Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Visorstuff (talk | contribs) at 23:16, 25 March 2005 (→Joseph Smith, Jr. Article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

ARCHIVES, homie.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Archive 1 - includes sections "Proposal to Change Name", "Missing Links", "Timeline?" "First 'real' order of business", "Non-LDS", "William Marks", "List of articles about Mormonism", "Latter Day Saint texts", "Stale?", "Images", "RSS", and "Excessive external links being seen as spam".

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Archive 2 - includes sections "Consistency in referencing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (although far from being a dead issue), "Hi this project doesn't have anyone working on it.", "New article", "XENU", "Latter Day Saint", "FLDS temple in Texas", "History of the Latter Day Saint movement", "User:John Hamer and Golden Plates", "Person surnames vs. given names in articles", and "Comments within articles"

Defined Terms

Some examples of the articles that need more careful treatment are Bishop (Mormonism) and Priesthood (Mormonism) which do not make it clear if there are differences between different branches of Mormonism. Interested in your thoughts on standards. I am gathering a list of articles that may need this type of work on my Task list and would like some thoughts. Trödel 05:22, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe this is my, BoNoMoJo's and COGDEN's fault early on - we should have standardized better early. I now think in retrospect that we should standardize on one term - (Mormonism) - we shouldn't have both Priesthood (Latter-day Saint), Priesthood (Mormonism). It should be combined into Priesthood (Mormonism). I think we should explain first take from a "revelation"/shared Latter Day Saint belief point of view first, then discuss specifics from a Latter-day Saint perspective (since they are the largest) and then discuss from "other Latter Day Saint" sect perpectives (including CoC, Strangite, FLDS, etc) - all in the same article. It gets too confusing when you have too many parentheses in the title that are not standard - like Melchizedek Priesthood (Latter-day Saint) and Apostle (Mormonism).
In regard to your comments above - this suggestion would fix Priesthood (Mormonism) and provide guidance for Bishop (Mormonism). Largest sect first (LDS), then add in details about other Latter Day sects as we find them, and order in accordance with size (LDS, CoC, FLDS, etc.)
That said, I belive (Mormonism) is the correct term for the Wikipedia. Discussion now, or should we vote to standardize?? -Visorstuff 18:55, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Let's go ahead and open a poll in the "Support - My opinion is not strong on this, but I believe it fits the direction we have been going" format. I don't want to see an early deadline on the poll, and I want to see for sure the vote and comment of key participants like COGDEN. Tom H. 20:15, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Support Let's put a deadline of Feb 1. -Visorstuff 22:40, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Support. Redirect "(LDS)" articles to "(Mormonism)", merging content under subheadings for church-specific issues. Most are already at "(Mormonism)" so this is much easier. Will make linking easier too. Cool Hand Luke 07:55, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Support. Standardize on Term (Momronism) general section explaining, section specific to each different Church from the Latter Day Saint movement in order of size. Trödel 15:44, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Support - despite considerations. As has been discussed above "Latter Day Saint" is the term decided upon, by consensus, to use for all Joseph Smith-descended sects. But since "Mormonism" is shorter and more well known, I'm voting for this usage. Val42 16:44, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Support. Mormonism was the early accepted term among the Smith's, and we have explicitly said that for the system and culture, it is our term of choice. Article form proposal is good too. But I want to see COGDEN's vote before the issue is closed. Tom H. 21:03, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Support — I support this. I think I originally saw there were (Mormonism) articles and (Latter-day Saint) articles and so I started making (Community of Christ) articles to define their usages. When you go down that route, now that I look at it, you have the potential for dozens of tiny articles ---- I think these would be much more useful pulled together under the single header. --John Hamer 14:08, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support -- Sorry I didn't notice this sooner. I agree with the reasoning of Visorstuff. A year ago, when we were considering this, there were lots of articles from a CoJCoLDS point of view, and relatively few from a generic Mormonism point of view that included other LDS groups. At the time, I think we were mostly concerned with making sure that articles were inclusive. Now, the situation is almost reversed. There are only a few (Latter-day Saint) articles, and they've been kind of neglected, because their parenthetical designation relegates them to a dark corner of the Wikipedia. I think we should merge them back into the (Mormonism) articles, making sure that the material is clearly designated as relating only to Latter-day Saints. COGDEN 19:21, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Support -- I didn't notice this either, but I support a common term, and Mormonism is one already recognized by most folks. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - Talk 21:10, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support -- For many of the same reasons stated above. Val42 05:19, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Consensus Reached. Going forward:

Articles specific to Mormonism will have a (Mormonism) suffix, rather than a denominational suffix. The article should define beliefs from the shared Latter Day Saint belief point of view first, then discuss specifics from the largest of the sects practicing/adhering to the belief/doctrine/culture; and then add in details about other Latter Day sects in order of size (LDS, CoC, FLDS, etc.). For example, Priesthood (Latter-day Saint) will no longer need to exist, and should be included in Priesthood (Mormonism). This policy may change as Wikipedia needs change and content is available.

