Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Church Units

I didn't start the ward and stake articles, but I did major revisions on both of the articles. In the ward article, I added information about branches. In the stake article, I added information about districts. Even while I was doing so, I was wondering if these should be renamed. But since others have edited ward, I guess that there isn't a severe problem with what I did. But what do the rest of you think about combining related subjects in the same article? Val42 05:27, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Those articles read very nicely now. I think it's good to discuss "Stakes" "branches" and the like in the "Ward" article, and vice-versa, so that readers can see how the different units relate to each other. A good addition might be some more work on the names -- i.e., why individual congregations are called "wards". --John Hamer 16:31, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cool Project / Good Group

As I start to get a feel for Wikipedia, I can't help but be extremely impressed. I think this is a fun project and that you folks are an extremely good group --- very knowledgeable and you have a very good philosophy of NPOV. This is really hard to accomplish in the field of Latter Day Saint history because of the traditional polemicism. --John Hamer 05:18, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The project is developing a critical mass of participants/participation and breadth of perspective and experience to the point where

  1. We can start doing some more coordinated things
  2. We are getting visible and need to start consciously guarding our reputation as a model WikiProject

Tom Haws 05:14, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

User:Visorstuff and I have talked about the following ideas:

  • Coordinate Watchlists so that entropy control becomes consistent through the project and workload is spread.
  • Carefully control for group bias by warmly welcoming and inviting mature editors with diverse perspectives. V suggested, and I second, User:Wesley as an example advisor.
  • Set up a real-time meeting to discuss the direction of the project.
  • Continue the great work we have done of setting standards and hierarchies.

Tom Haws 05:14, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Just to expand a bit, we are doing a good job of filling out articles, but up to this point articles have been added at random and on pet topics rather than on crucial issues (entropy is a good word). If we are going to avoid negative scrutiny, we need to move the LDSM project to the next level. We'll need to find some way to plan for the future, and keep it focused, so it will not spin out of control. User:Alai has done a good job of bringing a fresh viewpoint. However, recent comments by outside editors about the project are both praising and damning (the project has been cited as both a "mess" and an "good example"). We have the opportunity here to not only provide the historical facts, correct doctrines and cultual belief of Latter Day Saints, but also, provde readers the world view of a Latter Day Saint. This contextual push is something no other encyclopedia can offer, and will result in more tolerance for all religions.
In order to remove unnecessary scrutinty and being accused of moving in a POV bloc, we'll need to recruit outside of our religion to others who will be as strong as Alai and User:Wesley (used to be involved).
If we don't do this soon, I fear there will shortly be a backlash against the project and similar religious projects by not-so-friendly editors that will seek to get rid of the project.
Anyone else feel the same urgency as I do in this? Would a coordinated chat work? -Visorstuff 17:24, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree that some better coordination and recruitment of outside but knowledgable editors would be great (does Jan Shipps know about Wikipedia :) One issue I have is that things happen very quickly on Wikipedia and I (like I assume most editors) have limited time and sometimes my desire to do stuff here must give in to other responsibilities. Plus (like the naming issue) which I thought was pretty settled - doesn't really seem to have reached a full concensus - at least in the sense that my changes are being changed so I have not continued on with that until it is resolved. Some suggestions I have:
  1. How about changing collaboration of the fortnight to the Semi-Annual Collaboration Award (we could correspond the award to be voted on during March, September and awarded on April 1, October 1 - or some other date). It seems that that would fit with the amount of time that people actually have to dedicate to the project (see optimistic and good-intentioned deadlines on the project page).
  2. Recruit well known admins/editors (as suggsted by Visorstuff and Tom Haws), but focus on editors who have an interest in religious topics and ask them to focus on reviewing for NPOV fairness and professional tone, etc rather than research and extensive edits. (If I was a well known editor and someone asked me to do the same for a project - I would be more willing to help if the scope of my involvement was limited and the project is tangentially related to an area in which I have expertise)
  3. Identify participants who would keep up the project box - I have not edited it because I am not sure it is my place for example.
I like the idea of a real time meeting and the watchlist idea. I am not sure how to collaborate on the Watchlist thing (I probably have too many things on my watchlist - mostly too many userpages but I have learned alot about etiquette and the community by "listening" in on the issues discussed on user talk pages and then reading the related articles and discussions) Trödel|talk 19:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I support Trodel's idea 1. I think dutiful collaboration would be good, and it would be good to give us time to check out books and talk about sources, etc. Perhaps bi-monthly would be appropriate. That would give us 6 collaborations per year. Or perhaps no schedule at all would be even better, but instead a waiting list of articles to focus on together proactively instead of reactively to the latest POV anon. Hmm. Tom Haws 19:33, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
Re: POV bloc — Is there a criticism that this group is functioning with a joint POV bias? — and is that because there a large portion of the participants here are practicing members of the Utah church? If so, I can say that I don't see a lot of evidence of apologetic articles. Is there somewhere members of the group should write out their connections to the Latter Day Saint movement, to have transparency in terms of disclosing personal biases and to illustrate balance in the project?
On that note, Trödel is talking about having contributors who are outside the movement. I'm relatively outside. < User infomation moved to User page > By the way, I also know and work with a lot of Mormon historians (through JWHA, where I coordinate the newsletter and am part of the annual conference program committee) including Jan (who is the president of JWHA). Although I don't think we're going to recruit Jan to the project here ;), I think there are a number of younger historians I know who may be interested and I'll try to invite a couple of them here. --John Hamer 20:55, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think that if a person wants to disclose some part of their background, the best place to do that is their own user page. That's one of the first places other wikipedians would normally look if they wanted to learn more about you. At the same time, I don't think that disclosing anything is strictly necessary, provided you do your best to keep your edits neutral. With your background, you would probably be a valuable contributor to this project. Wesley 21:21, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Good point-- :) I moved that text to my User Page. --John Hamer 00:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Peer Review

