Talk:Laie Hawaii Temple/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I moved this page back to "Laie Hawaii Temple" from "Lā'ie Hawai'i Temple" because that is how LDS spells it and how the sign at the Laie Hawaii Temple itself spells it. What the Hawaiian government prefers applies only to geographical placenames, not private institutions. --Jiang 01:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This happened again, and I've moved it back again. It's fairly clear the LDS Church does not use the diacritic marks in referring to the structure. Snocrates 01:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course, I stupidly moved it to the wrong place, including the comma that the previous mover had included. I'll request the move to the proper place. Snocrates 01:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

LDS Church in Hawaii section

A separate article has been created for history of the LDS Church in Hawaii, since it didn't really belong here in an article about a structure. This article should reference The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Hawaii but there is no need to reproduce some or all of its material here. Any additional material on the history of the LDS Church in Hawaii should be added to the more specific article, not here. Please don't tell me other architectural pages do this--besides being a lame WP:WAX argument, these examples may not be analogous as they may not have more specific historical pages similar to the one referenced above. This article is about a structure, not about the history of the LDS Church in Hawaii. Snocrates 21:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

All structures have a history, and many structure-related articles have a history section. I refer you to articles like Salt_Lake_Tabernacle#History and Taj_Mahal#History. The history of the LDS Church in Hawaii is directly related to this structure. —Viriditas | Talk 21:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Of course they do. The history of the structure should be included. A more general history of the LDS Church in Hawaii is not the history of the structure, and the distinction should be made when deciding what material to include here. Salt_Lake_Tabernacle#History does not include a general history of the Mormon presence in Utah Territory, for example. Snocrates 22:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The history of the LDS Church in Hawaii is directly related to this structure, and the section you removed provides the context of the building of this temple. The temple did not just appear one day out of the blue. The construction of the temple occurred because of a scandal that occurred on Lanai, and the resulting failure to create a community on that island. The missionaries moved to Laie and created this Temple due to that incident. This is essential historical information that is directly relevant to the existence of this Temple. I can't imagine why you would want to keep this information out of the article, but I will ask you again to discuss your deletions before acting unilaterally again. —Viriditas | Talk 22:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The level of detail you insist on adding is simply not necessary when a specialty article exists. That's why other articles exist. Refer to the other article, but there is no need for wholesale duplication. If you don't agree, propose a merge for the two articles. Since the history of the LDS Church in Hawaii is more than just a build-up to contructing this structure, it seems silly to want them to be merged. This is an article about a structure, not about the presence of the church in Hawaii. Incidentally, there is also a specialty article about the scandal to which you refer: Walter M. Gibson. No need to reproduce that information here either. Snocrates 22:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Please familiarize yourself with summary style and how it works in relation to split articles. I have never requested the merger of anything. This "level of detail" is essential, historical background for the creation of this structure and can be found in many historical reference works on the subject. I will be adding this information back into the article with sources. —Viriditas | Talk 22:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Please stop telling me to "familiarize" myself with X. I'm very familiar with everything you have brought up, thank you, and perhaps you could cease assuming that everyone interprets everything in the same way you do. I will remove any information that is extraneous to the history of this structure. Snocrates 22:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
If that were any way true, you would have not engaged in unilateral deletion of essential history related to the creation of this Temple. —Viriditas | Talk 22:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Your POV interpretation of my action and the nature of the content of what was deleted. See comment above and WP:GOODFAITH, which I'm sure you're aware of. Snocrates 22:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Your action was to unilaterally delete encyclopedic content directly related to the origin of tbe Temple in question without discussion. —Viriditas | Talk 23:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I came across this based on Viriditas' posting here. Snocrates has made quite a few edits to this in the past couple days. I didn't fine-tooth comb them all, but if it is simply a question of whether the section listed in this revision, I'd tend to agree that it doesn't belong in the structure's article. Not because history doesn't belong in structures' articles, but because it's mostly off-topic and doesn't seem to relate to the building. Into The Fray T/C 22:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The history section is directly related to the formation of this particular Temple, although the person who wrote it and failed to source it didn't make them clear. As I am familiar with the History of Hawaii, I have the necessary references at my disposal. The origin, formation, and eventual settlement of Laie in relation to the construction of this Temple is not "off-topic" - it is essential historical information that allows the reader to understand why the Temple was built in Laie and who it was that built it. If it wasn't for the failure of the LDS missionaries on the island of Lanai, this Temple would probably have never been built in Laie. I'm afraid that some editors have forgotten that this is an encyclopedia. —Viriditas | Talk 23:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
That's as may be, and I don't really dispute it. But the way that it was written is as a history of LDS in Hawaii and it lacked context to explain how that was germane to the article at hand, which is my only concern. The article is about the building, not the history of LDS in Hawaii. I'm not really sure if you're implying backhandedly that I've forgotten this was an encyclopedia, but I really haven't. It just reads off-topic. Sorry if you don't agree, but we're all entitled to our opinions, right? Into The Fray T/C 23:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Informed opinions are important. I hope you'll stick around as I add a new history section back into this article. —Viriditas | Talk 04:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
My original "deletion" of this material was more of a branch-off creation of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Hawaii. I saw that someone wanted this information included in WP, but because it didn't quite fit, I thought it could be used to create a stub historical article. The information is not being deleted or obliterated, it's just being moved somewhere more appropriate where people will be able to find it easier. The information you are suggesting (Viriditas) to add would be an extremely valuable addition to the historical article. Snocrates 00:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you could have used the talk page to discuss your changes before deleting relevant content without discussion. Frankly, I do not "want" anything, other than to stop unwarranted deletion of historically-important material. I have all the sources I need for a new history section, and I am in the process of adding it to this article. If you have a problem with this sourced material, then please remember to use the talk page and not engage in edit wars. —Viriditas | Talk 04:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I had commented here and explained my edits and you continued to engage in reverting my edits without commenting here. Pot, kettle, black. Furthermore, I had included an edit summary which clearly stated the information was being moved to a new stub article, which perhaps you failed to see or understand. Snocrates 20:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. Your "discussion" consisted of using an edit summary from 21:24, 23 October 2007 - 21:33, 24 October 2007. That's not appropriate. After 24 hours without discussion on the talk page, you finally commented here at 21:33, 24 October 2007. I didn't see your comment, and I reverted your changes once more four minutes later. I then posted a query on your talk page at 21:38. I then proceeded to the talk page, saw your comment, and replied here at 21:38. You then took the opportunity to remove my comment from your talk page one minute later at 21:39 with the rude edit summary, "already placed discussion on talk page, dimwit". There was no continuing reverts from me after discussion was initiated between the two of us on the talk page. —Viriditas | Talk 01:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