User:Trödel /User:John Hamer, do you both have time to lead this effort? -Visorstuff 21:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes --- I can work on this. As you saw, I already started in on it, integrating Quorum of the Twelve with Council of Twelve Apostles (Community of Christ) and First Presidency with First Presidency (Community of Christ) --- other examples where I was working on this include Lineal Succession (Mormonism) (which maybe should be Lineal succession (Mormonism)? and Presiding Patriarch (Mormonism) (which isn't done). Want to work on this Trödel? --John Hamer 02:27, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I can work (and am willing to work with John to lead it) on this but I am not sure for two reasons: 1) the time I have to spend on stuff comes and goes (for example last weekend my time was limited despite my intentions to make some headway) and 2) structure may not be need so much as a few willing particpants to list themselves as project "leaders" (for lack of a better word) - so that newcomers and others who might have time can know who to talk to about any current things that need work - rather than spending up to several hours getting up to speed on everything. See other comments below. When I had time over Christmas I mostly just browsed all the articles and did not take to heart the Be Bold admonition, but mostly just read and was fairly impressed with 1) the NPOV of the articles and 2) the fair representation. I think a gentle nudging, or having someone to "talk" to would have helped me be less reticent to make changes. Trödel|talk 02:56, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

January 28, 2005 anon Temple edits

User:203.184.3.64 made several anon temple edits. They were reverted wholesale. I would like to talk a little about this matter. Tom H.

We can do better than wholesale reverts of edits that we don't like. We must do better. Am I to believe that out of anon's editing spree there was not a single thing worth salvaging? This kind of behavior is just what will get us all a bad name. It is biting newbies and it is protecting POV. And it will cost us in the end. Would you be willing to go back and at least try to be a little accommodating of the anon's POV? Remember our absolute and non-negotiable Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Tell me what you think we can do about this in the long term. Tom H. 19:34, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Some of these reverts were done without any comment whatsoever. In extreme cases, without the whole word "revert", even. :) That's definitely rather strong: if someone adds substantiative new text, there ought to be, at minimum, a comment about why it's better reverted, and ideally, some "talk" prior to, or simultaneously with, the revert. On the up side, reversion isn't information-lossy, so if any of these can be re-incorporated later if there's a way to do so NPOVishly, the text is still available. (As Tom's recently done on a revert I made, all credit to him.) Alai 20:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also, I forgot to say thank you for taking the effort to hunt through the anon's editing spree and revert all the articles. Good job. At the least, I would simply suggest that in addition to reverting (even vandalism), we always go to anon's talk page and leave a note to this effect, "Welcome to the Wikipedia! I hope you stay and become a regular contributor. Sorry to be rude and short, but I reverted all your edits because XXXXX (I was overwhelmed trying to make sense of them all, they didn't meet XXX guideline or policy, etc.). Please don't feel disillusioned or discouraged; we value your contributions. I invite you to visit XXXXXX where we can discuss how best to incorporate your improvements in a lasting way." Tom H. 20:21, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

You make (another) excellent point, I'll try to make this my own personal practice. Alai 21:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That said, 95 percent of them were incorrect and mis-representative. I don't think reverting anon. edits make anyone look bad - particularly when they are wholesale reverts. As for the Rv. comment - when you are an admin and do a revert, it doesn't let you put in a comment - or at least I haven't been able to. The one edit that did have creedence was deleted from the article earlier after much discussion, so I was fine with it not being included.

