Jump to content

Talk:List of Latter Day Saints/archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unnamed section

[edit]

This list needs to be cleaned up. There are multiple entries, even under the same subheading. For example, Merlin Olsen. His name also appears as Merlin Olson on the same list. Also, the addition of additional comments seems arbitrary, such as "champion golfer."

Notability

[edit]

Possible vanity entry moved from list for discussion and/or research. WBardwin 00:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

mark hamilton...

[edit]

why is mark hamilton's link to 'Ash (the band)'? Someone fix this please.

Name Change

[edit]

I would like to move the article to List of Mormons, as the article includes non-Latter-day Saints who are members of other denominations or who are non-LDS cultural Mormons. As such, the title "List of Latter-day Saints" is somewhat inaccurate. The Jade Knight 07:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many non-Latter-day Saints (including CofC) strongly object to being called Mormons. So -- perhaps a new title should go back to the LDS movement idea? WBardwin 08:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some Latter-day Saints object to a great many of the things in Wikipedia articles on them. Mormon is most properly a cultural term, and this list seems to be one of cultural, and not just religious, Latter Day Saints. If we are to keep the title, then we should cull the list for all Mormons who aren't Latter-day Saints on it. The Jade Knight 21:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that the article name - because of the hyphen -- implies these people are all members of the Latter-day Saints (Brighamites). However, the nickname "Mormon" is generally applied to and accepted by only Latter-day Saints (Brighamites). Community of Christ and their offshoots do not use it and neither does the fundamentalist groups. So people of those denominations would not look for a list of Mormon people, and our efforts to provide information in the encyclopedia would be thwarted. So, as you suggested, we could purge the list of all LDS movement people, leaving only those active in the Church. Would the other people go in a seperate list? What would you call that list --- "LDS people who are not Mormons"? Yuck! Or would you like to subdivide them by denomination and maintain this list with a new name? That seems a bit clannish to me. I would prefer a change in title to reflect the broader movement, not use the word "Mormon" and would keep the current format. WBardwin 01:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, part of the issue is that some of these people are not Latter Day Saints in any sense of the word, but are cultural Mormons. Personally, the usage I find most acceptable is "Mormon" to refer to the culture, and "Latter Day Saint" to refer to the religious movement. This appears to not even be a list of Latter Day Saints (let alone Latter-day Saints), but a list of Mormons. Thus a title change is in order. If the title is left as is, some names need to be removed so that it is accurate. If you can come up with a more inclusive term than "Mormon", you are welcome to suggest some, but realize that even "Latter Day Saint" would exclude some of those presently listed (ie, the individuals with no religious association). The Jade Knight 05:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that two lists are necessary List of Latter-day Saints and List of Mormons(or some other name should members of the other denominations oppose this name). LDS should be members and Mormons for cultural Mormons, members of other denominations within the Latter Day Saint Movement, etc. The only problem I see is that if you make membership a requirement, there is no way to verify that; so Latter-day Saints would have to be claimed LDS or something like that. Trödel•talk 21:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not certain that nearly all people who use the term Mormon don't think Latter-day Saint. Perhaps we could use List of members of Latter Day Saint movement? However, that's pretty wordy. DavidBailey 16:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't "List of Latter Day Saints" mean the same thing? The Jade Knight 18:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So why not "Non-Brighamite LDS" or something like that?Raekuul 01:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really clear on the purpose of the article:

  • I presume the list is of notable people associated in some way with the Latter Day Saint movement.
  • Besides being notable, is it a list of people with at least significant roots in the Latter Day Saint movement?

But as I consider the people I know who are CofC or Bickertonite, I am guessing they would not really get warm and fuzzy about the idea of being included in a list of notable X with Latter-day Saints. The Bickertonites (The Church of Jesus Christ) feel at this point completely separate from their LDS cousins. And CofC certainly doesn't "feel" Mormon. There either needs to be a list for each separate tradition or a clear identification in the article which tradition each person's roots are in. Having said all that, if the article is to continue as one, I suppose it must be named according to Wikipedia style, I think List of notable people with roots in the Latter Day Saint Movement or some acceptable abbreviation of that. Tom Haws 16:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since this has gone back and forth a lot of times, may I suggest the following solution. That the current article stays under its current name, and we include a link (near the top) which states something along the lines of 'if you are looking for a list of members of churches that are associated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, please look here'. Then that link goes to a list that lists notables by the various church affiliation. I do think we need to resolve two things. 1. Users expecting everyone on this list to be a member of the LDS church. 2. Users looking for members of churches not LDS, but part of the Latter Day Saint movement. What do you think of this? DavidBailey 22:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than editing the list to include everyone listed here already, names and movements should be moved elsewhere. Formerly Catholic Churches are not listed in a "Catholic Movement" page or anything of the kind. An "LDS splinter-groups" entry or something else might be in order but this is simply ridiculous. Additionally there are persons listed here who themselves do not claim to profess the faith which the entry supposedly identifies. Persons who do not practice a particular religion should not be affiliated by others with the same.

I recommend splitting up the article a bit. Call the article "Notable Latter-Day Saints", and then have a section for Hisorical people (Smith, Young, Eliza R Snow, etc). Then have a section for more current adherants. Then have categories. But this brings up another issue. How does, say Ed Decker or Mark Hoffman fit in. Clearly they are not truly Latter-day Saints, but they are important figures in the LDS movement. Maybe the title should be "Notable people of the Latter-day Saints" to exclude other Mormon-ish groups? "Latter-day Saint people"? Should this be a list of people who are noteworthy for things other than their LDS ties? 66.151.81.244 00:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criminals and controversial figures

[edit]