People who edit my talk page after being asked not to by the last phrase in the header there are bound to get a snarky comment. :) Looks like there's a lot of pot calling kettle going on in general and a lot of people assuming that their methods are invariably the right way to go about things and telling others to assume good faith while not doing so themselves. I suggest we stop. Incidentally, the history section looks good to me — this is very different information than what I originally removed (i.e., you have made it temple-centric, which is what was needed). Snocrates 01:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you please show me where I edited your talk page after being asked not to do so? —Viriditas | Talk 01:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Credibility of source

I noticed a tag has been added to verify the following source:

  • Satterfield, Rick (2007), "Laie Hawaii Temple", Temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, LDS Church Temples, retrieved 2007-10-24 

I'm not sure if there was a specific concern about the material there or if it was more of a general inquiry.

In general, I have found that particular website to be relatively reliable when I have consulted it regarding other LDS Church temples. Occasionally I have found dates to be wrong by one or two days, but that has been the exception more than the rule. I don't think I've encountered any other problems with it, apart from it failing to list its own sources. Snocrates 01:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Has this source been discussed, mentioned, or written about in other secondary sources? Is the source an expert on the Church; has the source published articles, books, or other material about the Church? —Viriditas | Talk 01:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I removed the tag, but I'm still concerned about the lack of scholarly sources. —Viriditas | Talk 07:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I was OK with the tag, I was just curious as to the exact concern. I agree that better sources are needed. Snocrates 01:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I've changed some info around using the LDS booklet on the Mormon Temple from 1964. I'm sure there is a newer version, and I'm going to make some inquiries among my friends who belong to the church. I think what needs to happen is that I actually have to travel to Laie and get the information myself. I'm assuming that they sell books to tourists. —Viriditas | Talk 21:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
To anyone who is the slightest bit interested in this subject, it turns out that all of the good sources are in the Brigham Young University Hawaii library. I thought I would pass that along if anyone is able to get access to their stacks. —Viriditas | Talk 03:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Requesting move back to where article has long been. Someone moved the page to include diacritic marks and a comma between city and state, which are not included in the name of the building, and then I stupidly moved it back — eliminating the diacritic marks but including the comma — and am now unable to move it to the correct place. Snocrates 01:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Support. I left a message on User_talk:Carter#Page_moves asking the user to discuss any future moves. Since this is a non-controversial page restore of an erroneous page move, you can ask an admin to just delete the redirect so you can move it back. —Viriditas | Talk 01:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Sorry for my stupidity. Snocrates 02:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
No, thanks for catching this error. I completely missed it. Unfortunately, when you edited the redirect /after/ the move, this made your subsequent move over redirect impossible. I've made that mistake many times. —Viriditas | Talk 02:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Move complete - Even though I had indicated to move the talk page with the article page - when the delete had to be done first, it looks like it only allows the one move/delete and since the talk page also had to be deleted to make room for the move - it didn't happen - one of those things I'll remember for next time ;) --Trödel 14:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

