Wikipedia talk:Notability (Latter Day Saint movement)

Comment

Hey Jgstokes, I just created a basic outline. You are a lot more knowledgeable in this than I am, and while you did give me plenty to go off of, I was thinking it might be better for you to draft it. I think I will be most beneficial in reviewing it for neutrality, from an outside standpoint, and from the perspective of the GNG and existing SNGs, in order to make sure it is compliant with the standards of notability guidelines. So with that said, would you be open to authoring it, with me in the secondary role of editor? ––FormalDude talk 04:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

FormalDude, thanks for setting that up. I did see your comment shortly after it was published here, and I attempted to draft a reply to it several times after that, but I opted to hold off on posting the comment formally until just now. I have never personally been involved with crafting Wikipedia policies specific to particular projects I've participated in, but if you'd be more comfortable with my taking a primary role in crafting those in this case, with you serving a secondary role to ensure the parameters align with established Wikipedia policies, I'd be happy to try and craft such guidelines.

I will probably take some time over the next 2-3 days or so to personally brainstorm how to start on that, and may then be able to make a preliminary version of such guidelines as we move into September. If at any point in that process, you have concerns about any of the parameters I list, feel free to let me know.

Before I get started on that process, do you have any recommendations about the scope and details for such parameters? If there is any specific criteria from other notability policies that might be helpful to include as they are or with slight adjustments if need be, that would give me some idea of specific things I should consider as part of this drafting process. I appreciate your expressed confidence in me on this matter. --Jgstokes (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your willingness to help take this on; I'm happy to help as much as possible too. I think we're on track to get a good proposal out of this, and I'll post some of my recommendations here for you shortly. I was also thinking of possibly listing this at a Village pump–would that be a good idea? ––FormalDude talk 19:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Although I have heard of the village pump, i have never actually used it myself for matters relating to articles about the Church. Given your more broad experience with Wikipedia administrative issues, if you think it's a good idea, I will support you in putting such a request out. I have also made a couple of mentions to the new efforts to establish notability on at least the Manual of Style page. It could be worth mentioning on the Latter Day Saint Movement project page as well, since a lot of contributors to that project are extremely familiar with the issues at hand that have prevented the establishment of notability guidelines for articles about Church lead3ers up to this point, and who might also contribute valuable insight into the issues that have led to previous deletions of such articles, which could then more specifically be used when it comes to the new notability criteria for people within the movement. I would probably defer to your discretion to mention the new effort wherever you feel it could appropriately be added. In the meantime, I am not sure how much I might be able to work on the crafting of those guidelines for the next 2-3 days, in view of a few other obligations I have time-wise. But I will certainly be considering the initial parameters I might want to include, and I will likewise take any suggestions or contributions you have to offer as well. Thanks again. --Jgstokes (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I had the same idea, I actually already listed the conversation at WP:LDS on the Template:LDSTaskBox. I'll probably put it into a village pump once we get more along our way.