Alai, on a seperate note, I appreciate your contributions to the project - I hope you join the project to give a nice non-LDS view to the project members' contributions. You've raised some good questions that have been refreshing. I'll leave a similar note on your talk page-Visorstuff 20:50, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Visorstuff. Odd about the admin-revert thing. Maybe you need to employ a suitably-well-trained sockpuppet from time to time! You're doing an "ordinary revert" in these cases, not any of the fancy edit-hiding stuff? (If I knew what the heck I was talking about here, this question would have been rather more eloquently phrased.) Ordinary reverts are just edits, so one can comment them as much or as little as one likes, if I understand/am doing 'em right. But in any event, it wasn't a revert by you I had in mind in this instance. On the matter of the reverts themselves, I agree with Tom's principle that we ought not to neglect the 5%. Even if the 95% is shamelessly POV or factually inaccurate, if it's a "common perception" or "frequent allegation", it may have a place, suitably re-POV'd. (OTOH, whether that place is the main TCJCLDS article's another matter: it's already over-long, if the MediaWiki hints are anything to go by.) Alai 21:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, on when I look at the difference page there is actually a "rollback" button that automatically reverts to the last version. I think we admins get too lazy and revert, rather than edit. When the button is pushed it reverts to the previous version - and only gives "rv" as the message automatically. This is what I mean by "revert." -Visorstuff 22:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The one thing I thought about keeping around was "the garment contains four sacred symbols", but I had to go to school so I didn't bother expounding that and just took it all out. Everything he posted was either inaccurate and stuff that isn't common allegations, &c., or baker's hats. I think the reverts were nice. Cookiecaper 23:48, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Proper Care and Feeding of Anons

The best ways I know of to Feed the Newbies:

  • Retain at least a tiny portion of their contributions. Retaining even 5% of an anon's edits provides significant feeding. Anons want to know that they can really edit the Wikpedia and make a difference.
  • Go to their anon talk page and leave a message of gratitude and encouragement. Since it is an anon talk page, always put it in a heading under one of the article names they edited, (preferably wikified). Even for an anon, this will pop up as a new message. Not a sure-fire way to contact them, but the worth of a soul is worth the price of a few misses.
  • Resist reverting if possible. Imagine if we had reverted John Hamer's massive edits of Golden Plates, not recognizing them as high-quality edits.

Any other ideas? Tom H. 23:26, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

I think your suggestions are excellent. The only addition that springs to mind is perhaps in the case of "information-containing, but article-worsening" contributions is to revert, and to "snip" the significant added material to, I suppose, the Talk: page or a sub-page, with a view to later fixing/discussion/integration/rejection/other. Alai 02:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
None of the anonymous contributions you're referring to were really worth anything. It's not like we revert anonymous edits every time one comes up. I think everyone understands that just because an edit comes from someone we don't know doesn't automatically make it a bad edit. However, 203.184.3.64's were bad edits. All of the stuff was incorrect, repititious, or inappropriate. We've left a lot of good anon edits in almost everywhere. Just the bad ones have to leave. I think it's quite clear that 203.184.3.64 isn't very interested in making real, honest contributions. It's not the fact that the person didn't use a registered login — the edits just sucked. Cookiecaper 01:05, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with CC on one thing: we don't owe anons any especially greater consideration, esp. as compared to "known newbies". However, his reverts I'm still not quite happy with, nor with the dismissal of the concerns about them. First of all, please note that "Always explain your reverts" is WP policy: Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version. Secondly, the Temple garment (Mormonism) contribution doesn't seem to me to be wholesale-revertable: I don't see any outrageously bad writing, or vast factual errors (judging by COGDEN's subsequent undeletions, unless they're about to get reverted, too...), or manifest POV. Those ought not to have been reverted at all, but rewritten as necessary. Self-describing them after the fact as "nice" doesn't really work for me as a justification. Alai 01:57, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Aye, I didn't realize that the information that COGDEN added back had ever been removed, although I thought it was on a different page. I considered it repititious and therefore reverted instead of rewriting it after hunting down the quotes from President McKay. However, had I known, I probably still would have reverted it. So my posting this doesn't really show anything except that I don't have Temple garment (Mormonism) on my Watchlist. :) Cookiecaper 03:52, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Page move

On another note, any thoughts on my comment at: Talk:Word of the Lord Brought to Mankind by an Angel. (Belatedly it occurs to mention it here, rather than the talk page on a perhaps little-visited article.) Alai 02:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wanna add this to the RFCs on the front page? Tom Haws 05:28, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Front page miscs

I'm cleaning up the project page - so I'll put some items here, since "discussion" should not take place on the project page. Here are a few items:

