elder David B. Haight. No changes have been made there, nor has the current revision of that point been disputed. If you're disputing one, why aren't you disputing the other? I, on the other hand, might be "missing the point," but in this topic for discussion I created, I am defending BOTH articles as they now stand. This "nitpicking" as both you and I have described it, may indeed be a "waste of time," as you say, but in one counterexample, I am defending two articles, while you are merely trying to discredit my points. I guess, then, that most of the articles about apostles and who succeeded who, should be altered because there is no real way to tell who filled what vacancy unless there is a citation for each rationalization. It may be a waste of time, but as it's my time I'm wasting on a subject I feel strongly about, there shouldn't be any objection about this so-called "wasting of time." I've presented what I feel is a concrete argument against what I feel is an unwarranted edit. If we can't come to some agreement, I'd suggest requesting mediation and letting someone else decide on the issue.--Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 03:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slovakia got dedicated?

The following is cited, so it should be fairly straightforward to elaborate: "On May 12, 2006 Uchtdorf dedicated Slovakia for the preaching of the gospel." As it stands, however, I have no idea what it means, and I suspect that it would be similarly opaque to most non-LDS. Translation, please? Alai (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's something the LDS Church does for each country just prior to it sending missionaries in to preach. A person, usually a church apostle, goes to the country and gives a prayer/blessing on the country in preparation for the influx of Mormon missionaries. It's significant in that it generally only occurs once for every country in the world (unless there has been a large time gap since the last Mormon missionaries visited, in which case it might be done again). I agree that this needs to be worded better somehow to make it understandable. Zoporific 03:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I get the general idea now. Can we perhaps say he "conducted a ceremony/service/prayer of dedication", then, or some such form of words? I've dropped a note at WP:LDS. Perhaps someone can find or start a related article that would help put this in context. Alai (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Zoporific is correct in his/her assessment. As a Latter-day Saint, I can tell you that every time the Church is officially recognized and permitted to enter into another country (after the needed signatures have been gathered for the government to authorize such a course of action) an apostle (that is, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles or First Presidency) is sent to offer a prayer of dedication. This dedicatory prayer (similar to those given for temple dedications) invokes the blessings of the Lord upon the country in question and, if the apostle feels so inspired, on the surrounding countries as well, and asks the Lord to prosper the work of the gospel in that nation. It would be equally appropriate to say that "he conducted a ceremony/service/prayer of dedication", however, our job as Wiki editors is to make pages concise in most cases, rather than more verbose. It is more pertinent to say that the land was "dedicated" than to say it any other way because otherwise, you would also need to change the page describing temple dedications. After all, the principle of dedication in the Church is basically the same, whether it be dedication of a home, church building, temple, country, etc. As such, I don't believe it would be productive to change the terminology in this case UNLESS you intend to also change the terminology for the other types of dedications as well. After all, a dedication is a dedication, no matter what is being dedicated. Anyways, that's my two cents on the matter. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Since this is a thing that happens so often in the church (dedicating buildings, that is, not just countries), perhaps writing a Dedication (LDS Church) would be helpful, and then when used the article could be linked to instead of a verbose explanation given each time? Snocrates 00:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the further edits; I wasn't by any means wedded to my wording, just trying to remove the editorial adoption of (as I suspected) LDS-particular form of words. Much better to report same, and describe. As a reader I found it a jarring and tortuous usage to say someone "decidated a country", as it's for me quite clearly not at all the same thing as dedicating a building that demonstrably "belongs" to the religion performing the rite in question. The article on dedication covers the first sense, as it's used by many a denomination, but certainly not the second, which may indeed merit a separate article for its LDS-specific usage. (I suppose it's a "had not the competence to do it" sort of thing, at bottom. The LDS in Slovakia can obviously dedicate its mission, but can it "set aside" a whole country "for a particular purpose" (of being preached to by LDS missionaries)? Not in the common-or-garden, M-W sense of the word, they can't.) Alai (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The LDS people cannot do it, but an apostle can. And though the idea of dedication is similar in principle, there is one important difference. That is: prayers of dedication, be it of a home, Church building, temple, or country are not just used to present whatever it is officially to the Lord. They are used to invite His Spirit to be there so that His will can be done regarding whatever it is. I hope that clarifies the question. But perhaps it would be useful to expand the Wiki "dedication" page to explain both definitions better. Any thoughts? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought it was fairly clear that I was including apostles et al in my statement about LDS's realm of competence, which I think it's inarguable is the LDS church, and not entire countries. My point is that there's a strong disconnect between the LDS usage of this word here, in which a Sufficiently Advanced LDS can "dedicate a country", and the general meaning of the word "dedicate", in which the LDS church, in whole or in part, cannot do so. For that reason, and especially as we don't yet have an article on the LDS usage, we should be careful about Wikipedia's "editorial voice" using the word in the former sense (as distinct from directly reporting same). Alai (talk) 06:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I quite understand what you're getting at. Just because a home is dedicated doesn't necessarily mean the Church is always present there. The same applies to countries. The purpose of dedicating a country is to officially accept the recognition of the government to have Church missionaries accepted to proselyte in the country. Besides that, even if there's not an official "Wiki page" on this context of dedication, the fact remains that this context is used in numerous Church publications. Each time a land is dedicated by the Church, an account of said dedication is contained in a later edition of the Ensign. The closest I could come to finding a reference for this on the Church website was an account of the growth in Slovakia in video form on the Church's Newsroom. The reference given for verification of this dedication has expired, so it might be wise to find another one. But in each of the references I've found relating to the dedication of a land by the Church, "dedication" is ALWAYS the word used by the Church to describe it. Since this is a Church related issue, my feeling is that we should use official Church terminology, explaining it as necessary, perhaps through another Wiki page. But I do not feel that the word "dedicated" should be removed or replaced simply because it's not understood. If that was the case, then many words used by WP would have to be explained, particularly pertaining to the Church. Of course, it's a moot point anyways, because an explanation is given in the article at any rate. I have no objection to the phrase as it now stands, however, I would recommend forming a Wiki page to discuss this definition of "dedicated" to eliminate the supposed "confusion" that the unexplained usage of this LDS-endorsed term might create. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)