Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

the word "revelations"

How should this be used so that it meets WP:NPOV? I'd like to be pinged if there's an answer, I'm finding it hard to keep up. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I favor formulations along the lines of:

"Joseph Smith said he received a revelation instructing him to..."

or

"Mormons believe that Joseph Smith was guided by God through revelations"

or

Joseph Smith dictated a revelation to Oliver Cowdery."

Presenting it as something that someone said or wrote or believes satisfies NPOV in my opinion. I'm even ok with the second paragraph of Doctrine and Covenants which, even though it flat out says the book is a "compilation of revelations", I think it's clear enough from the context of the surrounding sentences and paragraphs that we're not explicitly endorsing the authenticity of the "revelations".

I think the same argument goes for the word "Vision". We obviously can't say things like

"Joseph Smith had a vision"

in Wikipedia's voice, but at the same time it's not necessary to say that

"Joseph Smith purportedly had a vision"

or

"Joseph Smith claimed he had a vision"

Just write that he

"said he had a vision"

or

"wrote that he had a vision"

This is largely per WP:SAID.

For an outside example of this see https://www.britannica.com/biography/Isaiah which says,

"The earliest recorded event in [Isaiah's] life is his call to prophecy as now found in the sixth chapter of the Book of Isaiah; this occurred about 742 bce. The vision (probably in the Jerusalem Temple) that made him a prophet is described in a first-person narrative. According to this account he “saw” God and was overwhelmed by his contact with the divine glory and holiness." (emphasis mine)

I think there's also an argument for treating obvious matters of religious belief like we do fiction. We don't need to say in the context of a plot summary that

"Frodo purportedly took the ring to Mount Doom"

Does that answer the question? ~Awilley (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Awilley: I should have mentioned that the article is Cunning Folk Traditions and the Latter Day Saint Movement. Am I right in thinking that it needs a bit of rewriting? Doug Weller talk 18:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Current journalistic stylebooks etc

Links re The Latter-day Saints' new deprecation of terms "Mormon"/"L.D.S." . . .

1. New AP Style guidelines (see SLC Tribune[1]) say to give full name then generally use word church (etc.).
2. Re issue of distinguishing among sect of the movement (Latter-day Saints vis-a-vis other J.S.Jr.-inspired denominations), see SLC Tribune[2]): >>>>>For over a century, the smaller churches of Joseph Smith’s Restoration movement have differentiated themselves by proudly declaring, “We are not Mormon!” It has been a badge of honor of sorts, a way of sticking it to an alleged rival that has converted more people than all the other Restoration churches combined. How on earth are we [WPdian Hodgd: viz., non-"Latter-day Saints" who join them as participants in the so-called "Latter Day Saint movement"] supposed to differentiate ourselves from the Mormons if they don’t want to be called Mormons either? --- Daniel P. Stone<<<<<
3. OnReligion[3]: "Escaping the M-word: Trying to go back to the Latter-day Saint future"
4. GetReligion[4]: "allow 'Mormon' when it helps readers with that. However [...put] the M-word within parentheses with quote marks in first use to signal that’s the universally recognized but unofficial nickname."
5. GetReligion[5]: >>>>>The Tribune’s headline: "LDS Church, de-emphasizing those three letters, unveils a new internet address with more changes on the way." And its lede: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints continued its move away from the monikers 'Mormon' and 'LDS' on Tuesday by introducing its new web address."<<<<<
   --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
6. Columbia Journalism Review[6]:

   ... “In the early days of the restored Church, terms such as Mormon Church and Mormons were often used as epithets—as cruel terms, abusive terms.”

   In this way, the church is joining the tendency for groups to claim their own names rather than the names others people give them, as we have seen with “African American” (instead of “colored,” or “Negro,” or worse), “Latino” (instead of “Hispanic” or “Spanish”), and others.

7. NYT[7], "‘Mormon’ No More: Faithful Reflect on Church’s Move to Scrap a Moniker": For the Latter-day Saints faithful, a shift away from a longtime name has meant lighthearted screw-ups, logistical complications and reflections on identity:

   "[. . .]Nelson, the church’s president, said that God had “impressed upon my mind the importance of the name he has revealed for his church.” Church members should no longer call themselves Mormons, or even use the shorthand L.D.S., the church announced. Instead, they should use the church’s full name and refer to themselves as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Or, if they wanted a shorter version, Latter-day Saints was preferred. As he is revered as a living prophet[. . .]"

   --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
8. church says, while discouraged, term Mormon is acceptable. See link.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
9. Reflecting the NYT's current in-house stylebook perhaps?: "[...T]here is enough demand for this kind of content to beget a streaming service called Living Scriptures which is geared specifically to Latter-day Saints (the church and its followers no longer refer to themselves as Mormons)."[8]--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
10. Atlanta Journal-Constitution[9]: "Romney is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – its members are trying to move away from the word 'Mormon.'"--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
11. AP[10]: "A recent push by church President Russell M. Nelson to eradicate the use of previously embraced shorthand terms for the faith — 'Mormon,' 'LDS' and 'Mormon church' — has added an interesting wrinkle to the discussion, said W. Paul Reeve, the Simmons Professor of Mormon Studies at the University of Utah."
12. Time[11]: "the LDS church, formerly known as the Mormon church"--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
13. WSJ[12]: "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, colloquially known as the Mormon Church"--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

As we see, Mormon is discouraged and Latter-day Saint (or in its variant capitalization within eg "the Latter Day Saint movement") preferred by the LDS Church; and the style books have caught up with this fact.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

+1, the style guides have "caught up" to the Church's (LOL) request for how it be identified. Especially for instances that refer to the church itself (mainline The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) and members. Rogerdpack (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Just noting that when it comes to the name of the church our own styleguide is also "up to date". It explicitly discourages the use of Mormon church, saying that the term should only be used in direct quotations. ~Awilley (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The wikipedia styleguide mentions the "abbreviation LDS" and "LDS Church" I'd like to propse to bring inline with the mainstream Church's style guide :) Rogerdpack (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Quick comment from me here: If you go back and reread the style guide, and Nelson's comments on the adjustments, you'll quickly realize that the new style guide put out by the Church was intended for media representatives only. I have not found anything that would categorically verify that online encyclopedias such as this one are beng urged to follow that style, at least not at this time. Could that change? Of course. In the interim, for Wikipedia, we do need and will want to take a smart approach to any such changes. There are literally hundreds of articles using the parenthetical LDS Church submoniker, so unless there was a way to switch them all at once, or to switch more than one at a time, resolving this issue would literally take weeks, and require cooperative efforts from a group of editors working in tandem to bring all such articles up to date. :With that in mind, what I keep coming back to is the question of whether or not any such changes are actually necessary. And as inclined as I am in general to listen to a man I consider to be a prophet of the Lord in most cases, as a Wikipedia editor trying to balance that faith with a neutrality of attitude about topics related to the CHurch which I assist in editing, I need to be more measured and reasonble in my personal approach on such matters.

