Talk:Endowment (Mormonism)

From Talk:Endowment (Mormonism)/Comments

The following was origionally posted to Talk:Endowment (Latter Day Saints)/Comments, then moved to Talk:Endowment (Mormonism)/Comments, but it really belongs on this talk page, so moved it here. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

From you are taking something others consider sacred and parading it without the permission of the members of the religion. That is wrong.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.35.254.5 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 2 July 2008

Respectful Dialogue (re: alienburrito)

I have noticed a highly disrespectful tone towards LDS contributors here coming from contributors. I have made some polite comments to this above but alienburrito has not replied or corrected any of his inflammatory statements. Reliable contributors maintain neutral POV, please remember this.

A little civility, please.

99.199.147.225 (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy

I have made no inflammatory, disrespectful or uncivil comments on this page.—Kww(talk) 21:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Kww, I have yet to receive a response to my query of your discussion under the heading 'to 12.159.66.24.' which seemed to reveal a non-religious bias. Will gladly accept clarification.207.216.63.118 (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy

Since Kww's last comments in that section are over two years old now, I suggest we move on. I'm sure Kww has seen your objection, but there's no need to try to wrench an apology out of someone when the incident is long in the past. Bringing it up now neither helps this article nor the encyclopedia or working atmosphere in general. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Kww has responded here, and I am not trying to "wrench" apologies, I am merely proposing we improve the tone and correct biases. Clearly alienburrito's postings are inappropriate, as are any which reflect bias or a non-neutral POV. 207.216.63.118 (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy

Yeah, well, it was two years ago. Time to move on, I think. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed all previous discussion items have been deleted. Is the contributor responsible in agreement with the anti-Mormon tone and as a result acting taking efforts to remove inflammatory history by starting fresh? Or is this merely an archiving function of WP? The only item I would like to see reposted is that addressing breach of copyright. I propose that until copyright legality is verified by a senior WP editor we remove details of the "possible" text of the endowment session. Again, though the LDS Church has not filed copyright suits does not communicate legal right to publish. As is the common understanding, 'If in doubt, leave it out.' 207.216.63.118 (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy

Hello, no the older edits/sections/conversations were only archived and can be found by clicking on Archive 1 in the box at the top right of the page. I am LDS and do not support blatant misinformation or unsupported POV. However, as a rather long-time editor I also do not reject edits that are supported by reputable sources. I use to spend countless hours on Wikipedia, but after so many years I now do not have the time to devote to the process. I do believe the majority of the LDS related articles can be improved, but I have long since given up being the one to tackle it. I do what I can and leave the rest alone.

As far as the copyright issue goes, I am ambivalent. If you choose, you may copy back section or those edits you think are important. Should you do so, I would do a WP:RfC to bring in a wider range of editors to comment on your position. Be thoughtful in your presentation and understand that this article has be relatively stable for some time. I do not support violating copyright law on Wikipedia. --^StormRider 03:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the post StormRider. I understand what you mean when you talk about giving up, I have found the group dynamics of WP quite overwhelming and tantamount to a brick wall protecting the initial material regardless of accuracy, sensitivity, or relevance. My concern about the posting on WP of the claimed temple ceremony is that it breaks WP guidelines for copyright. The claim may be made that the reference is from reputable sources. That does not make the posting of that information legal or ethical. As one website (knowledgerush.com)states accurately, "Although these ceremonies may be found on the Internet, they are not considered to be in the public domain, and are protected by copyright laws." Wikipedia has not likely been granted approval by the LDS Church to post this text, and the text is likely held as the intellectual property of the LDS Church. So until anyone can present evidence that WP is authorized or legally entitled to display the text of the ceremony, this article is breaking WP guidelines. As WP states, "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." Here is my question, who is to delete that? Is it our collective duty, or are there senior editors we appeal to?207.216.63.118 (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Canadiandy