No worries about the getting started in the next 2-3 days, there is no deadline obviously . Thanks for your kind words about my experience by the way. ––FormalDude talk 02:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I will respond more specifically in a few minutes to your new section and the scope and focus of these new guidelines, but wanted to say I appreciated your reiteration of Wikipedia policy that indicates there is no rush in attempting to resolve any issues. I am currently just over a month out from my first major medical procedure in 17 years, so between my current recovery from that and taking care of other things that need my attention, I've been fortunate enough to have the availability to weigh in on things like this here on Wikipedia as well. As far as what you called my "kind words" about your experience, I was honored to provide them. I've mentioned a lot in our recent exchanges that the —Wikipedia issues impacting articles about the Church had been a problem for years before I was able to address them personally by exchanging information with you. And in all of that time of trying to work towards the resolutions you've brought to the table, I've also had the unenviable task of being one trying to achieve the middle ground of respecting and advocating for the retention of existing guidelines, while getting nowhere near resolution, and being referred repeatedly to other avenues no matter what I have tried. I have also had to maintain personal neutrailities when it came to contributing to Church articles, since as a Church member, I consider the guidelines to be personally aplicable to me, but as a Wikipedia editor, i have also had to try and defend and advocate for the policies that have long seemed faulty to me despite my best efforts to resolve that question. And since John Pack Lambert and I have been frequent contributors to both Wikipedia articles about the Church and to the discussion threads of the Church Growth Blog, I also recognize the merit of the reasoning that led to his recent full block. In some of the Church Growth Blog comments, he has mentioned difficulty in trying to work with other editors, and I know from reading the history of the threads that led to his being blocked that he called out what he perceived as your anti-Church bias. The descriptions he used to characterize you do not in any way match what has happened in my exchanges with you. Additionally, for the initial years of my Wikipedia experience, my signature included the phrase that "we can disagree without becoming disagreeable." That is a motto I have tried (if not always succeeding) to use in all my interactions here. It didn't take me too long in my initial conversations with you for me to figure out your efforts were made in good faith, and since I had previously personally warned John Pack Lambert on the threads of the Church Growth Blog to not be so aggressive in his attempts to get Wikipedia to be compliant with the guidelines, his characterization of the intent of your edits was a 180-difference in comparison to my exchanges with you. So since you've been more helpful in addressing my concerns over the exchanges we've had, I definitely wanted to ensure you knew how much I appreciate the help you've given me on this matter. You've done at least a hundred-fold more in our exchanges thus far in terms of understanding and helping me work towards fixing the long-standing issues we've been having with these articles than had ever been done for me and for those articles in the 5-7 previous years by anyone whom I approached about fixing this issue. And that level of assistance deserves more praise than any words from me are able to sufficiently articulate and recognize that. It's been an honor, and one of the top highlights of my 1.5 decades of experience on Wikipedia to be able to work with you on meaningful fixes, and I hope that's sufficiently emphasized on my end. And it's something I won't take for granted at all as we continue to work on solving these issues. Thanks again. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Recommendations

@Jgstokes: Here's the start of my recommendations. I'll mention any more as I think of them.
The aim of this notability guide should be to promote the Latter Day Saint WikiProject's intent to provide recommendations regarding the notability of topics within the scope of the project. The other goal of this notability guideline is to convey what the Project's consensus is for the notability of LDS figures/people.

I think the guideline should be able to answer the following questions:

1. What living members of the LDS Church hierarchy (forgive my wording but I can't think of any better terminology right now) are considered inherently notable because of their position(s), status, or actions within the LDS Church?

For example: Those who are called to the Quaram of the Twelve are inherently notable provided multiple reliable sources

2. What members of the Latter Day Saint movement at large are considered inherently notable because of their position(s) or status within the the Latter Day Saint movement?

For example: An explanation why anyone who had a significant founding role in the religion is inherently notable

3. What actions or positions within the LDS Church are significant enough to warrant inherent notability?

For example: An explanation why all apostles are considered inherently notable

4. What are the requirements for sources to meet in order for a subject to be considered notable in the context of the Latter Day Saint movement?

For example: significant coverage in multiple reliable sources

5. What religious structures and buildings are inherently notable because of their status or ubiquity within the Latter-day Saint religion and broader Latter Day Saint movement?

6. What religious doctrine(s) are inherently notable because of their status or ubiquity within the Latter-day Saint religion and broader Latter Day Saint movement?

7. How do we determine the independence of a source in the context of the WikiProject?

Determining independence is difficult at times. What LDS affiliated sources exist that can be considered independent despite their affiliation?

The fourth one would, in my opinion, go along with answering the problem the WikiProject has been experiencing with article being deleted even though they have sufficient primary sources of varying independence. ––FormalDude talk 03:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for providing a general framework that could be considered as we craft these guidelines. I will consider my answers to each question and explain those in detail as I begin crafting the guidelines. Thanks for giving me some idea of focus areas. As I was considering your questions, I had started to proviede answers, but for the purpose of facilitating discussions about each element of the parameters you suggested, I'd probably better leave the discussioon and answers to the questions until I can start the process of working on those answers. So for the time being, I'll just thank you once again for giving me something to work off of. I feel much more confident about crafting the guidelines now that I have that list of considerations that will mold such considerations. So thanks again. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Awilley's suggestion