And in that sennse, I fully believe that referencing the full name of the Church on the first mention thereof satisfies the requirements of those revised guidelines to a significant enough degree that using the parenthetical LDS Church moniker, which is still commonly used in public settings such as this, would not be see as problematic as far as the guidelines go. Of course, unless and until President Nelson offers an opinion on this matter, that is no more and no less than my own opinion. And in the meantime, Wikipedia is not governed by suggestions or recommendations from the Church, but by rules that are meant to ensure stylistic consistency that lends itself to readears being able to find informative content in the most easy way possible. IMHO, take away the LDS moniker, and some may get lost trying to find the content they are loking for. FWIW, that's my two cents on this matter at this time. --Jgstokes (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Jgstokes. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

1. I recommend a change be made to the Latter Day Saints MOS so it aligns with the official Style Guide — The Name of the Church of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which specifies: “While the term ‘Mormon Church’ has long been publicly applied to the Church as a nickname, it is not an authorized title, and the Church discourages its use. Thus, please avoid using the abbreviation ‘LDS’ or the nickname ‘Mormon’ as substitutes for the name of the Church, as in ‘Mormon Church,’ ‘LDS Church,’ or ‘Church of the Latter-day Saints’” . Other recent statements that support this recommended change include this one from President Russell M. Nelson: “Our revised style guide is helpful. It states: ‘In the first reference, the full name of the Church is preferred: ‘The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.’ When a shortened [second] reference is needed, the terms ‘the Church’ or the ‘Church of Jesus Christ’ are encouraged. The ‘restored Church of Jesus Christ’ is also accurate and encouraged’”. In response to Jgstokes, who indicated above that President Nelson’s comments on the official Style Guide “was intended for media representatives only” is not found in his recent General Conference talk titled The Correct Name of the Church. In fact, he encourages all people within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and those who are not members to follow the Style Guide. As a Wikipedia editor, I am more than willing to help put in the several-week effort to help update the Wikipedia references to align with the official Style Guide. Apikssurvey (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

A recent study by the church supports using the full name of the church on first mention. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU): We already use the full name of the church on first mention. And our manual of style has supported that from day one. Literally. On the day it was created in 2005 link it stated: Reference The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by full name [in] first reference...and "the Church" or "LDS Church" thereafter. That sentence has since been expanded into a full section at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Latter_Day_Saints#Full_name_of_denomination_in_first_reference. ~Awilley (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Full disclosure before I proceed: I am a believing, practising member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I am committed to the idea that this church, its beliefs, and its members should be dealt with on Wikipedia in a balanced and evenhanded manner, in keeping with the Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). This means, in my view, that we must do everything possible to treat the Latter-day Saints and their church neutrally — not writing either a missionary tract or an "anti" screed. This may (and, I suspect, does) require us to be prepared to write things somewhat differently than we would if we were writing a "Come, Follow Me" lesson.

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is almost certainly OK on the first reference to the Church (again, I'll just say "the Church" here for brevity, you here all know what I mean) in an article. As for subsequent references, "the Church" may be OK when the context is clear and it's obviously not going to be perceived as biased for the Church and/or against other churches. "Mormon Church" can and should probably be replaced by something else now, except of course in direct quotations that use this phrase. The other currently, officially encouraged phrases are probably too non-neutral to be acceptable for Wikipedia (again, except when quoting something that uses them).

"LDS Church" is problematic. On the one hand, the Church's current leadership has urged everyone (both within and without) to stop using this term. On the other hand, however, many (most?) secular publishers are continuing to use it (at least in second/subsequent references), probably because there simply isn't any other short phrase that isn't unacceptably non-specific, POV, or (in the case of "Mormon Church") no-better-so-why-bother. For practical purposes, we may very possibly have no realistic option but to continue accepting and using "LDS Church". I'll change my position and doggedly fight the use of this term to my last breath if The Brethren unequivocally demand it, but since that would most likely lead to my being blocked/banned from Wikipedia for unrepentant disruptive editing, I would in this case probably simply avoid the issue by ceasing to edit any Church-related article in any way (not even to correct nasty mistakes or outright slander).

As for members of the Church, "members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is simply too long for anyone (especially non-members) to be expected to write, except possibly in some first-reference situations where the Church itself hasn't already been so identified. As far as I know, the Church leadership doesn't (yet) object to our being called (or calling ourselves) "Latter-day Saints", so this may be the best term to use. "Mormons" should probably be phased out (just like "Mormon Church"); same with "LDS"; but we're going to have to accept the fact that many readers simply do not know who we are except via the label "Mormons" (big reason, I know, why The Brethren want us to stop using it), and we may find it advisable to let things pass such as "members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (also widely known as 'Latter-day Saints' or 'Mormons')".

Regarding our belief system, it's likely to be well-nigh impossible to totally eliminate "Mormonism", for the simple reason that there is no other ultra-short monicker available (other than "the Gospel" or "the restored Gospel", which are blatantly and unashamedly POV and just won't be accepted by Wikipedians in general). Possible alternatives might be "Latter-day Saint beliefs" or "Church teachings" (again, using the latter only when the context makes it unambiguous).

The issue of parenthetical qualifiers in article titles unavoidably leads us into complicated historical matters. The Church's official name hasn't always been exactly the same (e.g., the name "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", in any capitalization or punctuation, is anachronistic if applied to anything or anyone prior to 1838). Also, because of various schisms and factions, it is often essential to distinguish whether someone or something pertains to all the churches which claim a connection to Joseph Smith, or just a portion thereof; see the table in MOS:LDS#Basic_gloss, and remember that, in the world's eyes, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is "just another one" of a bunch of churches, each of which claims to be the sole rightful inheritor of the Prophet's legacy.

So, in summary: This question is extremely complicated (it encompasses a lot more than the present-day Church), and it is totally impractical (probably no matter how much faith we exercise) to get the world in general, or the Wikipedia community in particular, to obey President Nelson's counsel with exactness on this matter at this time. I would strongly advise everyone who still thinks major overhauls are necessary to carefully and thoroughly read the entire style page MOS:LDS, and seek to understand everything it says before you summarily reject it all because you think it should simply be replaced with President Nelson's October 2018 General Conference address.

For those of you who may be unconvinced, question my faithfulness, and feel you are obligated to expunge all the officially deprecated terms ASAP no matter what anyone else thinks, I will leave you with a warning: You will be opposed, reverted, and (if you persist) most likely blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia entirely as a result of what will be perceived as disruption, "edit warring", "persistent NPOV violations", "obviously not here to build an encyclopedia", etc., etc. — and then we will end up being deprived of the worthwhile contributions you could have made here. If this happens to you, btw, don't even think of sneaking back in under a brand-new, undeclared account (sockpuppetry), or of recruiting your friends to carry on with your righteous quest (meatpuppetry), because you (and, if applicable, your friends) will be found out and your efforts will have been in vain.

If, after all the above, you are convinced that you must rid Wikipedia of gross sin in this matter, my advice is to contact the Wikimedia Foundation (WP:WMF) and try to make your case to them. I say this because the WMF is the only group of people with any authority to override the NPOV policy (via what they call an "office action"), and anyone else you might contact (even the Arbitration Committee) will point you to WP:NPOV and say there is nothing to discuss. Keep in mind that the WMF has undoubtedly already heard (and rejected) all of the arguments here, and/or arguments which they consider equally (in)valid coming from adherents of other faiths, political views, and such, so an appeal to the WMF will almost certainly be an utter waste of your time and theirs, but I'd rather see you appeal to the WMF and get turned down than try to wage an edit war / sockpuppet attack / etc. and get shown the door forever.

— Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I think you probably posted this as a general explanation for the many users making edits to pages to remove "LDS". In case it wasn't clear, I currently agree with shortening to "LDS Church" after the church's full name is stated. I think that "Mormon" is useful for cultural topics like folklore and literature. I posted the link to contribute to the general information listed in this subtopic. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Consistency in naming conventions for articles (Mormon) vs. (Latter Day Saint)

Right now the MOS states that articles needing disambiguation use the parenthetical (Mormon) (i.e. John W. Taylor (Mormon) and George Reynolds (Mormon)). In doing an unscientific survey, I'd say most articles use the parenthetical (Latter Day Saints) (i.e. [[William Law (Latter Day Saints)) and Samuel H. Smith (Latter Day Saints)). Should we be changing all the articles to match convention? I'd say yes, but also argue that the parenthetical (Latter Day Saints) is more appropriate, and the MOS should be updated to reflect that. Epachamo (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Epachamo: The naming conventions are at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints), so discussion of changes should probably take place on that talk page, not here. If you look at that page I think you'll see that there's a method to the madness. The disambiguator "Latter Day Saints" applies to people before the schism in 1844, while "Mormon" applies to the branch that followed Brigham Young. "Latter Day Saints" is a broader term that refers to the more general Latter Day Saint movement. ~Awilley (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Awilley: While it is definitely appropriate to use the term "Latter Day Saint" to refer to the larger movement (as well as individuals who are relevant thereunto), I'm not sure that anyone is taking issue with this. The problem is that referring to Christians as "Mormons" ignores the fact that doing so is like referring to people of African descent as "Niggers". Both are bigoted slurs, designed to dehumanize those on the receiving end of the moniker. The fact that some people use these terms to refer to themselves doesn't make it appropriate to do so generally. The request is that we update the MOS to use accurate, POV-neutral terminology, so those of us who have spent decades working to eliminate these slurs won't keep having our edits reverted because a random MOS page recommends it. TheOtter (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@TheOtter: What an ugly false equivalence. Mormons have not suffered nearly the level of discrimination as black people. Sure, there was a lot of discrimination and disenfranchisement in the 1800s, but at least the Mormons who were ejected from their homes in Missouri and Nauvoo had the right to own homes in the first place. There's an order of magnitude difference between losing your property vs. being considered property. The Mormons were largely left alone after they fled to the Utah Territory, but slaves were hunted no matter where they fled. And the term "Mormon" has more positive connotations than negative. You say it's a bigoted slur, but Gordon B. Hinckley said it meant "More Good" and started a nearly decade-long multinational advertising campaign to reclaim the word. ~Awilley (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Awilley: Your opinion is noted, but I must respectfully disagree. Property or not, killing a "Nigger" was still a punishable crime; conversely, killing a "Mormon" was a "moral imperative." Until the 1970s, a person could actually be arrested in the state of Missouri for not killing a "Mormon". If that's a false equivalence, it's only because "Niggers" had it better than "Mormons". I don't support slavery in the least, but at least a slave's heartbeat wasn't inherently illegal.

Of course, I recognize that Gordon B. Hinckley's (and others') thoughts on the subject are not my own, and they have just as much right to an opinion as I. But by that argument, we should also use the word "Nigger" because people like Ice-T and Kendrick Lamar are okay with it. Are you honestly arguing that bigoted terms are okay, as long as you can find someone who isn't offended by them?

I repeat: the noun "Mormon" (as opposed to the personal name "Mormon") is a slur that has no place in civilized society. It frankly amazes me that anyone would think such charged language be appropriate for a supposedly neutral encyclopedia. TheOtter (talk) 07:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what to say. Normally I try to avoid red herrings, but I'm flabbergasted that anyone would say the things you just did. I hope that you will educate yourself on the history of racism in the United States, retract the words you said above, and then approach this from a different angle. ~Awilley (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring at Mormonism and Nicene Christianity

Two IP editors have recently performed major edits at Mormonism and Nicene Christianity, apparently with a view to making the text clearly partial to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I have posted my thoughts about this on the article's talk page. People might wish to participate in whatever discussion may arise there, though I would hope any such discussion doesn't simply become a duplicate of what is going on here. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC: LDS MOS Notability standards

Hello again, everyone! In previous threads throughout this page, my talk page, and the talk page for FormalDude (talk · contribs), he and I have discussed several of the long-term issues that those who have worked on articles about the Latter Day Saint movement have encountered in allowing articles about subjects related to the Church and the biographies for general and area leaders to be retained here. His suggestion was to utilize the general notability criteria for Wikipedia articles, with appropriate adjustments as necessary, to craft specific parameters of notability for Church topics and leader biographies. Given my 1.5 decades of Wikipedia experience, specifically as they have related to the issues involved relating to articles about the Church, FormalDude has suggested that I take a primary role in crafting those guidelines, while he, as a Wikipedia editor with administrative experience, which has included some degree of experience in establishing support for updated policies and guidelines, would ensure that the guidelines that are created will be compliant with Wikipedia standards. Although my lifelong membership in the Church and extensive experience with Church-related articles will make it easier for me to put together the initial version of notability guidelines, there are some of you involved in editing Wikipedia who might also have experiences with editing Church articles that could be helpful to consider when crafting the new guidelines. So I am extending an open request for comment to any of you, especially long-time contributors, who know what we've been up against in trying to resolve the relevant issues of notability for Church leaders, to submit any feedback or suggestions you might have to offer as we attempt to craft these guidelines at this time. The open commenting period will be indefinite for the time being, since I'd prefer to leave no stone unturned, and to have the best possible version of those guidelines before they become part of Wikipedia's policies about CHurch articles. Anyone with any feedback whatsoever can submit it to the talk page for the drafting of those guidelines, which can be found here. My thanks once again to you all. --Jgstokes (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm curious about the project. What pages in particular are you thinking of that wouldn't qualify as notable under the general notability guidelines, but that ought to be on Wikipedia? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Rachel Helps (BYU), around 3-5 years ago, steps were taken to massively delete several articles about General Authorities and General Officers of the Church. At one point following his call to the apostleship, the article for Ulisses Soares was subject to a deletion discussion, primarily because there were not enough sources independent of the Church to verify Elder Soares' notability. The decision about that deletion disucssion was to keep that article.

But the fact that it was even considered as not significant for Wikipedia demonstrates a flaw in the guidelines. In a similar manner, if you were to look at the Wikipedia pages listing the general authorities and general officers of the Church, you'd find that current members of the Presidency of the Seventy, current GA Seventies, current members of the Presiding Bishopric, and current General Officers of the Church, there are several names without a wikilink. And in most of those cases, articles for the listed individuals did exist at one time or another, but were subject to deletion in cases where the argument about the lack of independent sourcing for these leaders was enough to warrant deletion.

So we'd need to establish a standard of notability in these new guidelines that will be sufficient to support keeping those articles. It might also be worthwhile, once we have done that, to request a reopening of the deletion discussion for articles that previously existed. And if the notability standards are sufficient grounds to keep and/or restore those articles, it would resolve issues we've been having for the last 3-5 years at least, if not longer. Hope that helps. --Jgstokes (talk) 23:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I remember the Ulisses Soares deletion discussion. I agree that GAs and Apostles are notable within the LDS Church. I don't think every member of the 70 needs their own Wikipedia page though. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Rachel Helps (BYU), some historical context might be relevant to what I want to say now. 10 of the current 15 apsotles of the Church were called after 2003. Of those 10, 7 (Uchtdorf, Cook, Christofferson, Andersen, Rasband, Gong, and Soares) were serving in the Presidency of the Seventy at the time of their calls. Of the remaining 3, one was a GA Seventy (Renlund), one was Presiding Bishop (Stevenson), and the last was an area seventy (Bednar). Since 9 of the 10 most recently called apostles were serving in a general capacity, it seems fair to surmise that service in a general capacity makes the individuals in the Presidency of the Seventy, Presiding Bishopric, or GA Seventies more likkely to be the individuals called when future vacancies arise in the apostleship. Pair that with the component that the Twelve call upon the GA Seventies for assistance in the work before they reach out to anyone else, and hopefully it'sin clear that there needs to be some degree of notability standards for the non-apostolic leaders of the Church.