I am not familiar with knowledgerush.com, but if it is a reliable site, I would recommend that you begin a new section, summarize your propose using as many references as possible and then post it as an RfC. Writing it as recommendation to change the article will allow the community to vote on it. Wikipedia does not easily ignore copyright law when brought before the community. If you are interested, then go for it. If you don't, I promise this article will not change itself. --^StormRider 22:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The copyright issue has been discussed a number of times, if I remember correctly. My knowledge of copyright law confirms what others have said before: even if the ceremony is protected by copyright law (debatable, but it probably is), what is currently in the WP article is almost surely OK because of the "fair use" exceptions in copyright law. We are not reproducing large portions verbatim, so there is no infringement issue. Linking to a website that contains the complete text might be a different issue, but as for the actual text of the WP article, it is quite unlikely that there is any copyright issues as it stands right now. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think that the copyright angle is a fruitful one to pursue in objecting to this article. Under the fair use exception, you can discuss copyrighted works and even quote relevant passages in a Wikipedia article. If you couldn't, then you wouldn't be able to have articles like Catch-22 and Twilight (novel). Moreover, the ceremony's copyright status is a complicated issue. The current ceremony is a minor variation of the pre-1990 ceremony, which is old enough (older than 1/1/1978) that it has probably lost its copyright protection because the LDS Church didn't publish it prior to 2003. So likely, the only parts that still have copyright protection are the 1990 changes. As to whether it's a problem linking to sites that reproduce the entire post-1990 ceremony, that's still a complicated issue. Depending on the circumstances, there might still be a fair use argument protecting those publications of the post-1990 ceremony. I'm not saying these publishers would necessarily win in court, but they might. It's an open legal question that the LDS Church will probably never test. Obviously, the church would never risk having general authorities called to the stand in open court to be asked detailed questions about the ceremony including the 1990 changes. COGDEN 18:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

So am I to assume the Wikipedia Guidelines are merely nice ideas that we abide by if we feel like it? I still completely disagree with the assumption that the ceremony is fair use just because the Church is unlikely to pursue action. Just because the Church does not pursue charges against the occasional vandal of one of their buildings (based on cost of pursuing legal recourse) does not mean vandalism against LDS churches is legal. In your argument I notice you are frequently using words like, "Likely," and "depending," and "might," and "probably." My point is that Wikipedia seems to expect the legal use of material is clear, not assumed. I think the phrase is, "If in doubt, leave it out." Canadiandy1 (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

That's a mischaracterization of what has been said. It's not fair use because the LDS Church is unlikely to pursue action. The right to fair use exists, regardless of the copyright status and regardless of whether or not anyone pursues action. That's the point—we don't need to worry about any of the other copyright issues because we're covered here by fair use. I believe COGDEN has set out some of the underlying issues for interests' sake, but at the end of the day fair use is the answer to this question. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Right. For purposes of how it might be appropriately used on Wikipedia, the text is clearly fair use. The only situation where it becomes at least an arguable copyright infringement is if someone were to just post some large indiscriminate swath of the post-1990 ceremony. But doing that would be impermissible for other policy reasons apart from copyright, including WP:INDISCRIMINATE. COGDEN 05:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

What's your opinion on the WP article linking to websites that reproduce the text of the ceremony? I'm not clear on what WP policy is with regards to that (or the law, for that matter). Does the Utah Lighthouse Ministry case have relevance to that? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

well franly soemtimes the facts are inflamatory to certain people. I've come to accept that. Over all though, the current article is pretty good. Actually, my conflict as not been here, except for disagreemnts about the copyright status of the text. COgden is right - the ceremony prior to 1990 is definatly very old, predating the bern convention of 78, when the US dropped their requirement to file with the Copyright office for protection, so its pretty clear that pre-1990 versions are not protected. Youy can fully expect though, that there will be people who will stirr things up regarding the copyright issue regardless of the facts. Alienburrito (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me add, stormrider and I have butted heads on the entry on the LDS belief on "deification" or Eternal progression. Certain details of the teaching stormrider insists, accurately, aren't emphasized like they were 100 years ago, but ARE still taught. It appears stormrider does not want such teachings mentioned here because they are not emphasized today the same way they were 100 years ago.... Indeed, they are teachings which catch people by surprise when they learn them, and the LDS church does often avoid talking about them with even members till they feel the members are ready. And yes, there are publically avaialable official references at the lds church website to these particular teachings. The problem stormrider and i seem to have had is that, I cited several official church sources, yet dispite the fact this is a reference site, not a site for necesarily following any one persons aproach to teaching certain subjects, stormrider still felt the material was inappropriate. I mean guys this is a reference site, where facts are posted.... Alienburrito (talk) 01:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Church Name

Whoever decided to put the hyphen in all of the links, please don't do that, as it messes them up. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylpickleh8 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced "Initiatory" Removal

Good_Olfactory: 03:50, October 10, 2010 "removal might be extreme when references exist, the section merely remains unfootnoted."