Is it really fair to include two porn stars in a section that is largely made up of convicted killers? I understand that many people find this to be a very distasteful profession but its hardly the same as murder. Perhaps their should be one section for criminals and another for controversial figures? Iron Ghost 22:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an Actors section. Perhaps you should move them there. Dr U 01:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if that would be appropriate either. Iron Ghost 02:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Porn stars are there because porn stars are controversial figures. If you don't want porn stars in a category made up mostly of killers, add other non-killers. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 04:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Using that logic, we could add Joseph Smith to Controversial figures. Then people would really have a fit. Dr U 16:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While Joseph Smith may be a controversial figure in a list of religious leaders, he is not controversial amongst Latter Day Saints. There are several people included that are controversial but not convicted killers besides the porn stars you name. Trödel•talk 00:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it meaningful to include those who were born into homes where their parents were LDS, if as soon as they left the home they left the church? The name of this list implies (regardless of the opening paragraph) that the members ARE Latter-day Saints, not that their parents were. Even saying "fomerly" implies that they actively chose membership, which may not have been the case if they were only members as children. In my mind, it is inappropriate to include this category of people in this list. After all, if you had a list of famous chefs, you wouldn't include someone who was the son of Emeril Lagasse unless he became a cook himself. Or you can use to illustrate, a famous Democrats list. A child isn't included unless they become famous and continue to be Democrat. Right? On the other hand, if they became well-known and they professed to be a Latter-day saint, that would be acceptable. DavidBailey 21:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Trödel•talk 21:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It may also be useful to compare the Lists of Roman Catholics page. This has a different list for those excommunicated than those currently members. At the top, it states- "This is a directory of lists of Catholics who profess Catholicism in their trade." DavidBailey 21:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, we need to be more particular about the details of this page. My suggestion, that we rename the page to "List of Mormons" and make it all-inclusive, is unpopular. I think keeping two separate pages would be very confusing; "Mormons" and "Latter-day Saints" are usually synonymous to most people. We could reduce this list simply to "Latter-day Saints" who we can confirm are, in fact, Latter-day Saints, or we could reduce it to simply Latter Day Saints, to be inclusive of other religions, but again limit it to those who are confirmed Latter Day Saints (as opposed to being merely culturally Mormon or being raised LDS but never having continued with the religion). What's the consensus on this one? The Jade Knight 01:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not suggesting that pornstars are not controversial, figures merely that there should be seperate sections for controversial figures and criminals. Seeing as there are already seperate sections for swimmers and divers this doesn't seem unreasonable. Iron Ghost 00:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with making a separate section or subsection for controversial figures and convicted criminals. The Jade Knight 01:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a new entry for Excommunicated or Former Latter-day Saints, moved these people to this list, and added some common redirects to it. I have also linked the list in the References section. DavidBailey 00:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not all those people are former Mormons. You moved Evan Mecham, who (to my knowledge) was never exommunicated, but is definitely contraversial. Likewise, John D. Lee continued to consider himself Mormon even after he was excommunicated, and since his membership was restored in 1961, I think he definitely belongs on this page. Ann Perry also became LDS AFTER she murdered her mom. Likewise, there are many "noncontraversial" figures on the page who are former Mormons who didn't get moved in your edit. I do support deleting former LDS off this page after all the former Mormons get moved to the new page. The other major complicating factor that needs to be addressed is what to do about folks who have neither been excommunicated nor had their name removed from membership roles, but don't claim to be mormon anymore. They don't clealy belong here or on a list of "Excommunictaed or former Later-day Saints" Dr U 01:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I figured that I would scoop some of those in my first pass. I'm going to be editing, going through the list and moving other former or excommunicated Latter-day Saints to the other list. Please feel free to help me sift through the names and get everything right. I'm removing names from sections in the Latter-day Saint list only as I complete the section. In some cases, I'm going to have to make educated guesses of status, since I obviously don't have access to the membership records. Again, please correct me if you're aware of an error. DavidBailey 01:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The other major issue that needs to be addressed is what to do about people who were excommunicated and then joined another LDS movement church like RLDS or Strangite. William B. Smith was excommunicated and joined both other churches (and started his own). Where to put him? Dr U 02:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think current membership/self-identification status is what should be taken most into account. If they're currently a Latter Day Saint (of any sort), then perhaps they still belong on the Latter Day Saint list, which still needs to be renamed. The Jade Knight 07:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It may be worth noting if they've been excommunicated from any church, or if they are otherwise not known to be actualy members. The Jade Knight 17:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the whole Criminals section is a hitjob. Since when, for example, did Butch Cassidy ever define himself as a member of LDS? That's the problem: most of these criminals don't or haven't ever defined themselves by thier membership to LDS. --Kitrus 09:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other issues with this list

[edit]

The problems with this list are not limited to categorization. There are hundreds of red links, which seems to indicate a lot of these folks don't even merit a Wikipedia article. It's pretty hard to verify if someone even belongs in this category if they don't have an article, and it kinda hard to justify keeping them listed. And what about "Ethnic Mormons" like Fay Wray, who were never even baptized? Its one thing to list people who were LDS and left, but listing people, just because they have LDS family members? Sorta grasping for straws in my opinion. Dr U 01:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I felt the article needed a renaming. I see "Mormon" as being more all-inclusive. However, I have nothing against deleting many of the red-link names on this list. The Jade Knight 01:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we limit the list to only those with articles then why not just use Categorization as suggested - then the title is easier because it actually shows up at the bottom of each page, and we can use subcategories: Latter Day Saint Atheletes; Latter Day Saint Controversial Figures ... etc. However, I think that the list should include those that are not quite notable enough for an article Trödel•talk 18:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Does Lori Hacking really justify an entry on this list? She is just a murder victim, of which there must be hundreds of LDS murder victims. Did she make national news? I appreciate the need of the grieving family, but this doesn't seem to be the place. I'm planning on deleting it by 10-10-07 unless there are any objections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubbieco (talk • contribs) 20:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keri Russell

[edit]

Does anyone know anything about Keri Russell? She is listed as being a Mormon in a few shakey sources. However, a few recent articles say that she is Jewish.[1][2] Was her family involved in the Mormon church for a while and then left? Mad Jack O'Lantern 21:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page Move

[edit]

I've moved the page due to it discussing more than Latter-day Saints, as reminded by Dr U. That said, do we really need to have Ervil Labaron listed more than once? -Visorstuff 01:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about it and I think Ervil has LDS ties (although loosly), and I think he should be listed, if only for the fact that people think he is a Mormon. How about the title "Notable people with Latter-day Saint connections?", to distinguish adherants (famous athletes) from historically intereted parties (Gov Boggs, for example), and others who are tertiarally tied to the church like Ina Coolbrith, California's first poet laureatte who changed here last name because of her family ties to Polygamy.
I also think the article can be divided up better, and people listed according to thir role either in society, history, or Church leadership connectivity. Bytebear 01:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Verify Source" and other changes

[edit]

I have added the "verify source" tag to numerous names (mostly entertainers) and made other changes:

  • removed the Steve Young duplicate entry
  • removed Tal Bachman (now a staunch critic of the LDS church)
  • removed the source and asked for a new verified source for Amy Adams (the listed source only said that her family was LDS)
  • removed Ryan Gosling (the noted source actually says he no longer identifies as mormon)
  • Broke the link on Scott Alexander (referred to a different Scott Alexander)

Most of the people I noted requiring verification are living individuals. Per Wikimedia guidelines for living individuals, we must have clearly stated indications that they currenly identify as LDS. Having Mormon parents, or even "being raised" LDS is not enough (indeed, the term "...was raised LDS" can imply the opposite, versus say, "...is LDS").

If references are given for those individuals, they should be removed from here in a couple of weeks... -Porlob 19:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am condensing the "Actors" and "Television and Film" categories into single category called "Film, television and stage personailities". -Porlob 21:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC) (updated: -Porlob 21:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I also think that any red links should be deleted. If they have no article or reference, then are not not likely notable, and their status as Mormons is not verifiable, and should therefore be deleted. Band members with red links but with an article for the band should remain (though probably link only to the band article), though "verification needed" should remain for now until people have had a chance to verify (see the members of The Arcade Fire for example) --Porlob

Verifiability

[edit]

I have added the "verify source" tag to any listing that is either red-linked or does not have a reference to LDS movement participation on the subject's article. I think being a BYU student is a reasonable indicator of LDS membership, so I have not added the tag if the article states that, with the exception of BYU football players (who are often recruited from outside of the LDS community). Also, if an article states something like "... was born to Mormon parents," that is not enough of an indication to list them here.

If somoene is notable enough be be listed here, then they are notbale enough to have their own article. Be bold and write one. If they're not notable enough for an article, they shouldn't be listed here. If they are LDS, that fact should either be listed on a reference (see the Andy Toolson listing), or more preferable on their own Wikipedia article. Be bold and add a reference to their article (just having the "Mormon actors/athletes/etc." category on their article isn't enough. It must have a reference and thus be verifiable).

I've tried to remain as objective as possible, adding the "citiation needed" rather than "verify source" where appropriate, but If I've missed something or mis-stepped, feel free to correct it.