Nauvoo Temple discussion

  • Nauvoo Temple - not to be confused with the Nauvoo Illinois Temple. Cool Hand Luke (Communicate!) 00:42, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm confused now. It's the same thing, just from different time periods.--Josiah 19:47, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • The original was constructed in the 1840s, completed (mostly symbolically) after Smith was killed, and was utterly destroyed by vandals, tornado, and fire. The Nauvoo IL Temple is an LDS homage to the original, you might say. I think they ought to be seperate because the original is more notable in its own right, and is pointedly not a "Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". It's earlier in the Latter Day Saint movement. (Community of Christ recognizes it, for example.) Cool Hand Luke (Communicate!) 21:08, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I think I agree with Josiah here. They really should be one article under Nauvoo Temple. That's what I think. ^_^ Cookiecaper 05:07, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I'll agree with Josiah also. It seems that combining the two would be less confusing to the outsider looking for information. The fact that the now-existing temple belongs to the Utah church should be mentioned, but I don't think we'll be stepping on any toes by saying that it is the same one that was (nearly) complete in the 1800's. Bruce 05:26, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • But it's not the same. It's not even a replica. Even though the external design of the new temple is similar, the internal plans are more like that of a modern LDS temple. I don't think it's unreasonable to link to the LDS temple at the bottom of a page on the Nauvoo Temple. But to avoid semantics, we at least need content on the actual Nauvoo Temple, however you cut it. Cool Hand Luke (Communicate!) 05:39, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Solomon's temple was redone later and is sometimes called "herod's temple", an example of the same situation where the majority of scholars do not refer to it as a completely different temple.--Josiah 04:30, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • It's the same enough for me. I would put them under the same thing. But you're right, we need to first write the thing. [1] is a cool site with information on a whole bunch of temples. ^_^
    • Weighing in again... It is the same temple - just as we wouldn't have two entries for the Apia Samoa Temple which was destroyed by fire and rebuilt. Even the much of its plans were re-done. Both are considered reconstructed temples. Incidentally, other temples including Mesa AZ, St. George and Logan have been gutted and floor planse changed. Although the shell is the same on these, they also wouldn't be considered a seperate temple, but a remodeled temple. When President Hinckley announed that the Nauvoo temple would be re-built, he mentioned that it had been a dream of many church leaders to finally fulfil the Lords command to have a temple in Nauvoo. Remember, revelations and early church leaders explained that without the completion of that temple, the Church would be rejected at the second coming. In this way, it must be the same temple or there are going to be a lot of problems for a lot of people, including anyone who believed that Smith was a prophet at the time he announced plans for the Nauvoo temple - this would include many Latter Day Saint denominations. Incidentally, it is proper to capitalize the The in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This has bothered me for some time will note at naming conventions. -Visorstuff 16:17, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't think there is enough continuity to consider the modern temple the same building as the old temple. It was destroyed far too long, so now it's a different temple in a different era, with a different name. It's like the separate articles Solomon's Temple, Second Temple, and Herod's Temple. And I don't think there is any theological justification for not creating a Nauvoo Temple article. Joseph Smith's revelation was that there would be a curse if the temple was not completed, but it was, for all practical purposes, completed. Moreover, I don't think Joseph Smith was concerned with necessarily building that temple, just a temple. I think the articles could be combined, however, but the article should be called Nauvoo Temple, with a smaller section describing the Nauvoo Illinois Temple. COGDEN 18:11, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • Sounds like we need more opinions - this is a pretty split topic. I do feel that if you asked Church leadership, they'd say it is a reconstructed site, and for theological reasons. Anyway, more comments are needed. -Visorstuff 23:42, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Maybe as a start, someone could create a separate Nauvoo Temple article, and then we can leave the question of whether or not they should be merged, and what the name of the merged article should be, for a later date after we see what it looks like. COGDEN 16:29, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
    • There's not enough info on Nauvoo, Illinois article, why create two and leave both stubs? I suggest starting the "second article" (if it is really needed) within the first, and then decide to split, if it is needed. If not, it will be too confusing for newbies. -Visorstuff 16:37, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I tend to think that there are two temples involved. The temporal separation gives me that impression, though the geographic identity certainly gives validity to thinking of them as one temple. But I think that practically speaking, the way to start is with one article, then when there is enough material, split it out into two. (Sorry to chip in late.) Tom - Talk 16:52, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

If more opinions are still sought I would favor a single article initially. Given its single location and its single purpose motivating construction, I do not see a need for two articles. I think it was Visor who advised starting with one article and then if the need arises beginning another. Seems like foundation upon which to build. Storm Rider 17:10, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

    • Ok, I substantially expanded the "History" section of Nauvoo, Illinois. --John Hamer 04:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Throwing caution to the wind, I decided to create an article on the original Nauvoo Temple. This is a completely different structure than the (replica) Nauvoo Illinois Temple --- and they are known by two different names. For example, the 2005 LDS Church Almanac lists both structures separately under the two different names. --John Hamer 05:01, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • I just want to go on record that I think this is a mistake and a disservice to readers who will easily get confused by tow articles. In addition, I am against it because it was announced as a "rebuilding" and has major doctrinal ramifications if they are truly different structures. It means that the command to finish the temple as recoded in the D&C was not fulfilled. As for precedence does this mean we should eventually have two articles on the temple in Samoa that burnt down? What about two articles on the Salt Lake temple due to the excavation, and what about changes and structural remodelling to others such as Manti, St. George and others? I'm in the minority here, but doctrinally this is a problem, easability of finding the right article is a problem, and the precendence set is problematic. -Visorstuff 21:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • I think having two articles makes sense because of the significance of the two different structures, the length of time between building them, and the notable history to each one. As to the other examples you give, I don't think they are notable enough to warrant two articles, but Nauvoo is. I do think we could put a disambig like comment at the top of each article to make it easier to direct those who are confused to the right article - that should address your confusion issue. Trödel (talk · contribs) 03:50, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't think the idea that the second temple is a different building from the first temples affects the D&C. LDS D&C 124 commands to build a house for the Lord --- well, the second temple is such a house and it's complete, so that fulfills the commandment, regardless of what happened to the first temple. I don't think the Apia Somoa parallel works because with that structure you're talking about a building that burned and was immediately restored by the same owners --- that's like the "White House". With the original Nauvoo Temple and the LDS Nauvoo Illinois Temple, we have a historic building that was destroyed --- then a lapse of 150 odd years of discontinuity --- and then a modern recreation on the original site. That would be like someone building a replica of the Colossos of Rhodes tomorrow. The new statue would not be the same statue as the original ancient wonder. ----- On the other hand, I am more convinced by your reader confusion argument. I can see where the two articles could be confusing to the casual reader. However, the 1st temple is far more significant than the 2nd from a historical standpoint and if the articles are to be re-combined, I think it should be under the article title "Nauvoo Temple" and the article should focus first on the original and then discuss the replica. --John Hamer 01:43, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Ahh. Now we're talking. "If the two articles are combined, it should be under the title "Nauvoo Temple". It just seems innately revisionist to call an article about the Nauvoo Temple "Nauvoo Illinois Temple". But lacking a Nauvoo Illinois Temple article may be unsuitable to some of the project members who would like to have a complete list of operating temples (?). So I think we probably better leave the articles as two. As for reader confusion, disambiguation links should suffice. Tom H. 05:00, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yesterday, I read both articles to see the current state before weighing in on this topic. Because the two buildings were so temporally separate, I was inclined to treat them as separate topics, unless there was insufficient material. But there is sufficient material in each article that they are not stubs, so I think that the current structure (of separate articles) works well. I also think that they should be expanded as relevant material can be added, but that is a given. Val42 21:28, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

It is interesting that the chuch lists the Nauvoo temple as "rededicated" rather than a new temple. But then you've heard my arguments on this in the past. [2] -Visorstuff 20:27, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Collaboration of the...

  • Wikipedia:Latter Day Saint Collaboration of the week: Do you guys think we should have one of these? It'd be similar to the Gaming Collaboration of the week. I'm for it; not a lot is getting done and this would give everyone a common thing to focus on. Comments? Cookiecaper 03:27, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Anyone? Cookiecaper 18:10, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Sure. I don't know how these work exactly, but if the article is about history/art/culture I would be happy to contribute. I've seen some projects with "collaboration of the fortnight", and that might be a more appropriate tempo for us, but I'll participate either way. Cool Hand Luke 21:04, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Hmm yeah, a week might be a little fast-paced. The way the GCOTW works, which is the only Collaboration I've participated in, people nominate articles they're interested in and other people come out in support of ones they agree with. The article with the most support is then made the next Collaboration. This happens every cycle. I think it's a good idea, and I think I'll appoint the Emma Smith article as the first one. A fortnight (bi-weekly) would be a good interval. I think I shall make it now. :) Cookiecaper 00:13, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Okay, that junk's made. It needs higher billing. I think I'll put it at the top. ;) Cookiecaper 00:44, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • As slowly as I work, better make it "of the month." Tom - Talk 03:49, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Articles To Do