By the way, because John Whitmer Historical Association is on the to-do list, I finally decided to flesh it out. Once somebody does that, what do we do? Do we put it on a list of recently finished articles and/or just take it off the to-do list? (I'm still new to the project procedures.) --John Hamer 21:53, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I added a Peer Review section during my cleanup of the project page. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Latter_Day_Saint_movement#For_Peer_Review -Visorstuff 23:14, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! Next question: Should I put all the articles relating to the history of the Latter Day Saint movement that I expand and/or create on this peer-review list or just ones that were already on the to-do list? --John Hamer 02:04, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The main page should contain pages you want us to look at for any reason; whether for peer review or as a "to do" or "working on." If you don't want us to review your work, provide suggestions, don't add it. But if you want comment, put it up. I'll personally watch the project page much closer than I will other articles for some time (I'm pretty overwhelmed with other things outside the wiki right now), so front page edits get my priority, followed by the talk page... -Visorstuff 22:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Participant responsiblities

Carrying on Trodel's recommendation above, I propose due to the discussion above that we move more toward a formal process - Tom's idea of watching certain pages, Trodel's concern of upkeep of the project pages, my concerns about coordination, NPOV, perceptions/scrutiny and direction and the lack of action on certain items once they have been agreed upon, leads me to believe that we need to somehow "assign" project members to complete certain tasks - even if it takes forever to accomplish. I'm not sure if a paliamentary process or voted upon roles would work, but I'm open to new thoughts. Right now, I'm re-evaluating the whole project and how it is working. I don't think a hierarchy is needed, but perhaps, we can use those who are admins, etc. as team leaders on specific tasks? What about rotating roles on a regular basis? Does voluntary sign up work (my thought is no, as seen by collaboration page and the 'sign-ups' for stubs)? I'm not sure on what the outcome I want, but something needs to be done. Perhaps even someone to organize a "chat." Thoughts???? -Visorstuff 23:33, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - I think we need to be careful about setting up too much structure - that is intimidating to the occasional and newcomer user - but having someone to go to with quesitons - re people to ask questions about the edit box - a couple of key people at the top of the project would be useful. Trödel|talk 02:55, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Good concern, Trodel. I guess each of us could move forward on our ideas after getting consensus that they aren't scatter-brained ideas. And we could post "help wanted" ads on the project page. We can leave it up to each participant to work on the responsibilities they accept until they hand them off to another participant. Tom (I) could start trying to get a handle on who is watching what pages, Visorstuff could set up a meeting. Trodel can start recruiting help with page upkeep. And yes, it is probably good to keep a clipboard of who is doing what as well as who is trying to get help with what on the project page. Tom Haws 16:09, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Ok, maybe I need to join this Wikiproject. I do alot of editing on SLC-related pages, and I've noticed on my watchlist, alot if LDS link changes and reverts and counter-reverts, and counter-counter reverts, between Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I'm about to go bonkers. Can someone please make up their minds! Thanks! --[jon] [talk] 19:55, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed that Alai has gone through today and removed a lot of the "The"'s from the links to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I know that the vote to move the LDS Church article to have "The", so this is appropriate as long as the "The" is left in the visible text (as Alai has done). I haven't noticed any of the revert circles that you've mentioned. Val42 20:12, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

I've seen it changed as many as 4 times in some articles. sometimes with "the", other times without. I just wish people could decide. --[jon] [talk] 20:31, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

'A lot' is an understatement, if anything. (Grimace.) Indeed, I just came here to suggest changing the 'style' guidelines to avoid recommending that people link to a redirect, in preference to the actual page (see earlier discussion on this), as it seems to me pretty marginal as regards style of the overall Wikipedia. (I've also fixed any number of references to "the Church", or "the The Church", or no "the" at all, if that makes anyone feel any better.) At any rate, I'm attempting to consistently: link to [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] as the first reference, so's the link looks like this: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (surely that complies with every style guideline the LDS has produced, and any people here have extrapolated from it?); avoid a superfluity of links (too many, say, more than 1 per page, is bad wiki-style); avoid inconsistent links (one link to the article, one to the redirect: there's definitely WP style/policy against that, if nothing else). There should probably also be more consistently about the 'second reference' within an article (e.g., revert to "LDS Church", after first mentioning that term at the first reference, with the same link-dest as appropriate), but I'm not tackling that one, yet. Alai 22:00, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's quite reasonable. I think we should let any links in that style be, and I'm adopting it as my personal style. At worst we would have to change them if the CoJCLDS article is ever moved. Cool Hand Luke 22:35, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. Thanks. And to look on the bright side, changing them in the other direction only requires adding a "The" (or, deleting the link-dest in the majority of the cases, where the link-text is already "TCoJCoLDS"...) Alai 23:40, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think I've killed all references in the WP to to articleless-"Church...", aside from User pages, and a couple of residual refs in WP policy, style, etc documents that I didn't want to directly edit immediately. However, that's not guaranteed due to google-caching. I've changed "the Church..." wherever I've seen it, but those are harder to find, due to the lack of case-sensitive search (anyone have a pointer to one?). (Troedel has a list of pages to check, if anyone wants to be more systematic...)

Possible pages moves

There are several articles with remaining "the", though:

Possibly some of these are also candidates for renaming/merger into (Mormonism) space. If not, they probably should be renamed with the preferred/official capitalisation. Alai 23:59, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also:

Thoughts? Alai 04:54, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

Here's another one: Authority and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints --- This article is mis-titled. "Authority" is a Latter Day Saint doctrine, and this article is about perceived authoritarian excesses. What we probably should have is an article called Theocracy (Mormonism) that includes the existing article, but also explains the evolving Latter Day Saint perspective. --John Hamer 19:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

While you're at it, be careful not to water down the POV of those who are concerned about Authoritariasm and Mormonism. We need to be sure to examine that somewhere in the project. Tom Haws 21:22, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

So we have a series of decisions. Firstly, how to characterise the topic

  • Authority; vs
  • Authoritarianism; vs
  • Theocracy.

Then secondly, the scope:

  • The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (née the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as at present); vs.
  • Mormonism.