I cordially remind you of our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the no original research policy. If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources yourself that support such material, and cite them. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page.

The material I deleted and User:Good_Olfactory restored is either a) unreferenced material or b) original research, by definition. Both of these are unacceptable for Wikipedia articles. Since you restored the material, "the burden of evidence lies with [you]".

If no reliable third-party source(s) are found to provide context for and proof of the verity of this information, it should stay deleted.

Remember what Jimmy Wales has said: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." (See above footnote link) —Preceding unsigned comment added by White whirlwind (talk • contribs) 08:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not a case of "I heard it somewhere". Have you looked through any of the references on the page, or the external links? The material you deleted is available in several of the listed sources. I've added one of them for the time being. This is more an instance where someone just hasn't bothered to provide detailed footnotes yet for the section. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not they're "available in several of the listed sources" is completely immaterial - that sort of blanket, half-baked, lazy referencing is death in the academic world and doesn't cut it on Wikipedia, either. I do mostly translations on here and I see it all the time. Please add in references as soon as possible. Thanks.  White Whirlwind  咨  10:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's immaterial. You may see it that way, but it's an extreme view, so I suggest you refrain from deleting mass sections of articles unless you are sure after consulting the sources that the section has no basis in any of the listed references. Otherwise, an "unreferenced" tag or a "please add footnotes" tag is far more preferable and is standard practice in WP. The section you quoted says "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations". Since there is no risk of the information damaging anyone's reputation or any organization's reputation, removal is probably not warranted here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

4 months later - I'm glad to see that some citations have been added to the text I deleted and Good Ol'factory restored. However, their addition has been largely misleading since most of them are incomplete. For example, every single citation in the Initiatory section of the article are simply flat references to "Buerger, (1994)". Wikipedia says that page numbers should be used "where appropriate", which in scholarly and encyclopedic works means ALWAYS, except when they do not exist (as in an online article) or when one is mentioning some specific book as a topic itself and needs to include its information (like the WP citation policy says: "Page numbers are not required for a reference to the book as a whole.").

Why all the fuss then? Failing to include page numbers in citations is a form of plagiarism. Take, for example, an editor who adds this to the initiatory section:

"Early versions of the Nauvoo and St. George endowments included a more lengthy explanation of the garment's history, including the story of Adam's garment passing down to Noah and Abraham.", with a citation to "Buerger, (1994)".

That looks completely in harmony with the rest of the section, including the citation, but at the end of the day it's also completely false. Would any real editor/writer expect a reader to check the whole Buerger book? It's lazy and disingenuous scholarship and would earn any PhD/Master's candidate or student at any university/junior college an admonition to fix it or face the plagiarism music. As WP's policy states, the burden to properly cite lies with those who add or restore the information, not with reviewers and later editors. We must continue to flag material that cannot be easily referenced by the community for deletion after a legitimate period of time has passed and nothing has been done. I hope someone fixes these citations soon, otherwise we'll be deleting again.  White Whirlwind  咨  17:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it's plagarism, but one way to do it would be to put a {{cn}} tag next to the questionable references. It can then be removed once some time has passed. {{verify source}} would be more accurate, actually. tedder (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

{{verify source}} says: "If [the information in question] is not doubtful, use for unsourced quotations, or ^{[citation needed]} to request a citation to make the article complete." Whether or not the material is actually in "Buerger, (1994)." doesn't seem doubtful - it just needs proper citations - so I don't think we need that tag. {{More footnotes}} (which specifically references "precise citations") seems most appropriate here.  White Whirlwind  咨  18:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Afd?

This article was redlinked in the Afd logs on 30th October. It seems to have been nominated by an IP, so I can't fix it and ask for the deletion reasons later. I'm removing the discussion page from the logs, so if anyone does want this to be discussed for deletion you'll need to renominate it. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Endowment (Latter Day Saints) vs Talk:Endowment (Mormonism)

Both Endowment (Latter Day Saints) and Endowment (Mormonism) exist as separate & distinct articles, so each should have their own individual talk page too. The redirect from Talk:Endowment (Latter Day Saints) to Talk:Endowment (Mormonism) was a non-standard kluge. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)