I could see the reason why not every area seventy or general officer of the Church are notable enoough for their own Wikipedia article, since the service of those individuals is usually part-time, allowing them to maintain their current occupations. But for the non-apostolic General Authorities, they serve full-time until 70, and are crucial to helping the Church to move forward in the most effective way. That being said, I will concede that I understand why you said you don't think every general authority or general officer of the Church needs their own Wikipedia articles. That seems to be a similar line of reasoning given by several individuals responsible for updating the Church websites. Earlier this year, just about every GA Seventy and a majority of General Officers of the Church had their own biographies on the Church's list of global leaders.

If you look at the Presidency of the Seventy and GA Seventies on that list now, several names do not feature a link.

When I reached out through the Church feedback form about that, I was told that not all general authorities have their own articles. At the same time, I think it's worth considering the parameters of what makes a Church leader, at any level, notable or not. Hope the additional thoughts from my are helpful to you. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Changes regarding 2018 deprecation of "Mormon"

@Awilley removed the previous changes I made regarding an effort to compromise the MOS based on the 2018 deprecation of "Mormon" by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I've been discussing with them and am pretty satisfied with their justifications.

This edit was one that was kept. One other suggestion I do have is to put more context in the notes section of the table for the words "Mormon"/"Mormonism". The context being that the words have been deprecated by the two largest denominations as of 2018. It can specify that they're still allowed to be used, but I do think it should be noted in the table. ––FormalDude talk 21:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Awilley--we need to keep current usage in mind. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The style guide needs to be updated

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The current style guide is wrongheaded and clearly written with bias against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The attempts to limit the full name use of the restored Church of Jesus Christ to only one full name reference in a long article are unacceptable. The use of anything other than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in parenthetical references to things connected with the Church is also unacceptable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

"LDS Church" is still widely used as a parenthetical reference for later mentions. Last I checked it was still acceptable in styleguides for major news organizations. Wikipedia's job is to follow the usage in reliable sources like that, not lead. And calling it "the restored Church of Jesus Christ" is clearly unacceptable for Wikipedia, where we're required to write from a neutral point of view. ~Awilley (talk) 05:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Johnpacklambert's statements are unhelpful. First of all, he doesn't assume good faith in saying that the guidelines are written with bias against the church in question. Second, he doesn't explain why limiting the full name of the church to the first instance only is "unacceptable", and he also does not explain why using parentheticals other than the complete name of the church is "unacceptable". If reasons are provided, they could be discussed, but I don't see any here apart from assumptions of bad faith. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• If we are referring to an organization we should use the name that it has requested that people use to refer to it. It can be done. Amos Brown clearly showed this in speaking to the NAACP. We should respect the requests of organizations on how they self identify. That is clearly not being done here. Especially when people are using 8 year old articles to justify current usage in the face of very major changes 2 years ago. Organizations should be identified by the monikers they themselves use.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • It sounds like your underlying concern is with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAMES. In any case, if we're talking about disambiguating terms, the church's preferences for a short form—"the Restored Church of Jesus Christ", "the Church of Jesus Christ", or "the Church"—are neither commonly used nor without a built-in POV. In my opinion, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is simply too long to be a disambiguator. "LDS Church" and "Mormon" are commonly used and fairly well understood terms. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I do think the style guide as it stands is quite complicated and hard to understand. I've been using it for a number of years and sometimes I am still unsure about what proper usage is. For one, the distinction between "Latter Day Saints" and "Latter-day Saints" is far too subtle to be useful in an encyclopedia. The style guide also suggests avoiding the use of "Mormon" for Community of Christ topics since that church objects to its use. Well, now so does TCOJCOLDS, but usage is so commonly entrenched in secondary sources for TCOJCOLDS, especially for historical topics, that it's hard for me to see how WP can move away from it. Now that the TCOJCOLDS also objects to "LDS Church", we have a problem. We can't use the abbreviated forms TCOJCOLDS suggests because they are ambiguous and POV. We could use "TCOJCOLDS", but that is not widely used in secondary sources. We can't use the full name of the church on each mention because it is too long. I don't know what the solution is, but I suspect we will keep using "LDS Church" for lack of a better alternative, even if it is considered offensive somehow. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: What Johnpacklambert is also failing to consider is that while individual organizations and entites can use the full name of the Church in every instances, the actual guidelines as released by the updated manual of style for the Church is that the full name is prefferred, (not mandated) on the first reference, and that after that first reference, there are acceptable abbreviated terms that can be used. Also, in initial comments relative to these updated guidelines (again, not actual mandates) indicated that they were intended for references to the Church and its' members when used by the media. To assume or assert that guidelines principally intended for media mentions of the church should be applied to an online encyclopedia to the same degree would in turn lead some to assume or assert that applying those guidelines liberally and emphatically in every mentione to the name of the church here was at the height of personal arrogance. I don't see anyone in the Church hierarchy who has specifically challenged the continued usage of the volume known as the Enclopedia of Mormonism, nor can I find any instance where the Church has firmly stated that the guidelines released almost two years ago should be applied here on Wikipedia, especially to the degree that Johnpacklambert has asserted should be the case. I know that this issue being raised again was done in good faith, and I won't dispute or deny that. But suggesting that guidelines initially released for intended usage by media organizations should be used to a similar or more liberal degree here on Wikipedia is unwise. Could the Wikipedia Manuals of Styles use some adjustments when it comes to articles about the Church use some adjustments? Sure. But there are other more effective ways than an all-or-nothing strict approach that may not be in harmony with or applicable to the reommendations themselves. And I'm saying that as someone who, on a very personal level, accepts the updated manual of style as prophetic and long overdue. Take from this comment whatever you will. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: While I do feel that Johnpacklambert's initial statement comes off as somewhat combative, I think that others in this thread are also failing to consider a very important factor: the implications of terms like "LDS Church". In this day and age, it is considered common courtesy to allow people to define their own identity, including what does and does not constitute a slur. This includes racial identity (e.g. "African-American" instead of "Nigger"), national identity (e.g. "Japanese" instead of "Nip"), religious identity (e.g. "Jew" instead of "Yid"), gender identity (e.g. "she" instead of "he"), etc.. The de facto rules of civil discourse require others to use said terminology, and Latter-day Saints should be afforded the same courtesy.

So, what's the problem here? Well, the Book of Mormon teaches that any church that is not called by the Savior's name is not His (3 Nephi 27:8); and that "there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil" (1 Nephi 14:10). So, when we call the Church of Jesus Christ "the LDS Church", "the Mormon Church", or any other name that doesn't include the name of the Savior, we are effectively calling it "the Church of Satan". The Church and its members don't "now" object to terms like that; we always have, despite the tendency of even some Church members to use said terms (much like some African-Americans use the term "Nigger").