Many of the people listed are still alive, and are therefore subject to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. After 30 days, I'll go through and delete listings for those who have not been verified. -Porlob 15:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and sorry for the ridiculous number of edits I've been making. I'm trying to improve the quality of the article, fixing issues when I come accross them. I'll try to consolidate changes into fewer editing instances. -Porlob 20:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the effort. But.....given the realities of time limitations on many of the LDS project editors...... how 'bout giving 60 days before deletion? Best wishes. WBardwin 20:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. I think it's fair to give more time. I do want everything to be in good faith. How about if after 30 days, if verifications are not still being regularly made, I'll delete; but if people are still adding verifications or references, we hold of for another 10 days or so, until such edits taper off notably. The list is supposed to be "particularly well-known" Latter-Day Saints, yet most of these people have no articles. There are some redlinks (such as Ab Jenkins, to whom I recently added a reference... Though he really deserves an article) who do belong on this list, but much of it seems to be cruft, dubious, and/or poorly sourced. I'd love to hear any other feedback on this, too. -Porlob 21:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the cleanup tag to attract attention to the verification efforts. -Porlob 14:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • More changes and I've removed Melvin A. Cook outright. A Google search turned up only 454 results, many of which refered to an attorney by the same name. I don't think he's notable enough to meet WP:Notability or the requirments of this article ("particularly well-known" Latter Day Saints). -Porlob 15:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Melvin Alonzo Cook: notable enough for a bio/chemistry related article, I think. After all he was a Noble prize nominee. The "creationist" label might make him sound doubtful. Perhaps it comes from views expressed in an LDS book he cowrote: Cook, Melvin Alonzo, and Melvin Garfield Cook. Science and Mormonism. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1967. And again (a pet peeve of mine) web frequency does not notability make! But, a quick web search shows: Ph.D. in physical chemistry from Yale University (1937), M.A. University of Utah (1934), Nobel Prize nominee (Nitro Nobel Gold Medalist, Swedish Academy, Stockholm (1969), Professor of Metallurgy at the University of Utah (1947-70), Explosives expert and Director of the Explosives Research Institute at the University of Utah, Founder (1958) and President (1962-72) and Chairman (1962-1974) of IRECO Chemicals in Salt Lake City, Chairman of Cook Slurry Company, Resident chemist at E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (1937-47), Chairman of Cook Associates, Inc. (1973-?), Chemistry Pioneer Award, American Institute of Chemists (1973), E.V. Murphree Gold Medalist Award, American Chemical Society (1968), Loomis Award from Yale University (1937), member of the LDS church. And, if I'm not mistaken, the father of Merrill Cook, former Congressman from Utah. I also found a couple of textbooks, so add academic author to the list. I think he should go back in. WBardwin 03:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the football players are listed on this site http://www.morgannews.us/football.html .--Gmosaki 05:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few more changes:
  • Since no one else did, I added Melvin Cook back in, but we still need either a citation or an article about him...
  • Removed Ezra Taft Benson duplicate. Does everyone agree that being president of the LDS church is his most notable accomplishment? We don't need to list him twice.
  • Note: The site above with the football players does not meet WP:Reliable sources standards, espeically as much of it is bound by the stringent standards of WP:BLP. Many of the entertainers that I removed because of negative verification were also listed there. For instance, the site lists Eliza Dushku, Brenden Urie, and Ryan Gosling. All of whom came from Mormon families, but have stated that they are no longer affiliated with the LDS church. Since their list does not link to other references and has already been shown to be unreliable, it doesn't meet RS standards. No information is better than potentially misleading information, especially when it comes to living persons. -Porlob 12:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hi there. I'm not sure where else to post this, as far as verifiability, but I had added Eric D. Snider and Eric Herman recently. Eric D. Snider has many references to being a Mormon on his website (i.e. http://www.ericdsnider.com/lyrics.php), and Eric Herman has mention of performing at the LDS Family Expo and LDS Musicians Festival on his website (http://www.erichermanmusic.com/schedule.html).

  • I'm adding the reference citation for Herman. It still seems like a rather oblique reference, but I agree that its unlikely that he would perform at the LDS Musicians Festival unless he was LDS... Snider was originally lised without a wikilink to his article. I've now found that he does have an article that details his history with BYU and the LDS church, so I'll add him back in... In the future, feel free to be bold and add citations such as the ones you noted yourself. -Porlob 21:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone added James Quigley, CEO of Deloite and Touche. The James Quigley article it linked to was to a former archbishop of Boston. and a quick Google search for "James Quigley Mormon", "James Quigley Latter Day", and "Jame Quigley LDS" turned up nothing, though I did only dig though the first couple of pages of each.

We're coming up on thirty days since the Verify Source tags were added, and there has been very little activity in actually verifying sources. Per WP:BLP and other Wikipedia policiies, I'll be removing any unverified listings after the 12th. No information is better than potentially misleading information. If it cannot be demonstrated that the people listed are definitely LDS, they should not be on the list. -Porlob 13:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions

[edit]

It has been thirty days since I originally posted the "verification needed" tags. Since then, there have been very few verifications from reliable sources. Many of the subjects are bound by Wikipedia's standards for biographies of living persons, and those that are not should still be verifiable.

I have now deleted those entries which have not been verified. If you have Reliable Source references to a given person's status, please ad them back in with either a citation on this article (especially for redlinks), or a cited notation on the subject's own article. If any listings appear on this article that are not verifiable, they should be deleted immediately until citation can be provided. If you are unsure about a person's status as a Latter Day Saint, ask about it here on the talk page rather than posting it on the article.

Please note that these people were not removed because they are believed to not be LDS, but because they cannot be verified by reliable sources as LDS. Many of the people listed came from online lists of supposed Latter-day Saints, such as the one linked to at morgannews.us. However, several of the people on that list in particular are demonstrably not (or no longer) LDS, so that is not a reliable source. As Jimbo Wales has said, zero information is better than potentially misleading information on Wikipedia. -Porlob 14:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is really the kind of thing that should be discussed and voted on. If no one replies, wait until a statistically significant number do. There are some really obviously LDS people, results of a great deal of work, that you deleted. Just because you don't personally know Wally Joyner, Alan Ashton, or Dick Marriott are LDS doesn't mean they're not LDS and should be deleted. You simply won't find "reputable" sources for a lot of celebrities, and the direction to go with those types will have to be decided. I don't care if it takes 12 days or 120, until there is a sufficient concensus on the academic direction of this article, you should not just bulk-delete things. And it is not your place to define LDS either. If you think you have an absolute answer to Fay Wray, you don't understand the question. --Mrcolj 01:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)I certainly didn't just charge in and delete things willy-nilly. As I mentioned above, I didn't delete people who I thought were not LDS, but I deleted those who were not verified, per WP:BLP which many, though not all, of the people listed are bound by. In my opinion, those that are should be deleted immediately, unless and until citation can be provided. I really didn't "bulk delete." Yes, a lot of information was removed, but it was removed systematically, asking for people to help verify the entries and participate in the discussion about it. I solicited for feedback and input again and again and again before making the change.

Perhaps I should have waited longer for consensus, but as I mentioned as I placed the initial tags, I was encouraging people to try to verify those listings, and with one or two exceptions, no one did. I never claimed to have an "absolute answer" about anything, and in fact most of the many changes and deletions I made between a month ago and now were accompanied by comments here on the talk page. You mentioned that you "simply won't find 'reputable' sources for a lot of celebrities, and the direction to go with those types will have to be decided." Well, the direction already has been decided. Here is Wikipedia's policy on verifiability:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

And here is Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons:

Editors must take particular care when writing biographies of living persons and/or including any material related to living persons. These require a degree of sensitivity, and which must adhere strictly to our content policies:
  • Verifiability
  • Neutral point of view
  • No original research
We must get the article right. [1] Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives... These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles.

