Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Archive 8

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

Needed Articles

One of the needed articles, Second Coming (Mormonism) has been created. It was made by TheInfinityZero. Useight 17:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Source Quality

Generally for most Wikipedia articles, you can simply shut up most fringe theories or psuedo science pushers, especially with major POV concerns, by simply asking them to show source for their point of view. The marginal theories about cosmology, for instance that the universe is on the back of a giant turtle, will have poor sources compared to thinking by Einstein or Hawking. Or more to the point, it is very easy to evaluate sources and be able to suggest who is credible and what is simply an off the wall, perhaps even self-generated source.

I am strongly concerned about the quality of many of the Mormonism related articles (ok.... Latter Day Saint movement) with what I perceived is a huge problem with trying to evaluate what can be considered reliable sources and what are simply crazy kooks that have some wild theory about Joseph Smith howling at the moon goddess in his red pajamas. In other words something that is so far from a reliable source that you might as well consider it to be fiction, even though it seems to have a basis somehow in reality.

I have seen a huge number of POV fights also show up on several articles where you can pretty much document your entire POV and disprove the opposing POV through incredibly extensive bibliographies. I could name several articles here that would fall under this general umbrella, of having this problem, but it is an ongoing and persistent problem within nearly every article related to Joseph Smith, his religious teachings, and the religious movement that followed after him. Being a contemporary figure, or at least somebody with clear historical records in a country relatively free from foreign invasion, documentable and even contradictory records exist about the early events of the LDS movement. Even within "official" records, both government as well as church records.

What I'm asking for here is a frank and honest discussion about what kinds of sources ought to be considered "reliable" within Wikipedia articles, and what kinds of sources really are "un-encyclopedic" and don't really deserve to be considered a primary source of material. Particularly in reference to articles related to the LDS movement. I know that not everybody here will even agree on a common defintion, and even citing cannonized scripture is likely to cause huge disagreement as to if it may even be considered a reliable source. But for the sake of trying to improve the NPOV of many of the related articles, it would be worth while to at least consider that many of the source cited in these articles are really worthy of being cited in an encyclopedia setting of what should be quality NPOV articles about these topics.

Perhaps I'm opening a can of worms that is better left alone, but I perceive this as a huge problem that needs to be addressed by this Wikiproject. --Robert Horning 19:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably a big can of worms, but I agree, some sort of list of sources considered "reliable", "unbiased", etc, would be good. Useight 19:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Generally, I find that articles from Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought are very good - there is a lot of scholarly research about Mormonism there, from both a pro, and critical perspective. An online version can be found here. --Descartes1979 (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

I recently went on vacation and visited many church sites. I have quite a few pictures in case there are any pages needing a free-use picture. If you can think of any needed pictures, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Useight 20:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Will you assist in passing a Good Article review?

No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith is being reviewed for Good Article status. The reviewer has some minor issues with the article, some of which I have tended to, other points are a bit beyond my abilities, so I am asking if someone here would care to look at the article and see if they can assist in having the article pass the GA review. __meco 10:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Standard?

I was wondering if this wikiproject has a standard infobox for temples. I've looked at some of them and stuff like "cafeteria, floor area, location, phone number," etc., it is just irrelevant and should either be worked into the article or taken off of the infobox.-Mbatman 72 04:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I need your help(images)