More cleanup - I would think that we should Delete the Laie, Hawaii Temple pages rather than leaving them as redirects. Please let me know if you disagree or I'll delete them soon --Trödel 14:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Redirect serves no purpose. —Viriditas | Talk 01:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Christianity in Hawaii

I edited the page to remove it from the Christianity in Hawaii category, and the edit was reverted. Under the Places of worship article, LDS churches were removed from the Christianity sublist and placed in the main list. Furthermore, there is an article comparing and contrasting Mormonism and Christianity. While LDS styles itself as a Christian group, most Christians do not believe LDS is a Christian group. Does not including LDS temples in Christianity categories violate NPOV as it puts forth a point of view that the LDS church wants to advance? JackWolfgang2 (talk) 03:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You didn't provide a reason for removing the category, so I reverted your edit. Also, I reverted your edit on the Madrid Spain Temple article as well for the same reason.
It isn't Wikipedia's place to decide whether the LDS church is a form of Christianity or not. Just saying "most Christians do not believe LDS is a Christian group" doesn't make it true. That is a subjective statement, which violates NPOV as well. Gh5046 (talk) 04:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


Saw your PR request and thought I'd offer a few suggestions here:

  • Always link complete dates; e.g., January 1, 2008
  • I don't think this paragraph is unique to this article and isn't really needed—perhaps just a glancing mention: "Unlike a Latter-day Saint chapel or meetinghouse where anyone of any religion may enter, temples are considered sacred, holy places where the highest sacraments of the Church are performed. Only Church members in good standing are allowed to enter a temple, and they are not used for regular Sunday worship. Temples are considered "houses of the Lord" where Church members participate in sacred ceremonies such as baptism and eternal marriage, a ritual where couples and families are "sealed" for eternity.[10] Because of these strict guidelines, non-Mormons are not allowed inside temples, but public tours of the grounds outside are open to the public.[2]"
  • The EL was already in the infobox, so I removed it.

Other than these things, you should nominate for GA already :) --Eustress (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Eustress. Did you get a chance to read through the peer review? Ruhrfisch proposed the creation of the paragraph in question due to confusion from casual observers, and while I agree with you in that this difference isn't unique to this article (noting that it is found in Temple (Latter Day Saints)), after thinking about Ruhrfisch's comments for seven days, I came to the conclusion that he was right. Non-Mormons (like myself) do wonder why they can't visit the temple, and why the temple is treated differently than other places of LDS worship. Perhaps it doesn't belong in the history section, but I think Ruhrfisch's proposal has merit. If you think it can be improved for accuracy, please do so. Right now, I'm going to try and focus on improving the lead section per WP:LEAD. I submitted the article for GA on July 12th, and ThinkBlue placed a review-in-progress notice on July 13. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The reason I haven't reviewed the article is because the PR is still going. After its archived, I'll review the article. Unless, the nominator would like for the GA review now. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
No, the lead needs to be rewritten. Thanks, though. :) Viriditas (talk) 01:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I can wait. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm shooting for the next 24 hours. Viriditas (talk) 07:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Understood, but GA criterion 3b states that "it [must stay] focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail." I think a quick remark like "Because the temple is not open to the general public—certain requirements needing to be met before entering—..." would be sufficient, the link providing a way for readers to learn about the requirements through its own article, without going off on a tangent that is already covered in another article. Hope this helps. --Eustress (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
If I hadn't looked into the issue, I would automatically agree with you, but having spent some time resarching the topic, I think it is necessary detail that explains who is able to visit the temple and why. This is basic information that an average reader may be looking for, as Ruhrfisch has argued. I've also seen it in other sources directly related to this temple. Like I said, make the changes that you want, and we'll go from there. Viriditas (talk)
If Eustress isn't going to make any significant changes, then I'll proceed to finishing up this article tonight and ask that the reviewer make their review 24 hours from this timestamp (if they aren't busy). Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 05:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I have no changes to make; I already shared my suggested changes and you disagreed. --Eustress (talk) 12:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I added the material in question at the suggestion of a peer reviewer. If you disagree, why not add your comments directly to the peer review? I think this entire discussion should be moved to that page to preserve the context. I am not against you making changes to this article, Eustress. But, I think you should at least address the reviewer who proposed them in the first place. Viriditas (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Are we getting into a dispute here? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The article is currently stable and I don't see any content dispute. A peer reviewer made a request for a change and I implemented it. Eustress chose to avoid the peer review and comment here instead, saying he was unhappy with the change. In response, I asked him to make the change he desired and to address the reviewer in the peer review. And that's where we stand. Viriditas (talk) 11:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I see. Is everything in order so I can give the article its GA review? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Please go ahead and review the article. If you find any problems, I'll have some free time in the next two days to fix them and or improve the article. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 12:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Alright, give me a couple of minutes, and you'll have yourself the GA review. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Beaux-Arts architecture