So that question is pretty well settled: unless verifiable sources can be supplied, these entries should be removed, especially those celebrities for whom we "simply won't find 'reputable' sources". Indeed many such celebrities were listed here originally who, as I attempted to verify their listings, it turned out were not LDS or had left the church. Furthermore, the inclusion of many of the redlinks is questionable, as it violates the article's own criteria, as Latter Day Saints who are "particularly well-known", but I don't have real issue with them is citation can be provided.

You said that "Just because you don't personally know Wally Joyner, Alan Ashton, or Dick Marriott are LDS doesn't mean they're not LDS and should be deleted." I never said they weren't LDS, just that no one provided any evidence that they were. Since you have brought them up as examples, I've no doubt they are LDS. That doesn't change the fact that that they should be removed if citation cannot be provided.

I am not trying to piss anyone off here, but just trying to improve the integrity of the article. You mentioned Fay Wray, and she's an excellent example of someone who is up for discussion. I never claimed to have an "absolute answer" about her. My personal take would be to not include her, as she was not verifiably LDS, but a case can certainly be made for her. So let's discuss. When someone brought her up before on this page, no one responded.

I will not re-delete those entries at this time, but perhaps you might consider helping with the effort to find reliable source citations for their inclusion, particularly ones you know something about, such as your examples above. You'll note that during the intervening 30 days, I removed MANY of the "verification needed" tags as I identified reliable sources and added details to the person's main article. Right now, the article is in serious violation of the policies quoted above, and there are two ways to change that: Verify the listings and delete the listings. I'm all for the former, but if that's not done, indeed as it hasn't been done, then deletion is still the appropriate course. -Porlob 13:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I'm not mad or a guy who ever gets mad. I know you systematically watched it for at least 30 days. And I agree that they need to be deleted. But most of those people will never have a reliable source--I mean, how many reliable sources write about a person's religion if their actions are not predominantly considered religious in the first place; and of course the bigger question is always why, in 2006, we would consider any pell-mell newspaper a reliable source. We know they don't check sources any more than half the wikipedia submitters do... So I don't know where to go with it, but 10,000 pairs of eyes thusfar have created the list we have, and I'm just not a fan of taking down fences 'til we know why they were put up in the first place... --Mrcolj 19:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like we're really not that far apart in our opinions on these matters. I agree that just because it's in a newspaper doesn't make it gospel truth, and in most of these cases, the subject's religion wouldn't be discussed in a newspaper anyway... A newspaper article isn't required, but there really must be some kind of citation. Online sources are easier for the average reader to verify, but print sources are fine too, as long as they are fully cited. In my view, I think that there should be a reasonable assumption of the reliability of a source unless it can be shown to be unreliable. Such is the case for the morgannews link on the main page, which appears to have been a major source for this article. I would consider this a reliable source, except that many of the people listed there are demonstrably not or no longer LDS (see above for examples), which makes it difficult to accept as a source.
Perhaps we can reach a compromise on what to do with the remaining unverified entries: I propose that we move them here to the discussion page. That way, they can still be easily viewed, copied, and pasted if citations are found, but verifiability and BLP problems with the article are fixed. Any thoughts? -Porlob 07:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any names that are verified, and all should be verified should at least have a stub article written about them. I am going to make this article my next pet project, so any help is appreciated. I did find this link useful [3] Bytebear 01:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions: Round 2

[edit]

I am re-removing any to-be-verified listings. It is important that we ensure the integrity of this article. Please take the time to read my comments above regarding Wikipedia policy, biographical information, and verifiability. If you believe an individual should be listed, please take the time to provide citation and add them back in. There has been no new activity on verifying the listings since the earlier round of deletions was reverted. Remember: according to Wikipedia policy, the onus of proof is on the person making a claim, not on the person removing unverified information. For the convenience of anyone making verifications, below are all of the listings I have deleted:

Artists
[edit]
Auto Racing
[edit]
Baseball
[edit]
Basketball
[edit]
Bodybuilding
[edit]
Boxing
[edit]
Diving
[edit]
Extreme sports
[edit]
Fencing
[edit]
American football
[edit]
Golfing
[edit]
Hockey
[edit]
Horse Racing
[edit]
Rifling
[edit]
Rodeo
[edit]
Rowing
[edit]
Rugby
[edit]
Soccer
[edit]
Snowboarding
[edit]
Swimming
[edit]
Track and Field
[edit]
Volleyball
[edit]
Weightlifting
[edit]
Wrestling
[edit]
Business
[edit]
Controversial figures and alleged Criminals
[edit]
Educators and Scholars
[edit]
Authors and journalists
[edit]
Film, television and stage personalities
[edit]
Singers and Musicians
[edit]
Commanders
[edit]
Medal of Honor recipients
[edit]
Scientists/Inventors
[edit]
Currently in Office
[edit]
Political activists
[edit]
Other
[edit]

Why does this page exist?

[edit]

Why aren't we just using the "Category:Latter_Day_Saints" to cover this information. This is redundant, and the whole concept of categories is to handle this kind of, well.... categorization. 66.151.81.244 17:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll echo the question of the anonymous editor. With complete respect for the work that various editors have done here, I'm at a bit of a loss to understand the point of this page. But I am unfamiliar with what justifications may exist for similar list-type articles also, so I would sincerely appreciate enlightenment on what this article can/does provide beyond Category:Latter Day Saints. If there's no extra value provided by this article, perhaps it should be nominated at AfD—again, with full respect and appreciation for the work that others have contributed to this list. alanyst /talk/ 02:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are many such lists in Wikipedia. It may have something to do with the human tendency to want info sorted, and our category system may be a little unwieldy for retrieving such information. Most of the contributions here are from anons and/or occasional editors, and so this page may give them a chance to feel they are contributing in some useful fashion. Their contributions add to the credibility problem, as these people would be least likely to add a source. And so, folks like our policy enforcers would have us just delete all their contributions (sorry, ranting again). Those of us who are regular contributors usually add to the list when we create a new article, and so would be more likely to have a credible source at hand. Also, the page may simply answer a question for the curious -- "just who are these Mormons?" If we delete this page, I suspect it will reappear again. WBardwin 02:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the insights, WBardwin. You're right, of course, about there being many such lists on WP, and almost certainly right about the page being created again if deleted. I don't personally grasp what's unwieldy about the category system, but perhaps I haven't yet encountered some of its nuances that might make it so. But one big advantage I see to using the category system is that the category-based list is automatically derived from articles that have the category tag in them, and so the question of whether a person should be listed under that category is properly dealt with at that person's own article, where the citations are.
With this article, we've got a lot of duplication of effort. Citations for religious affiliation, as well as a short explanation of the person's notability, have to appear here even though the person's article should already answer those questions. Debates about a person's notability might occur here or on the person's article talk page, without necessarily having a correlation between the two.
The only significant points of value that I think this type of article offers are:
  • The list can be broken into sub-lists (e.g., athletes as a main group, subdivided into individual sports) that are finer-grained than the category guidelines allow.
  • People who are not notable enough to merit an entire WP article for themselves but still have some notability can be included on the list here; they'd have to have their own WP article to get on a category list.
To me, the question is, are these factors strong enough (or desirable, per WP:NOTE and WP:Overcategorization) to outweigh the duplication of effort and the inherent problems of scope and accuracy that the list-article style entails? I'd love to get more input from anyone with an opinion on this matter. alanyst /talk/ 02:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brainstorming re. the index/category system. It is generally useful for those of us working here (although I personally would love a program for producing a graphic tree of articles by topic), but not necessarily for the casual visitor. If they want to know something like "Mormons in the entertainment industry" (your sorting advantage above), it takes quite a bit of effort to review search function results. Our retrieval system is not "Jeeves" and is rather "stupid" about answering such questions. So these existing lists usually come up near the top of the search and provide straightforward info. Your points about the category system are certainly well taken. One way of answering this type of question (and solving the sourcing issue) would be to have such lists automatically generated from category lists, hence producing an up to date list on request from any Wiki visitor. The minor notables (sometimes only mentioned in history and other articles) could be computer flagged in some way and appear on the list as well. But this effort is unlikely, as the programming wish list is very long. I do agree that this list, and several others in the LDS project, represent a signficant duplication of effort. Best........WBardwin 02:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my case, I was editing this article because lack of awareness about the categories. It has resulted in a lot of extra effort because I would need to duplicate references that were already in the article. Now that I am more familiar with the categories, that appears to me as the most efficient way to obtain and edit the information. I think this article can stay, but personally my future edits will be the adding of the category to the appropriate articles. I guess this comes gradually with experience on using Wikipedia. Alanraywiki 16:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now the categories are also being deleted. There appears that there is a demand for this information by some people, and I can see how this can be helpful in someone doing research, but the sources of the information on Wikipedia are being deleted. Maybe it should be moved to www.mormonwiki.com. Alanraywiki 04:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It exists because lists are interesting to those in and out of the subject. See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_male_professional_bodybuilders —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerdpack (talk • contribs) 04:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Large number of unsourced entries violating Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