Just a courtesy ping as I updated your suggestion. I just wanted to expand it and make it more concise. Let me know what you think, and feel free to revert or make more edits. ––FormalDude talk 05:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Awilley: for the record, I appreciate your additions as well. I think you have set up solid points. I especially like the fact that you differentiated between the Deseret News being sufficiently indepenent of the Church, while the Church News cannot be considered in the same light due to the fact that its' operations and coverage are often either controlled or at least endorsed by the Church. But that brings me to a couple of follow-up questions. First, would articles authored by Church News staff that appear in the Deseret News qualify as sufficiently independent? And if the reverse is the case (Deseret News contributors authoring articles that appear in the Church News), are there any parameters that would specifically qualify those articles as independent of the source?

Also, another question for both Awilley and FormalDude: KSL, which covers a variety of developments relating to the Church, but also local and national stories, is both owned and operated by Bonneville Communications, while the on-air content for both the TV channel (and in some cases, the radio station) also serves as the Utah affiliate channel for NBC. I know that in past discussions with you, FormalDude, we have had exchanges about the kind of media sources that can be considered sufficiently independent of the Church, so would it be worth mentioning KSL? And if we do mention that in the guidelines, any thoughts on specific wording we could use within these guidelines in relation to KSL?

Additionally, FormalDude: I know our previous discussions have invovled mentions of which Church leaders and topics merit inclusion in these guidelines. As we consider the scope and structure of these new guidelines, I think they need to be specific on which general, area, or local leaders might be notablee, what makes them notable, and which sources covering their ministries would be sufficiently indepedent of those leaders? I am specifically wondering, in terms of the Church leadership hierarchy, what we could put in the guidelines to establish notability. I was thinking in particular that we might want to somehow make it clear in the guidelines that the Presidents of the Church, who have each had lasting impacts on the Church in the course of their service as such, is notable foe being the most senior apostle in the Church, and the only one Church members believe is entitled to revelation for the entire Church. I would also like to see notability standards particularly crafted for the Presidents and Acting Presidents of the Quorum of the Twelve, and all ordained apostles (whether or not any of those spent any time serving in the Quorum of the Twselve or not).

And given the heavy ecclesiastical roles the Church gives to all General Authority Seventies (including members of the Presidency of the Seventy) and the Presiding Bishopric, I think we'll need to consider their notability as part of crafting these guidelines. And although all area seventies and general officers of the Church serve part-time (keeping their vocations and other roles while also accepting assignments as designated), we'll probably want to incorporate standards of notability that apply to those individuals as well.

When it comes to topics about the Church (aside from which leaders of the Church should be covered in the parameters of these guidelines), I know that there has been a particular issue with sourcing for many of those topics, which is something we'll also want to consider as well. Sorry for the lengthy comment here, but those are a few items I definitely want to address in terms of crafting these guidelines. I look forward to any input either of you have on these thoughts from me. I am hopeful that as we get further in on the process of putting these together that others may have some ideas about the scope and breadth of these guidelines. I look forward to hopefully working on this page later this week as time and circumstances allow. Thanks again, both of you. --Jgstokes (talk) 07:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

KSL is fine too, in my opinion. The underlying principle is that the source has editorial independence. We can use the Washington Post as a source about Jeff Bezos even though Bezos owns the Post. He doesn't have control over what they write. ~Awilley (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I was not aware that was the case actually with Washington Post. That's good to know. ––FormalDude talk 22:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Creation of LDS perennial sources section

In order to better suit the goals of the guideline, I think a section dedicated to sources would be beneficial. I've change the examples in the first section to be more on-topic, and moved the previous examples (which were more critiques of sources) to the new LDS perennial sources section.

You can create new lines in the table of this section in order to add more sources. The legend for the source status is located at User:FormalDude/Notability_(Latter_Day_Saints)/Status, and all you need to do is place {{/Status|*}} in the corresponding cell, replacing "*" with the parameter from the legend that you want to appear (gr=generally reliable, nc=no consensus, gu=generally unreliable, d=deprecated). ––FormalDude talk 08:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation, @FormalDude. I hope it's alright to start off with sharing thoughts, though do let me know if going ahead with edits or additions would be better.