Found a new source today that descibes the Temple as a blend of Beaux-Arts and Prairie style. For some reason, the style never found its way into the lead, and I think it should. I'll try and track down the source. Viriditas (talk) 07:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


Recently, I came across a minor edit war. The point at dispute was whether this temple is called Lāʻie or Laie. To satisfy my self, I looked on this article and found that the town is rendered Lāʻie and the temple Laie, so I added a section the effect that there really is a difference. I was promptly reverted with a request for a cite. A cite for the temple was easy to come by, but not for the town. When I looked on the article for the town, I discovered that the town is also called Laie. In order to reduce confusion, I changed the orthography in this article to Laie. Either the town is Lāʻie in which case, a cite is needed to justify the difference or it is Laie in which case we will leave cites to the article on the town. Or else there is a third option that needs explaining. GlassWax (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not following you. Where did you come across this "edit war" and what does it have to do with this article? Viriditas (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Fine we will try a different approach. This article contravenes WP:UE, which provides that "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage." This article is not using the English name and in addition is contradicting the article on the town. I am happy to discuss why this article should be different, but please do not label my edits as disruptive when they simply contradict your opinion. GlassWax (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I think you are citing the wrong policy/guideline. This article is appropriately titled. Viriditas (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Laie Hawaii Temple is the correct title for this article, I agree. Laie, Hawaii is the correct title for the town, I agree. This article (Laie Hawaii Temple) keeps referring to Laie as Lāʻie. This is what is wrong. GlassWax (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, we are finally on the same page. In your own words, explain what is "wrong" with using diacritics. The word appears on page 190 of the Hawaiian Dictionary[1] and WikiProject Hawaii found consensus to use diacritics in the content of articles back in 2008.[2] Viriditas (talk) 01:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Temple Presidents