[edit]

I have removed a large number of WP:BLP violations from this list -- entries that appear to have been restored more than once in spite of ample warning on the talk page. Each of the entries I removed involved a living person for whom no source was offered to confirm the person's religious affiliation. There are a great many more requiring removal unless a cited source can be provided immediately. The basis for these removals is both WP:BLP and WP:PROVEIT. Here is a relevant excerpt from the latter:

Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people [italics mine]. Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

--Rrburke(talk) 17:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you are going with this. Most, or at least many, of the individuals deleted have cited sources in their wiki articles that they are LDS. Are you proposing that this page also have sources? Thanks,Alanraywiki 05:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Please see, for example, List of notable people who converted to Christianity. Articles cannot borrow their citations from other articles. This article is almost completely unsourced. --Rrburke(talk) 07:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I revert the wholesale deletion one more time. I'm afraid this effort is simply one of many going on in Wikipedia at the moment. These "frantic footnoters" are eliminating large volumes of older work on the basis of procedures/policies that, IMO, are poorly conceived. The same drive appears to be tightening criteria on good/featured articles as well. I'm not sure what their objective truly is, but it may be driven by media revelations on the encyclopedia's weaknesses. Of course, some practitioners could simply be on a power trip, "...give a man a little authority......." I would support removal only on a case by case basis, as many of these names (as stated above) do have documented evidence in their articles. WBardwin 06:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROVEIT is quite clear on this point:
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question.
Naturally, you are free to dislike WP:PROVEIT and WP:BLP, and are welcome to try to persuade other editors to have them repealed. In the mean time they remain in force, and additions not satisfying their requirements will need to be removed. There are many more on this list that need either to be accompanied by inline citations or be removed. It is the additions, not removals, that need to be justified on a case-by-case basis. --Rrburke(talk) 07:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I would just ignore this small fry. He's learned how to quote from WP policies, and now he's on a personal power trip as he strives to enforce it in the manner that he sees fit. What he doesn't seem to understand is that as the policies change, old articles also need to be given a chance to change and adopt the policies. The first step is not to engage in wholesale deletions. Adding {cn} tags would be a good first step, giving editors fair notice that citations are requested. Then, it would be reasonable to give editors a large amount of time to add the large number of citations sought for a large article. It's a power trip based on an anal black and white reading of the policy, and nothing more. He needs to show a little nuance, but I'm afriad he's probably incapable of it. –SESmith 09:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you're quite wrong about that -- but I suspect that may not be a wholly new experience. If you'd deigned to glance just a little way up, you'd have discovered one of those quotations of policy that seem so to distress you, and discovered exactly how you're wrong. With your permission, from Wikipedia: Verifiability, the section known as WP:PROVEIT:
  • Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people [italics mine]. Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."
If you 'd like that translated in my own words, it means that what it appears to mean: remove unsourced information about living people from articles immediately. It also appears to say that your proposed alternative of adding {{fact}} tags is -- what was the word again? -- yes, that's it: "wrong".
Names which are removed from List of Latter Day Saints will persist in the edit history, and can easily be restored if and when editors can find reliable, published sources to substantiate their claims. Until then, they have to be removed.
Finally, a personal note: I've been a fairly good sport up to now about tolerating your rudeness and baseless accusations, chiefly because experience tells me the best way to handle that kind of infantile behaviour is simply to ignore it. But my patience isn't limitless, and it's approaching an end. I'm not going to be trailed around Wikipedia being called an "ignoramus," "anal" and "on a personal power trip" when what I'm actually doing is seeking to improve the credibility of Wikipedia as a reliable resource by removing unsourced, uncited, unverifiable accretions that violate a core policy, Wikipedia: Verifiability, together with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.
We disagree. That's fine. But from now on, if you continue to address me at all (or refer to me in posts directed at others) -- and it would be just fine if you didn't -- you'll do so in a civil and adult manner, sticking precisely to the substance of our disagreement, otherwise I'll bundle up your incivility with your implicit admission from a earlier conversation that you've violated WP:BLP "hundreds" of times in full knowledge of the policy, take it over to WP:AN/I and seek to have you cautioned, prevented from editing articles on this topic, and/or blocked. Are we clear? --Rrburke(talk) 11:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, scratch that: I see you've restored my legitimate deletions from this list, including ones I specifically mentioned and you acknowledged, which means that you restored them in full knowledge that they violate a policy you've been made aware of "ad nauseum," to quote you. I interpret this to mean you intend to go on violating WP:BLP, so I'll just skip further friendly admonitions and head over to WP:AN/I and let an admin sort it out.
The WP:AN/I report is here. --Rrburke(talk) 17:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of deleting immediately, what about commenting out the living-person entries in this list that aren't supported by citations, and setting a deadline for getting them cited? That way, they don't show up in the article, but it's easier for editors of this article to work the article that way with rather than restoring from history. And, if the deadline passes with some entries still unsourced, then deleting them completely will be entirely appropriate. Seems that this approach might be consistent with the spirit of BLP while giving the editors of this article a chance to work on the citations without feeling like their hard work from before the BLP policy took effect is being blasted away. Rrburke, Sesmith, WBardwin, what do you think? alanyst /talk/ 15:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Alanyst. I agree that that's the way entries involving people who are no longer living should be handled. However, WP:BLP requires that unsourced information about living people be removed immediately. As I said earlier, the names that are removed will persist in the edit history and can be restored if and when editors find reliable, published sources to justify their inclusion and accompany the entry with an inline citation. I note that in the interval since I first removed entries from this list, no editor has attempted to provide any such citations, even for the entries that remain. This does not bode well for the likelihood that anyone will undertake such work in the future.
Thank you, at the same time, for maintaining a pleasantly civil tone and conciliatory posture. --Rrburke(talk) 17:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly hope to keep this discussion at a civil tone. Rrburke, I've looked thru WP:BLP again and I don't see anything that specifies what "removed" means. I don't mean to wikilawyer this, but I wonder if there's enough leeway in the policy to allow for this method of commenting out unsourced information for a finite time before deleting it. In my opinion, commenting it out is tantamount to removing it; it no longer appears to the casual reader, which is the chief concern, if I'm not mistaken. If it's also for a finite length of time, then it's not a wink-and-a-nod action, but rather gives concerned editors a sporting chance to rectify the problem without the more tedious work of searching back in the article history for material that was deleted.