As others have said, I'm not completely sure what the best solution would be; ideally, we would follow the Church's own Style Guide, but I recognize that others might object to certain terms therein (e.g. "the restored Church of Jesus Christ") as strenuously as Latter-day Saints object to the religious slurs that Wikipedia's style guide presently encourages. But at the same time, if the official name of the Church were "The Restored Church of Jesus Christ", would use of that term not be required, despite others' objections to the claim? I say we work together to come up with a mutually acceptable solution. TheOtter (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• TheOtter, I respect your feelings regarding use of names other than "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". However, I refuse to agree with your claim that the use of abbreviated names for the Church is tantamount to calling it the "church of the devil", or that "Mormon" is as reprehensible a slur as the "N-word". Your rationale for "Mormon" being as bad as "n****r" is your own original research (and thus inadmissible here) unless you can back it up with citations to reliable secondary sources that clearly and unambiguously say this. And likewise, your assertion that "LDS Church" is as bad as "the Church of Satan" is an example of synthesis, interpretation, or extrapolation from primary sources, also something forbidden by Wikipedia's policies. FWIW, I am a believing, practising member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and while I no longer refer to myself as a "Mormon" or call the church I belong to the "Mormon church", I do still use the term "Latter-day Saint" (and even "LDS Church") when the Church's full name has already been mentioned and the context is obvious, and I do not rebuke others who say "Mormon" when it is clear that they intend no insult or disrespect — and I have, to date, not been subject to or threatened with any sort of Church discipline or official rebuke for said actions. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Richwales, I respect your feelings regarding use of names other than "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". However, I refuse to agree with your claim that the use of specific names for the Church is not tantamount to calling it the "church of the devil", or that the "M-word" is as reprehensible a slur as the "N-word". Your rationale for "M****n" not being as bad as "N****r" is your own original research (and thus inadmissible here) unless you can back it up with citations to reliable secondary sources that clearly and unambiguously say this. Your assertion that "LDS Church" is not as bad as "the Church of Satan" is equally so. FWIW, I am a believing, practicing member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and while I have never referred to myself as a "Mormon" nor call the church I belong to the "Mormon church" (I have always used the term "Latter-day Saint"), I do not rebuke others who say "Mormon" when it is clear that they intend no insult or disrespect — and I have, to date, not been subject to nor threatened with any sort of Church discipline nor official rebuke for said actions.

  I recognize that commenting in this way may also come off as combative, and I sincerely apologize if it is interpreted that way. But there is a method to my madness: I honestly do respect you and your comment; I just also recognize that it fails to address the issue. The entire comment is your own original research (whereas mine actually does include citations). Even if you can provide a "reliable secondary sources that clearly and unambiguously" says that "M****n" isn't as offensive as "N****r" (which I'm not sure is even possible to claim), it doesn't change the fact that it is offensive. The President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints explicitly stated this in an address to the entire world—an address in which, incidentally, he also apologized for even Church leaders participating in its use:

“ [T]]he name of the Church is not negotiable. When the Savior clearly states what the name of His Church should be and even precedes His declaration with, 'Thus shall my church be called,' He is serious. And if we allow nicknames to be used or adopt or even sponsor those nicknames ourselves, He is offended. ” — President Russell M. Nelson, The Correct Name of the Church

I think the problem is that since "Mormon" is a personal name—including the name of a famous person—there are perfectly legitimate uses thereof. If Jeremiah Nigger were a religious leader that had written The Book of Nigger, and mainstream society had consequently nicknamed his followers "Niggers", I'm guessing it would be more difficult to get people to stop using the term. But would that make it any less offensive as a slur for dark-skinned people of African descent? Since it's purely hypothetical, I honestly don't know; but if a dark-skinned person told me it was offensive and I shouldn't use it, respect dictates that I would stop. --TheOtter (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• • TheOtter: Again, the issue is simply no more and no less than a lack of sufficient editors that are willing to work with what the policies currently are rather than what they'd like them to be. We are not going to be successful in fixing what is broken by continuing to assert that guidelines which, by all accounts, are meant to be primarily used by media representatives, should be universally, liberally, or overly-applied to articles on an online encyclopedia that anyone can read and edit. And the other part of the issue is that there has not yet been a sound, policy-based reason given, nor has there been any source cited, to verify that the guidelines released by the Church were similarly meant to be applied in such a way to an online encyclopedia that anyone can read or edit. And the issues at hand will certainly not be resolved any faster by appealing to the words of a book that not everyone here may accept as scripture, or to recommendations given by an individual whom not everyone editing or reading these articles may accept as a prophet. Th standards of neutrality and reliable sourcing require us to balance the creation and maintenance of content that would be useful and helpful to everyone, whether inside or outside the Church. If there is a sound, policy-based reason to implement these changes to the degree described, or if there has been nay mention at any point that the Nelsonian guidelines should apply to Wikipedia as well, I haven't been able to come across it. If you can find and present either or both, well and good. I'd welcome further dialogue based on new evidence or arguments. But short of a policy-based reason or any indication that the Nelsonian guidelines were meant for Wikipedia, we need to be more focused on a measured, reasonable, and consistent approach across the board, and not so much on an all-or-nothing approach. --Jgstokes (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• • Jgstokes: I will point out (as an aside) that the "Nelsonian guidelines" are identical to the "Smithian" guidelines (which, according to the original source, are actually the "Christian" guidelines), so attributing them to Russell M. Nelson is highly questionable. However, I think that's outside the purview of this discussion.
    Ultimately, I just have a single question for you: if Wikipedia had "a lack of sufficient editors that are willing to work with" the policy that Wikipedia not refer to dark-skinned people of African descent as "Niggers", does that mean we should refer to them as such? --TheOtter (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The Otter, there is a huge difference here. For starters, Wikipedia doesn't go by original research or sourcing. In order to maintain a sufficient degree of neutrality, there have to be standards applied in some cases. Again, as a lifelong member of the Church in question, I accept the guidelines as personally applicable to me. But given that several sources that are used in Wikipedia articles about Church subjects either adhee to said guidelines to varying degrees or have opted not to conform stylistically to those guidelines, we have to balance that as well. And your latest argument put forward in comparing the usage of the term "Mormon" to the usage of the n-word is not englightening, helpful, or neutral either. There's a difference.

For a long time, usage of the latter may have been considered acceptable to a certain degree, but it has since become almost universally despised and seen as offensive. By contrast, in relation to the usage of the former term, it's mainly the religious organization (and those sources that support the style guide in question) that take exception to the usage of the term "Mormon." Unless and until it becomes widely unacceptable and offensive to use that terminology in major sourcing, there has to be more of a balance. To borrow a comparative color term, for Wikipedia's purposes, this issue isn't all black or all white. The standards in this case were meant to be applicable for usage mainly by the media in their coverage of Church developments. Some individual organizations, such as the NAACP, have opted to adopt those guidelines for themselves, but for an online encyclopedia that uses terminoogy found in sources that meet the proper Wikipedia standards, the guidelines do not and should not apply to the same extent.

Until there is more consistency, or until there is the same type of widely-accepted aversion to using the term "Mormon" to the same degree as using the "n-word", then that part of your argument is largely a moot point, and may be a disingenuous basis on which to try and continue this dialogue. At this point, I think it's fair to say that the comments addressed to you here have been written on the basis of assuming good faith on your part. But part of judging whether such dialogue and efforts are made in good faith depends on whether any individual editor is willing to listen to and weigh the merits of an opinion that such an individual may not necessarily share or agree with. While I and others in this thread have tried to do that in dialoguing with you here, it seems as though you are not reciprocating in that regard. And at this point, based on the nature of your latest replies, it really does seem like you are flogging the proverbial dead horse. :At the same time, in my last reply to you above, I issued an open challenge to you, which I am renewing now: Find one source, any source, meeting Wikipedia standards, that indicates that the Church's recent reemphasis of the prior guidelines is meant to be applicable here on Wikipedia, and not just to representatives of the media. Further, ditch the argument comparing the usage of the term "Mormon" to the "N-word", unless you can produce a reliable source beyond your own opinion or preference that justifies that comparison. And if you can't (or won't) do either, then for Pete's sake, drop the stick and step away from the horse, unless you have something actually productive and germaine to add to the discussion at hand. Otherwise, continuing this conversation may be a waste of time, 'Nuff said. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Jgstokes, I'm sorry you feel I'm beating a dead horse, but the fact remains that you are demanding evidence for my opinion while citing none for your own. To paraphrase your own words, please find one source, any source, meeting Wikipedia standards, that indicates that the Church's recent reemphasis of the prior guidelines isn't meant to be applicable here on Wikipedia, and just to representatives of the media. Further, ditch the argument comparing the usage of the "M-word" to the "N-word", unless you can produce a reliable source beyond your own opinion or preference that justifies that comparison.