Any of these permutations worth putting up as a poll on the Project page proper? Extra credit for suggesting a page move that we don't have to get voted down on the requests for moves page without reference to WikiPolicy... Alai 16:27, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

I think Blacks and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should be changed to Blacks and Mormonism or something like that. The Bickertonites had a black apostle in the 1940s, if you can imagine! That was progressive for the US in that era. We could include a lot of that sort of thing. --John Hamer 02:15, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree Trödel|talk 02:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Makes sense to me too. For the sakes of consistency, I'd prefer that as many articles as possible be put in the "Mormonism" 'namespace', rather than the "Latter-day Saint" one, unless the topic is strictly specific to the LdS church. Even if there's little or no existing content or the CoC, etc, might as well still follow a consistent scheme. Alai 17:36, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If you'll excuse me following myself up, since there's no dissent so far I've proposed this as a move. Alai 23:51, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes.
Utah Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Utah, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to the U.S. state of Utah.
To participate: join (or just read up) at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.

Note: I am adding this notice here because I believe these two projects will overlap in some areas. --[jon] [talk] 21:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Naming and referencing, revisited

I think we're getting to some consistency on 'The Church of Jesus Christ of Church of Latter-day Saints'. This is cool. We have numerous (typically second/subsequent) references to 'the LDS Church' (with that exact capitalisation), which is also fine and dandy. (I think it might be used occasionally as a first reference, but that's another issue if anyone's concerned there might be ambiguity, clarity, or stylistic issues with any such.) However, a third style is "the Church" (or "the church"), which I've noticed some flipping of caps on. I'd suggest we avoid "the Church", as being not beyond NPOV question. I realize it's a style the LDS Church itself approves of, but it's not normal usage (which would be "the church") as with referring to any other church, and it's not an official title, either. Alai 20:10, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that we should standardize on the LDS Church - though I like the initial reference to be the full TCoJCoLDS - mostly to avoid confusion and with (LDS Church see also "Mormon") as following it - it makes it clear when referring to the LDS church especially since most of the other denominations related to Mormonism seem to use a compare contrast with the LDS Church in their descriptions. Trödel|talk 23:41, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
And, yes, there has been some flipping of the Church. I say we go with the church. Should we have a poll? Tom Haws 06:29, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Might as well, I suppose. I'd think we should go with either "the LDS Church" (a shortened title), or "the church" (non-proper noun descriptor) for subsequent references. (Preferable, as Trödel says, to use the full form on the first (at least).) I was going to start editting refs to "the Church", but there's so many I don't want to start, and leave it in an inconsistent state where it's not agreed which we're working towards... Alai 06:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
That way we know everybody is on board. Do these polls belong on the talk page or in front? I am not clear on that. And I would think we would have a "Polls" section. Tom Haws 19:24, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
Do a poll. I had been writing "the LDS Church" and "the church" --- but then I saw a discussion about this on the Joseph Smith, Jr. article defending "The Chruch". I think using "The Church" looks unscholarly and looks to be against NPOV. But since it was the standard, I used it in the Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite) article to refer to that "The Church" as well. Anyway, I think you should do a poll, so we can all be consistent. --John Hamer 20:09, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

proposal to merge Creator god into creationism

I noticed this post on creator god and thought it should be brought to the attention of the group:

seems to me the only things here that are unique to this page are the mormon and hindu models of creationism, and i think they would do better on the Creationism page. i'd like to propose a merge and redirect. thoughts? Ungtss 20:24, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As far as the articles I see no problem witha merge and redirect - but think the text needs some major revision before it is placed in the edit battleground of Creationism with its (100 edits a month. Trödel|talk 23:41, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Project Box

I brought the project box in line with what has happened recently. I also am volunteering to keep this box up to date based on changes made to the Articles in Progress section of the Project page (or other changes I happen to notice :). That way there is a quick list of tasks to do at the top of the page - and you can include it on your own User page if you want to jump right in without reviewing the project page. If you want to include this on another page just copy and past the text below. Trödel|talk 03:07, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

{| style="float:right"
|- valign="top"
|width=300| {{LDSprojectbox}}
|}

Thanks. I don't understand perfectly, but looks good. Tom Haws 06:47, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Organization

I just noticed that there is a #ARticles to do section on the talk page as well as on the main project page. I think these should be consolidated and placed on the main page (rather than this talk page). My only worry is that the project page may start to get too big to easily read and keep up with. Maybe we could keep current requests on the project page and as they are finished move them to an archive for future reference maybe something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Priesthood (Mormonism) so that if a major overhaul needs to be done we can quickly find all the relevant "project" comments related to it. However, I know that subpages are discouraged so I am looking for some comments. Trödel|talk 11:31, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The to do on the talk page was preliminary to archiving. It needs to be send to the archives. -Visorstuff 21:30, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You didn't get interrupted by a power failure did you :) - sounds good - On the talk page would be great - I am volunteering to maintain the project box based on what people do here. Trödel|talk 22:34, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Housekeeping

Move off Peer Review

Just wondering if we should have any standard on moving articles off Peer Review - I would think that after about a month - if there are no serious objections or ongoing discussions - it should be archived. Trödel|talk 17:07, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Polls

I think we should move the polls to an archive location I propose - Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Polls and only reference results and the existence of a new poll on the main page. Trödel|talk 17:07, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Overall Structure

I am thinking of changing the intro to be something like -

Welcome to the Latter Day Saint movement WikiProject!

Our purpose is ...
You can help by jumping right in. ... [provide short description of stuff that needs work - link to lower down]
List yourself as a contributor below to be contacted on new articles, etc.
If you see somthing that needs to be done...
Some standards:
[a short comment on naming - link to below]
[get peer review]
[continue with the format as now - minus the polls as described above]

Trödel|talk 17:07, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The proper care and feeding of anons

I have developed a short welcome template for Anons that edit LDS articles. If you revert an edit by an anon - particularly if it adds substance rather than "mormons are liars" type vandalism, we could use this to welcome to them. Those that revert can help by editing the anon's talk page and adding the following: {{Template:LDSWelcome|edited page name|your username}} (assuming this idea is well received) which will add the following to their user page and hopefully we can have some of these people stay and help us contribute to making the LDS articles of the highest quality.

 
Welcome to Wikipedia

Hello WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Archive 4, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your recent edit to Bishop (Mormonism), one of the articles that is part of the Latter Day Saint movement WikiProject. I regret that in order to help Wikipedia continue to maintain a Neutral Point of View part (or all) of your edits may have had to be reverted. However, we welcome your contributions and hope that you will stay and contribute more. Here are some links that I found helpful:

Please use the Talk pages and the Latter Day Saint movement project talk page to discuss subjects (especially controversial ones) to help reach consensus. Also, as new Mormonism-related articles are created, please make sure to add them to List of articles about Mormonism.

You may also want to register a username with Wikipedia - this allows you to hide your IP address, as well as create watchlists and other benefits. When you do remember to sign your comments with ~~~~ This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments.

And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my Talk page. Once again, welcome! =)

- Trödel
(note I made it so the Welcome heading won't show on this pages table of contents)

Please edit the above by going to User:Trödel/LDSAnon so the wording will be right. If this idea is well liked I will move the page to Template:LDSAnon or Template:LDSWelcome or something. Trödel|talk 17:07, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I got several positive comments so I created the template at Template:LDSWelcome. Go there to edit - to use on a talk page - copy and paste: {{Template:LDSWelcome|edited page name|your username}}

These are great ideas! I love your welcome template! I think I may even use it! Tom Haws 21:39, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)


Some of you have probably already noticed that a block of changes were made to Mormon related pages by some anonymous user. I happened to notice that there were actually two blocks of changes by two different anonymous users (or the same one with a slightly different IP address.) In a number of cases, several sets of changes were made, so if you didn't check the history, you might have only noticed the first change. I noticed the two sets by looking at the history for First Vision. The two anons that made the changes were: 24.8.85.104, and 24.9.82.101. It might be a good idea to check some of the other pages as well to see if there were other changes made. I fixed a few things, but don't have time to check out all of the changes. I see that Tom already beat me to one of the First Vision changes. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - Talk 16:38, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)