I also gently suggest to you that it would be nice of you to offer help in locating sources for the entries that you decide represent living people, if it can be done quickly. It would be a conciliatory gesture on your part, especially as the editors here have asserted that many of the deleted entries link to articles that cite the religious affiliation, so you wouldn't have to go to extremes to locate such citations. It's more work for you, certainly, but it might be worth it to help other editors feel better about the BLP policy, by showing them that they aren't being stuck with the whole burden of compliance by policy enforcers. Certainly BLP doesn't require you to do this, but it's just a suggestion that going the extra mile might avoid the sort of conflict you've experienced here. alanyst /talk/ 17:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "I also gently suggest to you that it would be nice of you to offer help in locating sources"
Gladly, but I'm tied to my desk and so the only sources I could locate would be internet-based. I'll see what I can find. But let's not duplicate each other's efforts. Which subhead do you wish to focus on to start? --Rrburke(talk) 18:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Whatever you can find on the internet would be great; my thought was simply that you'd assist in gathering the low-hanging fruit discoverable via article links and possibly web searches. I started with the "Baseball" subhead, but am short on time right now so I can't devote a lot of attention to it. Still, I'll do what I can with the Athletes lists, and hope the other editors who expressed concerns here will join in and help out.
Would you object to restoring the deleted material inside of a comment tag (or several comment tags) to make things easier to re-add as citations are found? You could also set a deadline for its deletion if you feel so inclined. Or, if you're still persuaded that this is a BLP no-no, then we'll just do what we can with the tools Wikipedia provides. (It does help that you re-posted the deletions above on this page, though I do wonder whether that isn't actually worse BLP-wise than commented-out information.) alanyst /talk/ 18:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I didn't place the deleted entries here; that was another, earlier editor with the same concern. Why not just work from this diff and cutting-and pasting as necessary? --Rrburke(talk) 20:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to put the sources on some of the names I had added, but having them back on the list would be very helpful so I can just add the reference. A question I have though is that as far as I know none of the material removed was contentious. Also, some of the names removed would probably fall under the "subject-specific common knowledge" that doesn't require a source. For example, Kim Clark (current BYU-Idaho president) and Steve Young (SF 49er and high-profile LDS) are both welll-known Latter Day Saints but were removed. I understand how careful one must be with biographies of living people, but it seems that in many of these cases no source should be required. I just want to make sure a consensus is reached before I spend a lot of time on this. Thanks, Alanraywiki 19:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot assume that this is common knowledge. I did not know, and many of our readers will not know either. That is wy we have WP:V for and that is why that policy is tightened in WP:BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that where a person's occupation leaves no doubt about their affiliation -- you don't need a cite to prove the Pope is Catholic -- then such people may fall under subject-specific common knowledge, or at any rate it could be argued that their affiliation is implied by their occupation. However, when people (Steve Young is a good example) are chiefly known for something else and also happen to be LDS -- even prominent ones like Steve Young -- I think they need a cite. In fact, these should be the easiest to source. That's just my opinion.
As for restoring the list, as I suggested to User:Alanyst, what wrong with just working from this diff and cutting-and-pasting restored entries back into the article once they've got cites to accompany them? --Rrburke(talk) 20:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about all these questions and comments, but they really are in good faith in trying to make this a useful article for those interested in this topic. In looking at Wikipedia:When to cite under "When a source may not be needed", which admittedly is an essay and not a policy, it differentiates "general common knowledge" that everyone recognizes as true, and "subject-specific common knowledge" which is material that anyone familiar with a topic recognizes as true. I believe the nature of this list, particularly with links to other wiki articles, does not need a detailed level of explanation such as that of BYU. It is fine on there, I just do not believe it is necessary under the subject-specific common knowledge example. Alanraywiki 22:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am totally ignorant on this subject, and when I come to read this article, I expect to be assured that the list is accurate. If it is not too much trouble, a short piece of text providing context (see my last two edits), would be most welcome by readers like me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP violations warning

[edit]

As per WP:BLP, unsourced or poorly sourced material about living people can be removed on sight. Re-adding such material without supporting sources is considered a violation of policy and may earn such editors the temporary removal of their editing privileges. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about those on the list that were removed but are deceased and are thus not subject to the BLP guideline? Alanraywiki 21:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re-add them, by all means. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I presume it's understood that this doesn't mean that claims about dead people don't also eventually have to be accompanied by sources. They do. It's just that claims about living people need to be treated with greater urgency. --Rrburke(talk) 15:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, concensus means nothing. A policy drafted by a small minority of adminstrators/editors trumps the opinions of contributors to any given article. Dictatorship? This has got to stop somewhere. Ranting.......... WBardwin 07:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, WBardwin. You've been around here longer than I have, so surely you know that while consensus-building is certainly central to how Wikipedia functions, it was never meant to trump core policies -- in this case verifiability. A narrow consensus involving a single article or group of articles formed among an interested group of editors is never what was intended by the word consensus anyway. That seems to me more to resemble an attempt to assert ownership of the article than consensus.
Articles are for any casual reader, not just for interested editors: how is a casual reader supposed to verify the accuracy of the claim that a person is an adherent of a particular religion unless a reliable source is offered to corroborate it?
Finally, anyone is welcome to participate in the process of policy development and modification at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) through the processes described at Help:Modifying and creating policy. How is any of this dictatorship? --Rrburke(talk) 15:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comments on: Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons‎ I object! While it sounds good in practice, a very small minority of Wikipedia editors make policy decisions, in little secret rooms -- primarily because no one "posts" or "advertises" proposed policy for a general review and comment. So if an editor doesn't notice policy making in process, is away for a period of time, or is working in a separate area (i.e., not Biographies, although this biography policy impacts many other articles, as this article/list shows), he does not have the opportunity to comment. Instead he is faced by decrees, ultimatums and threats from administrators. So ... if you sincerely wanted to bring this article up to specs, why didn't you talk to the page editors and the LDS project page, and arrive at concensus and a plan of resolution before you deleted a large segment of the list? Why didn't you highlight names which might place Wikipedia in legal danger and bring those to the editor's attention? No, you simply took material from the article because you had the power to do so. When I reverted your deletion, I asked that we resolve the issue one name at a time through the talk page. Another frequent editor supported me in this, but the compromise did not happen. Instead Jossi magically appeared, reverted yet again, and flourished the administrative threat above. This indicates to me that the use of "policy" gives people an excuse to impose their will, timetable and opinions on others, without discussion and negotiation. And it is made worse by the fact that, at a guess, less than 200 people were ever involved in drafting the policy to begin with. What percentage of active, responsible Wikipedia editors do you think that small number is? Dictatorship, tyranny, aristocracy, adminiocracy, imposition of the will, power trip? Call it what you will, it is certainly not a cooperative strategy nor does it build goodwill. WBardwin 06:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. Jossi didn't magically appear: he appeared because I posted the issue at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and tagged the article BLPC in the hope of encouraging wider input from editors knowledgeable in this area -- and in the hope of avoiding an edit war. It appears to have worked.
As for not consulting prior to my removing material, I'm sorry if that offended you, but policy requires that BLP issues be dealt with as a matter of urgency by aggressive removal. The discussion comes after. Also, I note from the talk page that these problems have actually been raised multiple times in the past, so evidently discussion wasn't working anyway.
But let's go to the heart of the issue with an example: Mike Weir was on this list. Mike Weir is not LDS. He lives in Utah. His wife is LDS. If inline cites had been provided for each entry -- as they're required to be -- then Mike Weir would never have ended up on the list, because no reliable source could have been found to support his inclusion. How many Mike Weirs do you think were on the old list? Want to know what I think? I think neither of us knows -- because none of the entries had any cites. What's the solution? Inline citations from reliable, published sources so anyone can verify an entry is accurate.
The result is a better list and a better encyclopedia. Where's the problem? --Rrburke(talk) 10:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A brief followup. You said:
  • "...less than 200 people were ever involved in drafting the policy to begin with."
Isn't that a lot more than regularly edit this article? What makes one "[d]ictatorship, tyranny, aristocracy, adminiocracy, imposition of the will, power trip" and the other "consensus" when in the case of this article the group participating is actually so much smaller? --Rrburke(talk) 19:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I reverted -- before Jossi arrived/before you yelled for support -- I asked that we take this one name at a time to the talk page. Weir would have been identified as an error at that time. Instead you, by virtue of the all powerful policy, removed many, many names. The vast majority of these names will prove to be LDS and will now have to be reentered. You remove work placed here in the old days, before the frantic obsessive fear that now produces the need to document each sentence from a source.
Don't narrowly focus on this article. This is just one of many that are being gutted, criticized and attacked because they don't follow the policies created by a vocal agressive minority. It appears to me and other regular editors, that admins and you policy folks have forgotten what courtesy, cooperation and communication mean or meant to Wikipedia. Aggressive templates and notes are posted, policy is quoted, editors attacked (for example, what happened to assuming "good faith?" You assumed, see above, that we had "ownership" of this article, rather than were concerned about losing the good content.) and good material is removed. To what end? What is your objective? Do you want to discourage good editors and lose their contributions? Do you want to eliminate accurate material for fear that someone might question a source?
And don't just fall back on "making Wikipedia better?" Making anything better requires working with other people, leading them if necessary, but communicating with them and appreciating their contributions. People who enforce (well drafted and well disseminated) Wikipedia policy, dealing with legal issues or otherwise, should be the very best we have. They should have patience, communication skills, lots of time to help others, and a strong interest in disseminating information and discussing changes. They should avoid ego, aggression, threats, and punitive actions until all other tactics have failed. That is a high standard, I know, but one that I believe is necessary. If you are going to continue as an "enforcer" -- can you meet that standard? WBardwin 01:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The simple question to Burke's question What makes one "[d]ictatorship, tyranny, aristocracy, adminiocracy, imposition of the will, power trip" and the other "consensus" when in the case of this article the group participating is actually so much smaller? is that what happens here generally doesn't affect thousands and thousands of pages on WP. What happens at WP:BLP does. That seemed obvious to me, but he seemed so bereft of an answer, so ... Rich Uncle Skeleton 10:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golfer Mike Weir not LDS

[edit]

Please see this note and make certain he is not re-added to the list. --Rrburke(talk) 18:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for an example of aggression -- notice the lovely authoritative tone above: "...make certain...." sure implies "....and or else...", does it not. WBardwin 01:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's reading more into it than necessary, to be honest. What I get from it is: "Incorrectly attributing a religious preference to a living individual is a Bad Thing; now that we know Weir's not LDS, there's no reason he should be re-added to this list by any editor who's been paying attention to this page." And I hope we all agree with that, as we should regarding any other name on the list (whether already deleted or not) that we can ascertain to be definitely not LDS. Making certain that this list is accurate should be a primary concern of the contributors to this article as long as it exists, regardless of how WP:BLP is enforced and by whom. Even if Rrburke's approach has been somewhat hamhanded (and editors can legitimately disagree whether this is the case), if his underlying point about the (in)accuracy of the list is valid, that ought to be acknowledged and an effort made to make things right. alanyst /talk/ 02:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning

[edit]

Continuous addition of material about living people, including religious affiliation, that is not supported by a reputable source, is disruptive editing and will earn editors that do that the temporary loss of their editing privileges. See this as the last warning. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To whom is this warning addressed? I thought the changes lately made to this page seem to be in accord with policy. alanyst /talk/ 00:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jossi, to me—a warning like that appears to be one that is more appropriate for a specific user's talk page. It does little good to include a warning like that is addressed to no one in particular, unless, of course, you are doing it for peacock-style self-glorification. Rich Uncle Skeleton 02:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The warning is for these editors that keep adding material in violation of WP:BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, with all due respect, that's singularly unhelpful. You might as well post on the main page, "This is your last warning, vandals! You will be blocked if you vandalize Wikipedia again!" Specifically which editors here keep adding material against policy after having been warned? Why not deal with them directly? I've never seen a blanket "final warning" be issued like this, so I'm really curious what's prompted you to take this approach. alanyst /talk/ 04:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. If people are doing this, notify them on their user page so they see it. Most people won't even bother looking here. I can't help but think that you are probably smart enough to figure that out, so I can only conclude that this is some sort of peacock action. Rich Uncle Skeleton 09:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We should still assume good faith of Jossi; please keep this limited to discussions of behavior and how to improve Wikipedia, and not stray into personal attacks. alanyst /talk/ 11:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry; I apologize to you, Jossi, for my comments. I do still suggest that we avoid the general warnings, since they probably have close to nil effectiveness in accomplishing anything, whereas a personal warning has a good chance of making a difference. Rich Uncle Skeleton 12:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed

[edit]

Rather than rebuke editors, why not add a "Citation needed" tag to each entry, and if one isn't cited after a few months, remove it. This will also encourage editors to look for references. Bytebear 05:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand Jossi and Rrburke's position, they feel that WP:BLP requires that any potentially inaccurate (read:unsourced) information about a living person be deleted immediately, without further ado. Accepting this for the sake of argument, then the "citation needed" tag won't satisfy policy.
My suggested solution, which I haven't heard anyone explain why it's improper, is to comment out the questionable entries with a fixed deadline for deleting those that haven't been restored with proper citations. It's not "removal" in the sense of deletion, but it removes the information from the visible article text, which really cuts down on the odds that potentially inaccurate information about a person will be disseminated via Wikipedia.
I strongly favor this approach as it keeps the questionable information located where editors can most easily work with it to find citations (restoring from article history or a talk page is considerably more tedious), but those who have come here to enforce BLP have so far been silent about why this idea won't work. alanyst /talk/ 12:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good approach, Alanyst. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is a more moderate approach and would support the effort, even though I don't personally like going through programming hoops. It is always messy and the formating is too easy for multiple editos to damage in process. But, Jossi, if you really think a more temperate approach is good, now -- why wasn't it when I and another editor suggested a more moderate, step by step approach on the talk page? Can I make a guess? -- admins and policy enforcers can take suggestions from other admins without losing "face", but not from lowly editors who presumably are trying to "own" the page. They must promptly and always be taught a lesson (please see your very authoritative warning above). Arghhhhhhhh! WBardwin 07:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Authors

[edit]

I was wondering, what kinds of Authors should be added to the list? For example, I was going to add Chris Heimerdinger but then it occurred to me all of his works (as far as I know) are LDS literature. Within the LDS community, he is a fairly popular author, but I'm not sure he has any following outside of the church. Should he be added? Also, it occurred to me that if I added him, the floodgates would be opened, and every author that has a book in Deseret Book would be added, which seems slightly counterproductive to me. Thoughts? Darkage7 19:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double dipping

[edit]

Someone just added Mitt Romney to the Business section, but he is already in the Political Candidates section. Should these be cross referenced or anything? Or maybe the business reference should be removed, his current renown is for his candidacy, not any former businesses. Darkage7 23:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community of Christ/RLDSers

[edit]

I see leaders of them are listed, should other members be as well? For example RLDSers like William W. Blair. Zenas H. Gurley, Sr., or Charles D. Neff. Then there's Representative Leonard Boswell who was in after they dropped the name "Reorganized church of LDS."--T. Anthony (talk) 03:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that only the leaders of the various denominations should be included. Otherwise, this article would be way too long. However, if a member of any of the churches listed was notable for something else, they should be included. For example, Leonard Boswell should definitely be included among the politicians, so I just added him. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Many of the links don't apear to be accurate - for example, the Kevin Rahm link shows no indication that he is mormon at all, as it only gives a short biography and says that he attended BYU. It seems pointless to have a source listed if it doesn't actually state the facts that are trying to be proved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.179.31 (talk • contribs) IP removed signature from posting. I am adding it again. LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Because the purpose of the article is to list Latter Day Saints, the source should be a citation that indicates the person is LDS. Obviously attending BYU is not necessarily indicator of the person's religion. Most of the citations do indicate the person is LDS, but if the citation does not then the person's entry should be removed per WP:BLP until the appropriate citation can be found. The only exceptions are for those that are deceased (in which case a fact tag can be added while the citation is being found) or for those whose job in the church or church-owned school automatically show they are LDS. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 02:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not great at this editing thing. I put a new politician in from Japan, but I couldn't get the source to list properly. The source is the "Church News" insert of the September 2004 edition of the Japanese "Liahona", an LDS Church publication. While the main body of the Liahona is available in both English and Japanese, the "Church News" insert is only available in Japanese. An online PdF is available at http://jemnet.hp.infoseek.co.jp/image/itokazu_kiji.jpg which is sourced on the Japanese Wikipedia article for Keiko Itokazu, but there is no English documentation that mentions Keiko Itokazu's religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vojen (talk • contribs) 08:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about...

[edit]

...Truman O. Angell? Or is he only notable to me? 199.91.34.33 (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He appears to be the architect of a number of significant buildings and notable enough for his own Wikipedia article. I think you should go ahead and add him. Although a reference is not immediately required because he does not fall under WP:BLP, it would be helpful to add a citation showing he is LDS when you edit it. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 00:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, with a reference. Bytebear (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julianne and Derek Hough

[edit]

Should they be added? They're both well known being on Dancing with the Stars in all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.138.123 (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about recent edit

[edit]

Bolding the one category while leaving the others unbolded seems kinda... POVish... Raekuul 19:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raekuul (talk • contribs)

David Bailey

[edit]

Could somebody please add him? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_H._Bailey [famous pi fella] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerdpack (talk • contribs) 04:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually come to think of it, could somebody please add in a lot of the people from the above deletions list [google for a reference and add that, too]? Rogerdpack (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Patterson, author of Crucial Conversations, too.

globalization tag

[edit]

The reason the page is US centric is because the church has historically been US-centric. I move that a few of the internationals from famousmormons.net be added, then the tag removed in a month. Thoughts? Rogerdpack (talk) 04:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added a few internationals I could find. If you can find more please add them! Since no feedback, removed the tag. 216.49.181.254 (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

new subsections?

[edit]

It would help if we could sort all the people by living or dead with subsections. I could organize it, but I want to know whether there is consensus for it. LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 03:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I like it the way it is by category. I'm not sure of the value of sorting by living or dead, but it would require more monitoring of the article. Thanks for the offer, though. Alanraywiki (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Affiliation redundancy

[edit]

Under the Church leaders section, leaders for 11 denominations are currently listed. Each church that is not the LDS Church leads with this text: "Not associated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"

Am I the only one who thinks this is valueless and redundant? Of course other churches are not the LDS Church. In the List of Latter Day Saint periodicals should we explain for each entry that it is not the Ensign? This is hypersensitivity over visitors possibly conflating all Latter Day Saint denominations as the same, and hoping that repetitious overkill might help clarify the distinction. However, this article is just a list, not a place for details. I want to remove these labels, so tell if and why they should stay. Rich jj (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support removing the text. LDS-SPA1000 (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with removing the text. Alanraywiki (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is done. Rich jj (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ex-Mormons should be included

[edit]

There are famous ex-Mormons or former members of the LDS church in their lives, one of them is L. Ron Hubbard who left the church and established his own religion, the Church of Scientology. From what I was told about the similarities and resemblance of Scientology and the Mormon faith, perhaps the discussions about man (or our celestial/spiritual souls) originated from other planets in the universe. But the difference was Scientology rejects Christian thought and talks about an alien dictator by the name of XENU, and again the Mormon doctrine taught about the presence of demons from the universe were influenced by Lucifer (or Satan), but the brother of Jesus, was punished for demanding everyone should be "gods". + 71.102.7.77 (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that Hubbard was ever a member of the LDS church. If you have some verifiable evidence, well then, let's see it. Similarities, or alleged similarities between any two religions are not necessarily any kind of indicator that their founders once belonged to another religion. The Catholic Church and the LDS Church teach some items of doctrine that are nearly or completely identical, but this doesn't mean that the Pope is a Mormon. Your last sentence relating to Mormon doctrine and Satan is actually incoherent from the point of view of meaning, sorry about that. What the heck are you talking about? Oh, and if you examine the article you're commenting on a leetle mite closer you will see that there is another separate article called List of former Latter Day Saints. So why did you want Hubbard included in a list of LDS, again? Mike (talk) 10:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Adams

[edit]

I reverted the IP deletion of Adams' entry -- however, it is true that she doesn't quite fit the parameters as established in the lead. Being raised "Mormon" says little about her current church status -- as "leaving the church" may mean the family became inactive. She would probably fit in List of former Latter Day Saints. Opinions? WBardwin (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the definition on the lead of the article says that former means that said person has ended affiliation with the LDS Church. Technically, if you're still on the books at the Church, you're still affiliated with it. So, in my opinion, she should stay here. I suspect many of the people on this list are inactive, but they might still believe in the LDS Church's teachings. Spalds (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed Amy Adams from the list. The noted citation did not indicate that Adams identifies as LDS, but the contrary. -Porlob (talk) 08:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP violations

[edit]

I have again deleted a large number of WP:BLP violations. -Porlob (talk) 08:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archive talk page?

[edit]

This talk page is getting very long; does anyone object to it being archived? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. -Porlob (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Latter_Day_Saints/archive_1&oldid=1136919908"