Why is this uncited laundry list of mostly non-notable people deemed of value to this article? Temple presidents are no more notable for their service in this role than mission presidents, or stake presidents. -- (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The list was added by Canoestanley (talk · contribs) whose edits appear to have been upheld by members of the LDS project. You may want to contact them over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement. The source used can be found here. I don't see a problem with the section at this time. Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
An invitation has been extended at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement#Are temple presidents notable. -- (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Not notable I don't think temple presidents are notable as temple presidents. It's similar to a high school principal. They may be listed on the given school's page while they are principal, but once they're done, they're removed. They have no real notability on their own and being a principal doesn't make them notable by itself. While many temple presidents have become notable, it's not because of being a temple president that they are notable; it's for later/earlier church service or other events (John H. Groberg is an example of someone who was already notable prior to being called as temple president) that give them that notability. Outside of the announcement when a temple president is called, almost nothing is mentioned about him or the matron while they are serving. Even within a temple district a temple president is largely unknown by the local church membership. A list of former temple presidents is not appropriate. Former presidents who are actually notable should be mentioned, but not every temple president, anymore than it would be appropriate to list every principal of a high school. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
The only instance where most of the temple presidents are notable is the Salt Lake Temple, where 19 of 25 are notable enough to currently have articles. I would agree that the list of temple presidents on that page makes sense, but not on the rest of temple articles. -- (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I would make a separate list article for the Salt Lake Temple presidents and have a summary paragraph in the temple article, similar to a notable alumni list/paragraph for a school article. The thing for everyone to remember is the article's main topic is the specific temple. It doesn't really help the reader to understand the temple any better by knowing that John Doe was temple president in 1934, ya know? --JonRidinger (talk) 00:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
That sounds even better. -- (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I replied on the project page, but I agree with JonRidinger's argument here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep the list - First of all, the criteria is pretty strict for who gets on the list, and it is a position of local significance to be selected for this position.... sort of like being a mayor of a small town or to become something like a Catholic Bishop. Is the information verifiable? Does it emphasize something too much like WP:UNDUE implies? Besides WP:IDONTLIKEIT I don't see any rationale being presented here to suggest why this list needs to be removed. In fact, I don't even understand the principal argument being presented above, other than compiling such a list of former principals would likely be original research for many schools. I think notability is being misused as an argument here other than to possibly remove redlinks to those who will likely not get articles written about them. A reliable source for the information in the list would be very useful, and a lack of a source certainly would be reason to cull this section. Somehow I don't think that is a problem with the information though. As for what use knowing who was running the temple in 1934... perhaps it would be meaningful to somebody using Wikipedia as a reference. It might be the person who performed their marriage (fairly common for a temple president I might add)... sort of like knowing who the mayor or a judge was of a town. This is a part of the history of the temple, in spite of the fact that not much is actually written about what each temple president did during their tenure in that position. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The rationale has to do with WP:UNDUE and also WP:NOTDIR, but WP:N most of all. Having done many city and town articles, very few have lists of former mayors for the very same reason: the vast majority are not notable and their service as mayor does not give them notability. Only in very large cities do you see mayors become notable for being mayors, and that's more because of the high notability of a given city than anything else. Those mayors or other city leaders that are notable will be mentioned in the given article's "notable people" list if there isn't a separate list of mayors (which I have only seen for large cities). Most city articles, like high schools, mention only the current mayor or equivalent city leader. Lists of former principals would not be WP:OR and would be on the same level as a list of former temple presidents in that they both most likely come from primary sources and not secondary sources.
The point of lists is generally to connect an article to other relevant articles that otherwise wouldn't be connected, not provide exhaustive lists and excessive details. The vast majority of temple presidents are not notable and never will be. Remember, this is for a worldwide audience, not an LDS audience. Wikipedia articles aren't detailed history articles. If someone is researching the finer details like that, there will likely be other places he or she can search (and will be searching) for that kind of information. There is no limit or definition to what someone might find "meaningful information", but there is a general definition of what is encyclopedic and notable. Like I said, even in the case of the Salt Lake Temple, which has had quite a few notable temple presidents, a list within the article would be appropriate in the article's early stages of development, but a summary paragraph would be preferred, especially if it gets to FA status. Remember, as WP:N explains, just because something is verifiable doesn't mean it needs to or should be in a given article. Perhaps some of the temple articles need a "Notable people" section instead of a list of presidents. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
As a compromise, a "notable people involved in service with this temple" could be reasonable, including temple presidents, matrons, and assistants/counselors or even people who have been called as "temple workers"... subject to verifiability of course. I still don't buy your argument though in terms of what is or is not "encyclopedic" is a very slippery and subjective criteria that means very different things to different people.
Lists of names, for good or ill, are a part of Wikipedia and here to stay and numerous examples can be found, including putting such lists into an article. You suggest that the point of a list is to connect articles that otherwise wouldn't be connected, as if such a list was simply another way to implement categories. I suggest it is more than that, where a list is a way to give context and meaning to related pieces of information in a logical format... something this particular list of temple presidents does very well and a category of Category:Temple Presidents of Laie Hawaii Temple really couldn't accomplish. I am suggesting in particular those who are running the temple are notable... within the context of this article even if they don't deserve an independent article unto themselves.
Notability is also one of those items that is very ill defined, other than simply trying to find sufficient information about the topic at hand (hence the typical requirement of at least 2-3 independent reliable sources in most AfD discussions to establish notability). Note particularly what the guidelines themselves suggest about content within the article, as notability guidelines are not an issue related to content within an article itself. Nobody is disputing that most of these temple presidents don't even deserve a redlink. The question is if this kind of content is appropriate and overweighing the rest of the article. I suggest that it is appropriate and that it doesn't overburden the rest of this article in particular. More context could certainly be applied to the role that a temple president plays in the day to day operations of a temple and what these particular leaders may have done both within the communities they served as well as the impact they have had upon the temple itself. Much more could be done with this article which involves even those who historically were in charge of this building. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)