These articles need to be worked on — please feel free to add to this list! --John Hamer 02:27, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Word of Wisdom + Word of Wisdom (Latter-day Saint) combine: Check bottom of Talk:Word of Wisdom page. These articles were originally one article but were split. Re-integrating them will take coordination with those who originally split the articles. I would have combined them tonight if not for this issue. Val42 01:56, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC) Val--- Note that COGDEN said above: "I think we should merge them back into the (Mormonism) articles" So, he agrees so long as we make sure that the recombined articles clearly specify that the LDS-specific material is LDS-specific. --John Hamer 02:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Quorums of the Seventy move to Seventy (Mormonism) add (Mormonism) context and other denominations
  • Ward (Mormonism) add (Mormonism) context
  • Bishop (Mormonism) add other denominations
  • High Council (Mormonism) add denominational context
  • Presiding Bishop — Temporal affairs — I edited the Presiding Bishop entry and noticed the usage of "temporal affairs" twice in the article. I put in a brief explanation, but I don't think that it is sufficient. But I don't know enough about this particular topic (other than the buildings, bishop's storehouses and Church Emergency Radio System) to make anything but a stub. And I think that this topic needs better than the sub-stub that I could create. Val42 21:34, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Stake (Mormonism) added (Mormonism) and other denominations--John Hamer 22:43, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints combined back into Temple (Mormonism) --- this is a big one, because these are two, large articles. I think we're going to need to do some combining and then pull some of the content into sub-articles. --John Hamer 19:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Colonia Juarez, Mexico: Where many LDS fled to escape prosecution because of polygamy.

Articles To Review

These articles have been renamed, combined, and/or re-edited and can be reviewed and expanded: --John Hamer 02:27, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I believe that this article should be reviewed for bias, and frankly not adequately or correctly explaining LDS beliefs. Bo-Lingua

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.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Utah Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by WikiProject Utah.

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.

  User:Trödel/LDSAnon
(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)


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

Joseph Smith, Jr. Article

Given the length and complex contents of the JSmith,Jr article, perhaps it's time to split it (suggested in another way on the Smith talk page) into: Joseph Smith, Jr - a straightforward biography similar to other church leaders at the time. And Joseph Smith, the LDS Prophet - an account of his visions, mission, church service, writings and opposition perspectives. Both would have to have some summary information from the other, but would focus doctrinal issues more in one article. We would have to put a strong redirect at the head of each page.

Disadvantages could include: two pages for people to vandalize; a tendency for people to think either/both articles are "missing" vital information; and the development of contradictory information over time. I think the bio could be handled pretty easily from the existing information, but coming up with a really great doctrinal/religious page could be challenging. What do you all think? Would this be a good group project? Be glad to help. WBardwin 04:08, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are on to something, however, I do not think you can seperate the two 'parts of Smith' - regardless of how long the article is, once you try to seperate "the Prophet" from his "biography" you have too many natualistic introductions that leave out the context of what made the man who he was. That said, perhaps we can introduce new articles about Smith - which I do think is a good idea - such as Joseph Smith and Polygamy, Joseph Smith and new doctrines, Joseph Smith childhood, Joseph Smith Kirtland period, etc. This would allow the main page to have a good overview and more detail on the associated pages (with links from these sections to the new pages). A more thourough discussion can then ensue. If you agree then place this on the main page under the polling section and let's vote to see if we as a project are up to the challenge. I'll gladly contribute and think it would be good timing, especially in light of his 200th birthday this year. -Visorstuff 19:19, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Mormonism

The article about Anti-Mormonism is a mess - see Talk:Anti-Mormonism. I've proposed a restructure, as it is becoming an apologetic/critic page, not an encyclopedic entry. Hawstom and I both think this is the worst page in the project, currently (although the misperceptions page is just as bad). Comments needed on restructure of messy page. Thoughts? -Visorstuff 23:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Latter_Day_Saint_movement&oldid=11565905"