I'm honestly not trying to be mean here, nor was I ever. I've also never been unwilling to dialogue on this subject, although I do feel like I'm among a minority in this conversation who are. The great majority of the participants seem to be joining forces to dogpile me in complete rejection of both civility and reason, even going so far as giving me a 'time out' for using the "N-word" while both ignoring my purpose in doing so and failing to explain why said word should be banned from a discussion of slurs used against minorities.

So all this being said, can we please get back to a discussion of why the Wikipedia MOS considers it appropriate to use a slur that several other manuals of style (e.g. the Associated Press's) say to avoid? TheOtter (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

TheOtter, please pardon my delayed response. If you look over this thread again more carefully, you'll find that I never personally equated the usage of the "N-word" with the usage of the "M-word". The only one who did so was Johnpacklambert, and you'll also see that I myself spoke out against that being an equivalent comparison. It's not appropriate, and doesn't equate. I've been very clear about that, so unless you can point me to the portion of whichever of my comments implied that I support the comparison, you're finding fault with an argument I also found to be faulty. As far as the style guide applying to news media only, in the October 2018 talk which has been used in this very thread to support the notion that the guidelines as released apply also to Wikipedia, a key passage from Nelson's talk is often overlooked: "We will want to be courteous and patient in our efforts to correct these errors. Responsible media will be sympathetic in responding to our request." And there was one other talk which was previously mentioned in which Nelson also detailed the results of the request to correct the name of the Church, and he specifically mentioned the need for patience in cases where such changes had not been implemented. I can't find that follow-up statement at the moment, but I know it has been cited and discussed elsewhere. But in any case, using the full name of the Church in the title of every Church-related article here on Wikipedia would become unwiedly and hard to ensure consitency across the board. So my main point was that there has to be middle ground here. And this has to be done in a reasonable way, a way that will gain the appropriate consensus approval. The one thing we are lacking is sufficient input from Church members who understand both the guidelines and the policy-related issues the full implementation of those guidelines would create on a large scale. So for the time being, that's why nothing has changed regarding this manual of style up to this point. Hope this follow-up comment clarifies what I'm saying. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Jgstokes. No worries on the delayed response; as you can see, I only pop in here every few days, myself.

First of all, you seem to have misunderstood my concern. I did not mean to indicate that you "personally equated the usage of the 'N-word' with the usage of the 'M-word'"; indeed, my concern is just the opposite: that you don't consider these terms analogous. If you look back at my last statement, you'll see that I was inviting you to provide any reputable source that claims these slurs are not analogous:

• “N*gger" is an exonym invented to dehumanize dark-skinned individuals and used to justify preventing them from owning property, disenfranchising them as a group, and physically maltreating them according to the whims of non-"N*ggers".
• "M*rmon" is an exonym invented to dehumanize Restorationist Christians and used to justify preventing them from owning property, disenfranchising them as a group, and physically maltreating them according to the whims of non-"M*rmons".

Yes, the manner of maltreatment differed from one group to the next--for example, until 1976, the laws of the U.S. state of Missouri declared it a criminal act to kill a "N*gger", but also a criminal act not to kill a "M*rmon". But ultimately, the result is the same: both were dehumanized; both were maligned; both were maltreated; both were deprived of virtue, property, and even life; and eventually, both were legally accepted as full citizens, but continue to beg that their exonym--which continues to both represent and engender hatred--be discontinued.

As for your second point--the exact words found in President Nelson's remarks--I think I understand what you're getting at, but are you suggesting that Wikipedia is intended to be irresponsible media? The introduction to Wikipedia's own About page states that "its contributors work on improving quality, removing or repairing misinformation, and other errors. Over time, articles tend to become more comprehensive and balanced." I of course recognize that the term "responsible" is not specifically used on this page, but I would think it consistent with both this description and what I trust to be our shared vision for Wikipedia.

Your thoughts remain appreciated. TheOtter (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The Otter thanks for your response, and my apologies if I misunderstood anything you said. I'd continue to caution against equating "Mormon" with "the N-word".The very word "Mormonism" defines the identified doctrines and approved practices of all religious sects that trace their origins back to the prophet Joseph Smith. So another element to all of this is that steering away from using the terms "Mormon" or "Mormonism" would not just affect articles about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but also, by extension, every religious sect in the Latter Day Saint movement. And since the Church is the only entity within that movement that is actively trying to get away from the term "Mormon", in order to make adjustments to articles about the Church, there would need to also be mirrored changes in the Wikipedia MOS as far as the definition of Mormon. There is also the issue thatӟ in some cases, the usage of the former terminology is correct when referring to periods of the Church's past where that terminology was correct for the period.

So the approach to changes has to be measured with that in mind as well. I have tried to track down that reference that is more recent than the 2018 initial comments from President Nelson, and I know I have seen it somewhere recently, but I'm having a problem recalling exactlyme where and when that was. I'll continue to try and find it. Additionally, I want to clarify my position and say that I do not object to changes being made overall that could see Wikipedia gradually implement however much of the guidelines might be appropriate for an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. That being said, most of the comments on this issue, both on this page and elsewhere, seem to convey the opinion that whatever might change on Wikipedia to better align with those guidelines, it needs to be done quickly and thoroughly, all around the board. I certainly hope everyone understands that any changes on Wikipedia take time and require a consensus. Any changes that can be appropriately made will require a lot of coordinated effort, time, and focus. And there also needs to be an assurance that the changes are b eing carried out in a reasonable way. And there are far too many here who have taken an all-or-nothing approach; for instance, expecting full compliance with the guidelines across the board to be handled quickly, or on the other end, those who have rightly provided sound policy-based reasons for either not making such changes or not being too extensive in doing so. For people on both ends of that spectrum where this issue is concerned, there doesn't seem to be a lot of middle-ground territory. And it's because of the nuances, or the lack of sufficent input balancing the two sides that is largely to blame for the fact that Wikipedia is no closer to resolving this matter to anyone's satisfaction today than they were when the issue of the reiterated guidelines was first raised almost 3 years ago.