I posted many images about the Book of Mormon and about Mormons on wikipedia. They are there now for a long time. But suddenly came a administratorUser talk:Pascal.Tesson and wants to delete all images. I uploaded this images with a fair use rational. The images are used for Family Home Evening and I think this explains everything. Everybody is allowed to use them.This is the Gospel Art Picture Kit. Furthermore the LDS position of fair use is:[1] Notwithstanding the foregoing, we reserve sole discretion and right to deny, revoke, or limit use of this site, including reproduction. It is not our responsibility, however, to determine what "Fair Use" means for persons wishing to use materials from this site. That remains wholly a responsibility of the user. Further, we are not required to give additional source citations, nor to guarantee that the materials are cleared for alternate uses. Such ultimately remains the responsibility of the user. However, the Church maintains the right to prevent infringement of its materials and to interpret "Fair Use" as it understands the law. Furthermore I used also non-Church images to explain Mormon science, like Image:Lehi Trail.jpg Please help me to protect this images on wikipedia. This images should stay on wikipedia. I think there is an anti-mormon bias on wikipedia.Daniel3 19:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I find it very interesting that you would quote that part of the lds.org copyright policy page. The foregoing section is
All material found at this site (including visuals, text, icons, displays, databases, media, and general information), is owned or licensed by us. You may view, download, and print material from this site only for your personal, noncommercial use unless otherwise indicated. In addition, materials may be reproduced by media personnel for use in traditional public news forums unless otherwise indicated. You may not post material from this site on another web site or on a computer network without our permission. You may not transmit or distribute material from this site to other sites.
I believe that this is quite clear. Note also that the fact that you believe the pictures should be fair-use, the fact remains that they are copyright images and that our policy on non-free images clearly states that images that are not an essential part of the articles they illustrate should go. This has nothing to do with anti-mormon bias and I wish you'd stop making baseless accusations of the sort. Pascal.Tesson 20:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
It is possible (IMHO as unlikely as Microsoft doing the same thing with sourcecode for MS-Windows... but that is another story) that the LDS Church may grant some sort of copyright permission similar to the Creative Commons suite or the GFDL, but that permission must be explicitly granted. In this regard, I completely agree with Pascal's interpretation of the Wikipedia policies.... even if it isn't completely explained in LDS terms.
The LDS Church has its own team of copyright (and other IP law) attorneys who check copyright status for LDS publications, and in many cases whole works of art (i.e. Arnold Friberg paintings) have even been explicitly donated to the LDS Church or even commissioned by the church for internal use. Since Friberg is still alive, the "life+75 years" copyright term still hasn't even started in terms of these works becoming public domain. Even though they have been used by the LDS Church since the 1950's and have nearly iconic qualities.
Yes "Everybody is allowed to use them", and if you want to take them down to your local Kinko's or whatever photocopy center you have and use them for your personal use, explicit copyright permission has been granted. But that is any single person making a single one at a time copy.... or if you decide to use that copy as a hand-out for use in your Primary class. This is not the same as allowing it for public mass-scale reproduction on the order of Wikipedia.... which isn't the same thing.
In addition, copyright permission under the terms of the GFDL explicitly permits commercial reproduction of all Wikipedia content, and many commercial organizations (aka for profit companies) do use Wikipedia content. The people who have helped to craft the copyright policies here have been very insistent upon keeping the full terms of the GFDL for anybody, including commercial users, for all content including the photos. Even if the images are not necessarily available under terms of the GFDL, they have to be roughly compatable or they can't be included.
Fair use is such a slippery slope of problems that can be heavily abused that is it reasonable to try and avoid any problems at all unless you are writing an article about that specific work of art as a work of art. Because of the icon qualities of that photo. Friberg's painting of Helaman's Stripling Warriors simply can't be used in any article discussing the Book of Mormon, the Son's of Helaman, or even Helaman himself. That is not fair use, but simply and plain copyright violations. --Robert Horning 23:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Daniel, an option would be for you to contact the LDS church and ask for permission to use the images in question. You never know what the answer might be. It would be a shame to lose all images in LDS related articles; maybe there is another source you could use?
I would make a request about using comments about anti-Mormon bias. There is anti-Mormon behavior and then there is just behavior. Be careful of making the accusation; every time it is leveled inappropriately it weakens the claim when it is appropriate. Wikipedia has rules to follow, it is best to just follow them. --Storm Rider (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I should add that another option, especially for things like maps of migration routes (aka the Mormon Trail or like the map of the middle east and Lehi's journey across the Arabian desert) can be reproduced using software like Inkscape or other mapping tools. It isn't necessarily the easiest thing in the world to do, but it can be done and will help out Wikipedia much more in the long run if you do. Images like the one above depicting the journey of Lehi's family contain raw information which is not copyright protected (facts can't be copyrighted) but the image itself and its format is protected. Reproducing it would mean to create a new map with the locations of the same cities (facts) and redrawing the same route as depicted. That becomes an original piece of art and you can in turn grant copyright permission via GFDL license (or simply make it available to the public domain). This is not only acceptable, but strongly encouraged if you have the skills to do this activity. --Robert Horning 14:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I would also add, based on your comment that some of the pictures have been there for a long time, that Wikipedia has recently changed their attitude towards copyrighted works. So the fact that it was acceptable when it was first uploaded doesn't mean that it is still acceptable with the new policy. I had a similar problem with an image that I uploaded for the Cheryl Wheeler article. It had been there for a long time, but then got deleted due to copyright policy. I also agree that you should be very careful using the term Anti-Mormon. The fact that others have had the same problem with material having nothing to do with Mormons suggests that this is a copyright issue, not a Mormon / Anti-Mormon issue. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 15:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Cat:LDS stubs subtype

Members of this Wikiproject may be interested in this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2007/July#Cat:LDS stubs subtype
--159.182.1.4 15:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Cat:LDS people stubs and the corresponding stub got an OK to be created at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, so is anyone here interested in doing the actual creation? -- 159.182.1.4 18:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Currently this is found at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive/July_2007#Cat:LDS_stubs_subtype -- 208.81.184.4 17:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

vote for Moses to become a featured article vote

Vote at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Moses so as too get Moses into a featured article Java7837 23:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What "stories" of the Bible merit separate articles?

There has recently been some discussion regarding which "stories" or portions of the Bible merit having their own articles. For the purposes of centralized discussion, please make any comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#What should have separate articles?. Thank you. John Carter 13:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Two Collaborations of the Month?

At the top it says Family Home Evening is the WP collaboration, but down further it says that Lehi, son of Helaman is the WP collaboration. Is this WP being kept up? And can we archive this talk page? It's getting a bit big. Joseph Antley 04:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Archive is done. I personally have not devoted time to keeping up this page and I would not be a very good judge for its upkeep. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Size issue on List of temples of TCoJCoLDS

Strange information is being displayed on List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the "Size" lines, which are currently displaying like this:

" ** ft² (Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "[" m²) and ** ft (** m) high on a ** acre (Template:Ac-ha ha) site "
[ ** is being used here to represent data variable between the various entries ]

I have no idea what is causing this, and am not sure how to fix it, so I thought I should bring this up here. -- 159.182.1.4 18:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Julia Murdock Smith

The article on Julia Murdock Smith, Joseph Smith, Jr.'s daughter, has been nominated for deletion due to lack of notability. It is certainly true that this stub has never grown, and that notable information on Julia is scarce. Does the project consider the article notable? Please add comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia Murdock Smith. Thank you. WBardwin 05:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I would doubt it. So little info is there that At the most I would think it should be a redirection to JS. BTW, Hi. Tom Haws 18:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Article ratings

Does anybody here understand the article rating system? I would like to see a lot of the articles in the project get at least some level of rating. But I don't know how it works. For example, I think First Vision is an amazing article, and I would like to give it as high a rating as I casually can. How is this done? Tom Haws 20:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Is Earl Roy Curry notable?

I can't find anything on Google or Google Books, which, of course, isn't dispositive. I don't want to CSD if I'm overlooking something. THF 18:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Brigham Young University

This related project is just beginning. If you're interested, please join by adding your signature to the list of members. Wrad 19:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

AFD Alert

A series of lists relating to LDS history, laboriously produced by User:Jgardner if I'm not mistaken, is being proposed for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1990s (LDS). Opinions and comments, please. WBardwin 22:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Burying The Past: Legacy of The Mountain Meadows Massacre

Burying The Past: Legacy of The Mountain Meadows Massacre could use some attention, including a fix of the article name (I believe the "The"s are not capitalized in the actual name of the film). -- 159.182.1.4 01:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Mormon Polygamy template

There's a group of pages on my watchlist that have an extensive list of "See also"s related to polygamy—articles like Reynolds v. United States, Late Church v. US, Reed Smoot hearings, and the manifestos. These articles are often edited as a group when new relevant articles are created. This seems to be precisely the sort of thing that should be done via templates. Does anyone see any problem with creating an LDS/Polygamy template? I think the focus should be on the territorial practice of polygamy and government entanglement, although we should probably include a link to Mormon fundamentalism. I think that figures in modern polygamist groups are outside the scope of such template, which will be focused on the late practice of LDS polygamy, but I wonder if I'm injecting too much bias into the topic. Any opinions? Cool Hand Luke 21:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It all depends on the title you use; it can not be so broad as LDS polygamy given that some people interpret LDS at Latter Day Saint rather than the proper Latter-day Saint. If the title limits the scope you evade all potential problems. However, if you do this, I would also create a template that addresses all other practice of polygamy post 2nd Manifesto. Does that sound logical? --Storm Rider (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes. I don't want to create anti-fundamentalist POV problems, and at the same time I don't want to create the impression that we're equating Latter-day Saint and modern polygamy (which anonymous editors are often very sensitive about). Do you think a single template could serve for both? Perhaps we could divide it into pre- and post-manifesto collapsible sections that could be switched on and off by default. (I'm not worried about the mechanics now—we'll find an appropriate template to work with when we know how it should work in concept. I'm just trying to prevent stubbed toes with good planning.) Cool Hand Luke 00:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
My kneejerk reaction would be that it would be very difficult to have one template serve two masters, err topics. This is a bit difficult and potentially sensitive, I would look for some other input before we go too far. Mind waiting a few days before being bold? --Storm Rider (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the best thing to do is make a sample in your user space, then discuss it there. Wrad 02:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Luke, I interpreted your original idea as proposing some sort of "polygamy and the law"–style template, but as the discussion has proceeded it looks like maybe you are more thinking about some sort of "Mormon polygamy" template. However, if it were titled something like "Polygamy and the law" (or even "American polygamy and the law") as opposed to "Mormon polygamy" or something similar, then you wouldn't have to worry about whether or not you were equating pre– and post–Manifesto events under the blanket categorization of "Mormon polygamy". The mere fact that an article deals with polygamy and the law would determine inclusion. Under such a system, you wouldn't need to include the Mormon fundamentalism article, because it doesn't really directly address polygamy and the law. However, you might want to include an article related to Mormon fundamentalists that had to do with the law, like Tom Green (polygamist) or Short Creek raid. However, this approach might result in excluding other articles you may have wanted to include, depending on what your goal is. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 02:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I think that's a good way to frame it. I think I'll define the template for the history of polygamy and the law. I don't know enough about modern polygamy to fairly tackle that, and I defer to Storm Rider's judgment that the subjects are too different to comfortably fit. I imagine that some post-manifesto topics (like the Short Creek raid) could benefit from both templates, but I'm going to stick with what I know. Cool Hand Luke 02:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (religious figures)

A new proposed guideline titled Wikipedia:Notability (religious figures) may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. -- 159.182.1.4 22:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Also a side question: why isn't there a project page similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism for WP:LDS? It appears that when articles are added to the list of Judaism-related deletions there is a much more open and robust discussion of the merits of the article than we have seen on recent deletions on Mormonism related articles. It appears that WikiProject Deletion sorting general tries to function in conjunction with other topic-specific WikiProjects, similar to WP:LDS. Is this just an oversight, an opportunity for enhancement that just hasn't happened yet, or has there already been a determination made that the WP:LDS is unsuitable for inclusion? -- 159.182.1.4 22:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Project help needed

This project's editors need to descend on Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints immediately, the article is violation of WP policies. I have tagged it NPOV, and only stumbled on it because I am working on an article about the Plano Stone Church, and the RLDS being headquartered there when Smith III moved to Plano, Illinois. The above article basically covers only a lawsuit between the RLDS and Community of Christ, see WP:UNDUE. Hopefully the editors here can help out. Thanks. IvoShandor 16:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

GA class clarification

In order to become GA class, articles must be promoted through the WP:GAC page. Several articles withing this project were self promoted by someone. This is not good procedure. The highest you can promote an article without going through some sort of process is B class. For further information, see the Book of Mormon talk page. Wrad 00:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I need your help

Some people want to delete the article Lehi in the Wilderness: 81 New Documented Evidences That the Book of Mormon Is a True History. I need your help to keep this article on wikipedia. Please go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lehi in the Wilderness: 81 New Documented Evidences That the Book of Mormon Is a True History and write that you want that this article stays on wikipedia. This book shows direct evidences for the Book of Mormon in the old world so it is a really important Book for Book of Mormon scholars.Cmmmm 14:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Book of Mormon GA on hold for seven days

This article is under review for GA. If we collaborate on it for that time, it has a good chance of making it! Please come help! Wrad 22:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Need image help with a genealogical chart

At Image talk:SmithFamily.gif there are comments about the problems with Image:SmithFamily.gif, which apparently shows some members of Joseph Smith III's family with the wrong name or wrong parents. Could someone who is familiar with the genealogy and knows how to edit images take a look at that? --Metropolitan90 18:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

  • In particular, a woman who died in 1869 is shown as having children born in 1874 and 1876, and a woman named "Lois" is listed as being named "Louis" instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Region categories

I think these are being promulgated in a clumsy way. See Category talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the United States. Cool Hand Luke 19:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

New page, probably in your purview

Hi, I wanted to let you know User:Snocrates has started a page that I suspect falls in the purview of your project: Mormon folklore. I thought you might want to tag it as such. Aleta 02:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Latter Day Saint Wikipedians

I would suggest all LDS wikipedians add their user pages to Category:Latter Day Saint Wikipedians.

To add yourself to this category just add one of the following to your userpage:

{{User:Jaksmata/Userboxes/User_LDS}}

Image:Angel Moroni Small.png This user is a member of
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.




OR

{{User:Java7837/userboxing/mormon}}

OR

[[Category:Latter Day Saint Wikipedians|{{PAGENAME}}]]

-Tea and Crumpets (Talk - contribs) 04:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquote entry

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:

Greetings! I started an entry on the Book of Mormon at Wikiquote (see link to the right), and I've tried to capture those passages that were most important, most representative, or most beautifully written (in my humble opinion), but I can not do the topic justice, and am hopeful that some participants in this project can fill in the sparse work that I've begun there. Cheers! bd2412 T 10:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Latter Day Saint restorationism

I propose we rename this project Latter Day Saint restorationism. That seems to be a pretty neutral term that is also descriptive of what the -ism is about. With the assumption being that all article pages that use the term movement would instead use restorationism. I realize that if this proposal reaches consensus it will be a difficult task to accomplish because of the many pages and categories that use the term movement. However, that stuff can be done with the assistance of some bots, so if the only objection to the move is the work involved or you have ideas on how the work can be done please don't elaborate as we can tackle the technical stuff if the move proposal reaches consensus. --Trödel 18:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Trödel, could you provide a few reasons why the change would be an improvement? As this is a project page rather than an article, we can certainly call it whatever we want. However, most readers of associated articles would understand the concept of a social/religious movement over time, while "...isms" are generally formal academic categories and may be more unfamiliar. As the churches within our movement share a history (but vary widely in theology and practice) it appears likely that all of them would, presently, include themselves in a restoration category. But I don't know if this would be verifiable. As for the technical changes, let's knock out the pros and cons of the concept before proceeding. WBardwin 19:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Is this term in use outside Wikipedia? If so, I could see merit in such a change. If not, though, I have reservations about introducing new terminology. It's a good term, though. I like it better than Latter Day Saint movement, and if I were writing an academic article, I'd consider using it. If nobody has used it before, however, I'm not sure that Wikipedia should be the first. COGDEN 19:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I found the term in an religion based journal online. I thought it would make much more sense in this context. The article was describing Latter Day Saints within the realm of restorationism. I am not sure about its use elsewhere. My short personal survey over the week since discussing the term here is that neither seems to be widely accepted by the academic or informed community outside Wikipedia or LDS based journals.
In answer to WBArdwin's request, the first reason is that I never really liked the term movement but couldn't really think of anything better :) As to substantive reasons:
  1. The Latter Day Saints groups are really not a unified movement - I think of a movement as a group that is headed towards a shared goal and that the members of the movement work towards the goal - like the Civil Rights movement. I really don't see a similar goal amongst LDS groups, except maybe the goals they share with other Christians - to spread the gospel, introduce Christ to people, etc (the only one I can imagine that they share could be the proclamation that God has spoken to man again through prophets, but that message is very different amongst the groups).
  2. The term Restorationism describes a common thread amongst the different groups - that they believe that the gospel has been restored, and the current teachings of X contain the truths of the gospel through that restoration.
  3. From a non-LDS worldview - placing Latter Day Saints within Restorationism makes understanding the relationship of Latter Day Saints to other Christians more understandable.
  4. The term movement does not properly identify the the religions/denominations/sects that are included in the group.
Well that is about all I can think of for now. I don't see any reason to change this WikiProject name if we don't also come to a concensus on changing the collective group of LDS style restorationists to LDS restorationism rather than LDS movement. --Trödel 02:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, first of all, naming it "Latter Day Saint restorationism" says to me that it is a restoration of Latter Day Saint, which it clearly isn't. What you are getting at would be something like "Latter Day Saint (restorationism)", but there is already a Latter Day Saint article that would then have to have something in parentheses. I like "Latter Day Saint movement" because, at least at first, it was one movement that later splintered. But if we can find significant usage of another term in other arenas (besides Wikipedia), then we should change it. Until then, I think that this title is a good, brief description of this concept. — Val42 (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like there is too much momentum behind the current naming structure - I withdraw the proposal --Trödel 14:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Amulek

I wrote an article about Amulek; you might want to look it over.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

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.

Sixth Column

The Sixth Column article was recently tagged with being part of thie project. It has been a few years since I read this book, but this book seems too far removed from this project. Why was it tagged? — Val42 03:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Val, I read the article, but I have not read the book. If there is any connection it was not included in the article. I deleted the category. What I found interesting is the category itself and the articles that have been included. Some are obvious, but others have very little in common with LDS or Mormons. Strange.--Storm Rider (talk) 05:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
This is indeed true. I have been tagging a lot of articles lately for the project moving though mormon-/LDS–related categories, ususally tagging everything in sight. This method obviously has the disadvantage of being indiscriminate in perpetuating errors of judgment (or ill will) committed by previous editors. I hope, though, that most will agree to my continued endeavor in this respect, as there is a huge backlog of project-related articles that don't carry the project banner, and hence are only indirectly visible to project members. Also, this constitutes a bottleneck for recruiting new members. Category:Portrayals of Mormons in popular media was in fact remarkable in the way that a lot of its entries didn't expound any relation to mormonism bar the categorization itself. However, since I a) weren't familiar with any of the works, and b) didn't become aware of this awkward phenomenon until I was well on my way to having worked through it all, I believe all entries here have now been tagged with the LDSproject banner. I think it would be beneficial if someone with a keen knowledge of LDS culture would re-check all articles in that particular category and remove all entries (as well as the spuriously added category, which Storm Rider did) that obviously shouldn't have this connection asserted. Perhaps some little investigation may be called for in some instances: i.e. querying the editor who added the article to the mormon-related category. In all cases that aren't positively spurious, a notice on the article's talk page would be prudent, I think. __meco 07:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Good counsel. I believe that User:Uncle G added the category to one of the articles I checked. I will go back and check. The only thing I got out of the article is that an individual was racist; there may have been a prophet involved also. But those are hardly traits of Mormonism...there have been many prophets and many racists. It is too easy to perceive an editor is not acting in good faith, which is not acceptable; posting a note on their talk page will quickly clarify motivation. Good points, thanks. --Storm Rider (talk) 07:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)