I think "Deprecated" might be too strong a category for Church News and Church Newsroom. I would propose defining them as "No Consensus" (though that term doesn't seem quite right for what it describes, to be honest) in the sense that "additional considerations apply" as the main perennial sources page describes. It is not that either has a reputation for publishing outright false information; rather, they are either self-published or something very close to self-published and consistently depict Latter-day Saint figures and institutions in a favorable light and avoid both critical analysis and outright controversy. Statements from either source might be true, but they do not possess the secondary-source-based, consensus-representing, critical thinking preferred in Wikipedia sources. However, there may be limited occasions when using it as a source could be appropriate if there is contemporary information about events and figures that could help flesh out a Wikipedia page, though not used in isolation. I think an appropriate description for these sources might be something like the following:

Church Newsroom is the press release arm of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As such, it is a self-published source and in many cases better understood as a primary source for church statements and policies, rather than a secondary source that critically analyzes it or other topics pertaining to the Latter Day Saint movement. Speeches by church officers are sometimes reprinted in Church Newsroom; such reprints might be used as a source for verifying quotations when relevant. Church Newsroom might be usable for uncontroversial self-descriptions, but avoid citing Church Newsroom as a source for exceptional claims. In general, a secondary source with a stronger consensus for reliability is preferred.

The Church News is a joint publication of the Deseret News and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As such, it is in part a self-published source. The Deseret News and the Church News share some staff, and it is not clear what degree of editorial control or freedom exists for the Church News, though editors agree it consistently depicts the church in a favorable light and avoids both controversial events and dissenting critical analysis. It might be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, but avoid using it as a source for exceptional claims. In general, a secondary source with a stronger consensus for reliability is preferred.

Related to the matter of perennial sources, to what extent will this page be for Latter Day Saint topics generally or Latter-day Saint topics specifically? Should we strive to consider the reliability of websites for Community of Christ and The Church of Jesus Christ (the denomination that traces its leadership succession through William Bickerton) or the notability of officers in such denominations? On the one hand, it might be most practical to focus the page more narrowly; on the other, it would be more inclusive to consider the whole sweep of the movement; on the other hand, I feel somewhat cautious about dubbing a page fit for Latter Day Saint matters if it ends up really only treating Latter-day Saint matters.

Finally, I would like to suggest including the books No Man Knows My History and Under the Banner of Heaven on the list, which I have seen in citations all over Latter Day Saint topics. The former I would argue can be Deprecated or Generally Unreliable due to its age (published in 1945) and the way scholarly consensus on Latter Day Saint history has reversed many of Fawn Brodie's central claims (e.g. No Man Knows took Joseph Smith to be irreligious; today, virtually every scholar with subject-area expertise on Smith and Latter Day Saint history considers Smith to have been sincerely religious). I'm not entirely sure of the right category for Under the Banner, though I might suggest Generally Unreliable. Subject-area scholars (including both practitioners and non-practitioners) consider Under the Banner a pop history and a polemic book, written in part as a reaction to 9/11. (Max Perry Mueller, "Mormonism and the Problem of Jon Krakauer," for Religion and Politics, published by Washington University in St. Louis's John C. Danforth Center on Religion and Politics, July 14, 2017; Benjamin E. Park, "Can a Forgotten Mormon Leader Teach Us Something About Donald Trump Today?" Religion News Service, July 28, 2020. Mueller brings up comparisons to Islam. Park makes the link to 9/11 explicit.) P-Makoto (talk) 04:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent feedback, @P-Makoto. I agree with your assessment of Church News and Church Newsroom. I'm not familiar with the books you mentioned, but you sound right. Feel free to go ahead and implement those changes for now, and if anyone has additional points they can bring them up here. We're still pretty early on in the drafting process so WP:BRD is totally fine, but I appreciate you making the effort to explain your proposal thoroughly. ––FormalDude talk 06:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft expansion request

Pinging two users I've seen around the LDS WikiProject who we would benefit from being involved with here. FyzixFighter, P-Makoto. No obligation to participate, just a courtesy. ––FormalDude talk 00:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Checking in

FormalDude: I just wanted to check in with you here. I know I haven't done much work on this project since I last commented on your main user page. I have had some recent complications with my health that have required my attention, and have taken available chunks of time to deal with that. Nothing major or of concern, just some additional post-surgical symptoms and a minor recurring infection. I have been through more difficult things in terms of my health previously, so I am grateful to gradually be getting back to a normal level of participating on Wikipedia again. But I wanted to check in on some thoughts I've been having about these guidelines. IMHO, anyone who has served as a prophet, seer and revelator is inherently notable. By definition, that includes any Church President, any who have served as counselors in the First Presidency, anyone who has served as the President or Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, any other members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles or (until the 1970s), the Patriarch to the Church.

That is because each of those men who served in each of those callings was sustained as such and each of them spoke at almost every General Conference held during their service in those assignments. Although significant coverage would be needed to establish notability of other Church leaders, I'd submit the idea that any current or former General Authority Seventy (including members of the Presidency of the Seventy), the Presiding Bishopric, and some of the Church's general officers are notable in view of the service they rendered. Of course, in cases where the main source of infirmation about the service of anyone not serving as apostles is a Church-endorsed or controlled outlet, there would need to be more specific parameters. With the exception of the General Officers of the Church, who serve part-time and keep their current vocations, all who are sustained as General Authorities render full-time service in those assignments.

For the apostles, those assignments are for the remainder of their lives. For most other General Authorities of the Church, the members of the Presidency of the Seventy serve until their releases (which for some does not occur until the year they turn 70), and all General Authority Seventies and members of the Presiding Bishopric serve until their release at the discretion of the President of the Church (most often until they turn 70). Is there a good way to word notability criteria for each of these groups? I'd be happy to provide any clarification you might need on anything I've said here. Thanks again for extending the opportunity to me to fill a key role in the drafting of these guidelines. I'm just sorry I haven't been able to do more in terms of crafting these guidelines. That being said, i believe what we have so far is very well put, and I wouldn't recommend any changes to wshat's there. Hopefully we catn figure out a way to craft notability guidelines for general Church leaders that will prevent future deletions of articles about Church leaders. hope all is well with you. --Jgstokes (talk) 07:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jgstokes: To word notability criteria for each of these groups, I would make a bullet list that says at the top 'if any of these conditions are met, the subject is presumed notable.' We don't have to make it too complicated; just something like this:

There are many types of Church officials, but only some are enherently notable for being a Church official. A person who holds any of the following positions in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is presumed to be notable:

• Prophets (example(s))
• Church Presidents (example(s))
• Members of the Quorum of the Twelve (example(s))
• . . .

––FormalDude talk 06:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, I think it would be good to add a brief explanation for why they are notable. Either individually, or for all of them, if possible.

On a more personal note, I'm sorry to hear about the complications in your recovery, but glad to hear it's nothing of major concern! I'm doing well; I've been keeping busy.

The pace at which we approach this is of no concern to me, as long as we see it through to the end . What's most important is obviously your health, and I'm thankful for the time and effort you continue to give this in spite of what you're dealing with. Looking forward to seeing what you come up with! ––FormalDude talk 06:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Policy specific template

As I've become familiar with these criteria, I think one of the major problems (outside of defining the policy) is letting other Wikipedia editors know in a way that assumes good faith. I'd be open to looking into creating a clean up template like {{AfD notice}} but specific for when people make additions to articles only sourcing links from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The cleanup box could be something like This article relies too heavily on sources from [[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Please find reliable secondhand sources to supplement the article. Then the notification on the user's talk page could go into more detail explaining the policy. I'm willing to host the sandbox if anyone else would like to participate in creating the template -Jmjosh90 02:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jmjosh90: Doesn't {{Primary sources}} do pretty much the same thing? Also not sure if you're aware but we do have WP:LDS/RS as a reference for what sources are independent of the Church. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)