That's primarily why the discussion remains circular around the same points and arguments or lines of reasoning, but has not gone anywhere. And I don't quite know how to get more eyes on this issue that could navigate all of those nuances. Soliciting feedback from a bunch of specific editors on issues such as this essentially violates Wikipedia's policy on canvassing. At the same time, if there was a way to get more importial eyes on this issue, perhaps all of us might be able to get past the current circular arguments/discussions. I can't say this is definitively true, but often since the updated guidelines were released, I seem to be among the very small minority of those who, as a member of the Church, accepts the guidelines as inspired, but as a Wikipedia editor, am also aware of the logistical acrobatics that never get properly resolved anytime this issue has bee brought up. So the stalemate on this issue remain the status quo. I wish it was as easy for us to find middle ground on this as it has been or me to see botth sids of this issue as meritorious and worth considering. What we need is a workable solution that takes everything (including and especially the guidelines and the understanding of those who will read articles about the Church in the future) into consideration and results in a solution with which everyone feels comfortable getting on board. What that is exactly, how long it will take to get Wikipedia to thwat point, and how long after that any applicable changes might reasonably be made is difficult to pin down. I don't know what the right solution is in this case. But if there was a compromise that could satisfy all involved, I think I could also get on board with that. Hope these additional thoughts are helpful.

• I'd just point out that the preferences of a religious group are not the only factor that goes into how Wikipedia decides to address that group; if the MOS instructs us to remove PBUH from Muhammad's name, or to use images of him in our articles--despite frequent and vociferous objection from Muslim readers--then it doesn't seem out of bounds for it to instruct us to use a less unwieldy term than "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints", their own rules notwithstanding. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• We don't bend to religious organizations' political desire to create a sense of victimhood. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Indy beetle, what makes you feel Latter-day Saints' desire not to be called "M*rmons" be political, let alone "creat[ing] a sense of victimhood"? Thanks. TheOtter (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment/question. Let's get down to the practicalities of the issue. Those who oppose the current guidelines—what are you suggesting we do? Would we havshe full name of the church in every usage? Even for disambiguation? If not, what shortened version of the name are you suggesting we use? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• To the question of practicalities, I can think of a few relevant situations: 1) disambiguations in article titles, 2) descriptors of things where we currently use the descriptor "LDS", 3) in article text that mentions the Church, using "LDS Church", but doesn't mention other religions/churches, and 4) in article text that mentions the Church and other religion/churches. For case #1, I think "(Latter-day Saint)" could work - I've seen this a couple times for Catholic-related disambiguations which use "(Catholic)". We use this already for people on occasion but I don't see why we have to be restricted to just people - the Catholic examples I've found are limited to that. For case #2, I think that most if not all could be replaced by "Latter-day Saint". There might be a few corner cases where this would be too awkward. For case #3, after the first statement of the full name of the church, subsequent references to the Church could be simply "the church" or "church" - something similar is done for the Catholic Church and other churches. Case #4 is the most tricky - I really don't have a suggestion yet.

I know WP:COMMONNAME gets brought up a lot in these discussions - but let's not forget that their is a caveat in that guidance regarding WP:NAMECHANGES that should apply in this situation. Yes, there might be similar guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)#Self-identification and WP:SPNC, that apply to similar situations but some editors may see these as not perfectly applicable. The best way, imo, to argue for a change, or argue against, is by showing that the requirements of WP:NAMECHANGES have been met or not met - (imo) anything else, whether it's arguments about terms being derogatory or the change bending to a religious groups preference, is irrelevant. --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Some good points here. One problem I see with your #1 is that "Latter-day Saint" (or "Latter-day Saints") won't work in all cases where the current disambiguator is "LDS Church". For instance, Temple (LDS Church) could not become Temple (Latter-day Saints), because that's too close to Temple (Latter Day Saints), and the distinction between "Latter-day Saints" and "Latter Day Saints" is probably too subtle. If you see what I mean. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of that - but I do see what you mean. We do already have to deal with the subtlety in other ways - we often have to correct good faith edits that change "Latter Day Saint" to "Latter-Day Saint" in article text, so I do see how this could be even more problematic. I've often wondered if the "Latter Day Saint"/"Latter-day Saint" distinction is a neologism that started out in or is unique to Wikipedia, or if it was in academia first. I'd almost suggest that "Latter Day Saint" should be changed to "Mormonism" but I know some, like the CoC, reject the term (but we shouldn't bend to the preferences of religious groups </half-sarcasm>), and because of the existing precedence on WP this is a deep rabbit hole and a huge can of worms to open. Maybe change "Latter Day Saint" to "Latter Day Saint movement"? I don't know - just throwing ideas around. I wonder if there is anything similar elsewhere on WP. --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Three years ago, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir was a famous public facing institution of this church, and they operated an expensive 21st century media campaign using "Mormon" over and over again to describe various celebrities and encouraging conversion. Well known politicians campaigned as proud Mormons. In 2018, the 93 year old church leader did an abrupt 180 degree linguistic flip flop and denounced the beloved moniker as all of a sudden an egregious example of hate speech. Wikipedia ought to ignore these verbal acrobatics other than reporting on them, and use the common terminology used by reliable, independent sources for decades. LDS Church is well established and neutral. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree we should follow reliable, independent sources, but I would also offer the correction that imo WP:NAMECHANGES applies here, and as such, we should "give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change," and less weight to the decades before the name change. That's consistent with that WP guidance. Arguing over interpretations of why and how the Church changed its stance is largely irrelevant and does not further any consensus building. --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Great point, FyzixFighter. While I disagree that reiterating a 2,000-year-old commandment is somehow a "180-degree linguistic flip-flop", that argument will probably never be settled and is ultimately irrelevant. Even if one believes that it was appropriate until 2018, it is absolutely, unequivocally not okay now.

• Wikipedia doesn't deadname companies like KFC.
• Wikipedia doesn't deadname organizations like the National Urban League.
• Wikipedia doesn't deadname churches like the Community of Christ.
• Wikipedia doesn't deadname religious converts like Muhammad Ali.
• Wikipedia doesn't deadname transgender celebrities like Caitlin Jenner.

So even if one believes that "M*rmons" and "LDS Church" were only recently deemed inappropriate, how does that justify us deadnaming Latter-day Saints or the church to which they belong? TheOtter (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Calling "Kentucky Fried Chicken" a deadname feels like it's trivializing the concept of a deadname; deadnaming isn't a rhetorical maneuver, it's a real issue that causes real people harm. More to the point, we do: the first words of KFC are: KFC (short for Kentucky Fried Chicken). If it were the other way around--if KFC changed its name to be "Kentucky Fried Chicken" and not KFC--we would still refer to it as "KFC", assuming that was a name still in common use in sources and the general public.

For another datapoint, consider Hewlett-Packard. The article uses "Hewlett-Packard" and HP interchangeably. The company split in 2015, to HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise, yet we still refer to the latter as HPE interchangeably with its full name throughout the article, despite the split and the fact that "HP" is actualy just the former's official name.

Ultimately, I feel this discussion has gone off the rails a bit. If you want to change this guideline, you need to give a viable alternative for what to change it to. I would oppose JPL's original assertion above, that The use of anything other than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is unacceptable; it's just unworkably clumsy. I get the ire towards the current guideline, and it's definitely not my assertion that the organization in question has no say in how they are referred to. But they also don't get the final say, and so if you want to establish change, you need to provide us with a workable compromise. JPL's is not it, and--unless I missed something--I haven't seen another one. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Writ_Keeper, my most sincere apologies if you felt like I was trivializing deadnames. I first learned of the concept, many years ago, through a friend who transitioned from male to female; and I now have several other transgender friends for whom using their current name is also quite important (and understandably so). So, I hope you’ll believe that trivializing their situation was definitely not my intention. My purpose in applying the term deadname to several different situations was merely to point out that the concept exists in many different areas of life, and that Wikipedia strives to respect the wishes of both people and organizations.

As for your request for a viable alternative, I believe that one has already been suggested: “the Church of Jesus Christ”. Obviously if there were some article that included both The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and some other organization called “the Church of Jesus Christ”, there could be some ambiguity in using this shortened form; but barring that situation, I fail to see how it would be problematic. Right now, the MOS calls for editors to use “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)” when the Church will be referenced again. We could just as easy put “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Church of Jesus Christ)”, and aside from using a few more characters, I don’t see any downside besides the possibility that someone might take offense. But by that argument, we couldn't use the phrase to describe any of the various Churches of Jesus Christ that have Wikipedia pages.

Thoughts? TheOtter (talk) 04:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I don't think you meant deliberate harm in the comparison. As for your proposal...honestly, I don't love it. Here's the thing: "The Church of Jesus Christ", at face value, is a very generic term--it could be fairly used to refer to any Christian denomination. That leads to two problems: ambiguity and authority. Ambiguity is obvious, and you've already pointed that problem out, but I think it's a significantly bigger problem than you're accounting for. After all, in any place where the context makes it clear we're referring to this organization (which basically amounts to places where this is the only religious organization discussed), well, we might as well just call it "the Church"; adding "of Jesus Christ" doesn't add any new information to the layperson. I take it by your use of the term that that is an acceptable reference (and if that's part of the compromise we ultimately come up with, then I think that's fine IMO). In any other place, where there could be possible confusion, "the Church of Jesus Christ" does not sufficiently distinguish it from other Christian sects, so I don't think it's useful terminology.

Secondly, there's the problem with (false) authority. Basically, all Christian sects would insist that they are the church of Jesus Christ, and I think most would argue that they are the one true church of Jesus Christ, and that all others are pretenders to the title. (Obviously the degree to which any one claims that all others are invalid varies from sect to sect and over time, but I think the point still stands.) If we refer to this church as the Church of Jesus Christ, someone reading that title at face value will see Wikipedia saying, in its own voice, that this one is the church of Jesus Christ. That is a level of authority that Wikipedia, which values a neutral POV, cannot grant. Like, if the Catholic Church decided that its new name was The Authentic Church, and to only use the word "Authentic", not "Catholic", to refer to it or its members, we would be rightly slow to use it, because we don't want to say in Wikipedia's voice that Catholicism is any more authentic than any other Christian denomination. That would definitely be a more extreme example, but I feel there's some analogy here. And honestly, the only reason that we can use the word "catholic" to refer to the Catholic Church--which in its dictionary definition of "universal" or "comprehensive" would probably fall into the same problem--is that hundreds if not thousands of years of consistent usage throughout the world has worn the nubs off of the word so much that, when people see the word "catholic" they are more likely to think it's referring to the Catholic Church and that there's a capitalization error, than they are to think of the dictionary definition of lowercase-C "catholic", which would be a distant second if it's thought of at all.

Now, in the future, if "The Church of Jesus Christ" becomes a widespread term of art to refer to the Church in secular/non Latter-day Saint society (as evidenced by widespread use in secular/non-Latter-day Saint reliable sources), then this could definitely be revisited, as a common understanding that the term is not to be taken at face value but rather as a symbolic title would take care of both of these problems, in the same way that it does for the Catholic Church. But I don't think we're there yet, and I don't think Wikipedia can fairly adopt it until we are. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: What I wrote here several months ago (21:54 UTC, 23 September 2020) may still be worth reviewing now. Rather than repeat myself, I'll ask people to go find my earlier comment (starting with "Full disclosure before I proceed") and give it as much, or as little, consideration as you see fit. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Rich. I totally agree with what you're saying. However, I will point out that President's Nelson's 2018 address didn't introduce anything new; it merely reiterated statements at least as old as the record of Christ's visit to the Nephites (so either a couple of centuries or a couple of millennia, depending on one's POV). Even President Nelson himself has been emphasizing this since at least 1990. And just as an aside, while I know my own contributions are inadmissible as original research, I can easily produce emails going as far back as 2002, in which I pointed out the same; and given enough time, could probably even find hard copies of a few from as early as 1991, when I joined the Church (but a few years before emails were easily downloaded to one's hard drive). TheOtter (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

References

TheOtter, it appears to me that the interested editors on this topic reached an impasse a long time ago, and that further arguing back and forth of the sort we've been seeing here is simply not going to achieve any consensus. A not-insignificant number of editors (including active, believing, practising members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) respectfully disagree with your understanding of how President Nelson's comments are supposed to be applied in the context of an encyclopedia that is intended to cover a broad historical reality that includes not only the present-day Church, but also the Church in older times (including the present dispensation but before D&C 115:4), as well as numerous schismatic groups — and how to deal with a wide readership, many of whom simply will not understand what is being referred to in an article that fails to make even a single use of deprecated terms such as "Mormon" or "LDS". It's gotten to the point where I think our endless running around in the same circles could properly be classified as disruptive editing (a big no-no on Wikipedia).

We should probably stop this pointless back-and-forth and try to engage established procedures to attempt dispute resolution. Before we do this, though, we should all be clear as to whether we are willing to accept constructive resolution efforts by outsiders who may not accept either The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or any of its schismatic offshoots as having any sort of exclusive divine imprimatur (and who may consider Russell M. Nelson to be no more authoritative than any other spiritual or non-spiritual leader). If I attempt to involve outside mediation here, do other people think there is any point? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Rich. I think there's definitely a point to engaging in dispute resolution. I can't say that if I find the results unpalatable that I'll never mention the subject again, but I definitely think that if we're at an impasse, then getting a third party involved is an awesome idea.

On that note, I'm not sure external validation of President Nelson's calling is particularly necessary to a productive discussion. I can avoid calling my Catholic friends "P*pists" or my Jewish friends "Y*ds" without accepting the Pope or some modern rabbi as authoritative. I think Latter-day Saints are simply requesting the same consideration. :-) TheOtter (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

"I can avoid calling my Catholic friends..." Oops! Certainly you meant to say, "my friends who are members of The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" instead of "my Catholic friends". ~Awilley (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The Nicene Creed actually says it's the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church." Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• No Akwilley misses the point of used name issues. The only complaint I have ever seen from Catholics is that they do not like being called "Roman Catholic", that they much prefer to be called Catholic. We should respect what an organization chooses to be called, and when it specifically deprecates a specific nickname to continue to insist on using that nickname makes no sense at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

If an organization has a style guide outlining their preference for how to refer to them, then as a community we should follow their guide, so long as it is not obscene or offensive or illegal. It seems we should have a very high bar or legal standard for doing anything different than the style guide. That seems the polite thing to do. Tridentata.A (talk) 01:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree, for the most part, but we also need to consider whether the recommendations / mandates in the organization's style guide will make our text confusing or unduly biased. For example, as far as the world (including Wikipedia) is concerned, the phrase "the Church of Jesus Christ" doesn't refer solely to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — many (possibly most) Christian churches consider themselves to be part of "the Church of Jesus Christ", and readers will be confused if an article's text uses this phrase as a generic term which we intend to refer specifically and exclusively to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And "the restored Church", or "the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ", would strongly imply that the Latter-day Saint faith claims are in fact true — we (Latter-day Saint Wikipedians) presumably believe this, of course, but Wikipedia's "Neutral Point of View" (WP:NPOV) policy forbids us to say such a thing in WP's own editorial voice. When writing Wikipedia articles (as opposed to Church policy or lesson publications), we need to use language that talks neutrally about the subject without making Wikipedia sound as if it is endorsing the Church or its beliefs or practices. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New editor needs guidance, edit check

001michael (talk · contribs) - I've left a link to the mos on their talk page. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC)