Talk:Liahona (magazine)

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


I think it's OK to have "(formerly Tambuli)" in the lead sentence in order to reveal right away why Tambuli redirects here. Then later on we can explain that the name was not Tambuli is some of the other languages. With such an explanation in the article, I don't think it's fair to say it's inclusion in the lead would be "misleading" in an English-language encyclopedia. Note also the template at the bottom which refers to "English-language" periodicals, which is really the overall focus here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Prior to 1999, the umbrella title for the magazine was the International Magazine, not Tambuli. It was published under various titles in various languages, including Tambuli. It is inaccurate to say that the Liahona was formerly Tambuli unless you want to include all the other titles under which it was also published. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heg24 (talkcontribs) 06:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Source? Right now the entire article is unsourced, so we have no way of determining what may be "more correct" to say. Until sources can be provided, I suggest we keep it as is. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

But even that's not fully accurate. The term "International Magazines" in this context refers to ALL international magazines produced by the Church, not just this one in particular, as the Church had several international magazines for different nationalities before they were merged under the "Tambuli" name. And Tambuli was used to refer to all of the so-called "international magazines" of the Church until "Liahona" came about in recent years. And Marvin Gardner happened at this time to be Assistant Managing Editor of ALL Church magazines, NOT just this one, so that's simply an irrelevant side issue. The so-called "source" you provided doesn't support very well the viewpoint you are trying to advance. Until you turn up with something a little more solid and verifiable, this change is once again reverted. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Jgstokes's analysis of this. At the end of the day, verifiability is more important than "accuracy" on WP for the simple reason that if something is not verifiable we have no guarantee of its accuracy. For this reason, the article should probably stay as-is on this issue until we can find a good source. I've been looking, but there's not much out there that I can find so far. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see Mr. Gardner's CV: It shows him as an editor of the International Magazine and the Liahona, not the Tambuli. Tambuli only ever referred to the English version of the magazine. The umbrella title was the International Magazine. After 1995 the umbrella title became the Liahona. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heg24 (talkcontribs) 01:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

For further information on the magazine, please see this article, published in the magazine: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heg24 (talkcontribs)

That really begs the question though — is this article better as an article about one particular English-language magazine, or is it about a range of magazines? The template suggests that we are dealing with a particular English-language magazine, in which case the "formerly Tambuli" statement is entirely reasonable and understandable. If this is about a range of magazines, the article obviously needs expanding to explain these details, but I don't think we can do so without some good third-party sources, which are apparently lacking. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The Liahona is the English edition of an international magazine published in many languages, including English, as I hope the article above showed. The Liahnoa is not strictly an "English-language magazine" and that is why "formerly Tambuli" is inaccurate. If you insist on Tambuli in the first line, I suggest that you add "formerly Tambuli in the English-language translation" for clarity and accuracy. As you can see from the above-cited article , the umbrella title of the magazine was the International Magazine. That how the article's author--the managing editor of the magazine--referred to it. The International Magazine was translated and published in many languages under several differant titles. It was, however, the same magazine with the same staff and same content, with the exception of the title, in all the languages. The fact that it was translated into different languages does not make it a "range of magazines," any more than translating Book of Mormon into many languages makes that a range of books. To insist that the statement be merely formerly Tambuli, ignores the fact that the magazine had several different titles in several different languages, and implies that title Tambuli applied to all the language editions. This may be why the above editor of this article said that this was too complicated for a parenthetical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heg24 (talkcontribs)

Yes, I understand that. But this all begs the question I stated above — is the article about the English-language magazine or a range of magazines of similar name. The template suggests it's about the English-language mag. Please stop making changes until some consensus can be reached on these issues. It may take a few days, or longer. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no range of magazines; the English-language magazine is the same as the Spanish, Chinese and French magazines. They are all the same magazine, and thus the article refers to all of them under the title "International Magazines." All the content, with the exception of the news pages, is identical in every language. It is put together and then translated. At one time, the magazine had different names in different languages, but it was still the same magazine. Just as Harry Potter and the Socerer's Stone and Harry Potter and the Philsopher's Stone is the same book, just published under different names in different countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That may be, but you'll be interested to know, as I was, that in sources referring to international magazines of the Church before the term "Liahona" was used for all languages, in about 80% of the sources, "Tambuli" was used, whereas in only about 20% of sources the term "International Magazine" was used, INCLUDING by this editor in question. It was used different ways at different times. But since the most popular term seems to be "Tambuli" then we should leave it at that until others have a chance to comment on this issue. Otherwise, edit wars will likely start, and these are always counterproductive. Until I'm convinced otherwise, and I haven't been yet, I will continue to assert the usage of "Tambuli" rather than "International Magazines" because of the greater number of times the former has been used in official Church references. And the title applied to the magazines by the editor himself is not necessarily indicative of what Church leaders referred to the international magazines as. In that instance, 90% of citations by Church leaders favored "Tambuli" and only 10% favored "International Magazines". For these and other reasons, I am in favor of leaving the "formerly Tambuli" wording as is until more input is obtained. And it's best to wait for further input anyways. The more only three of us comment on this issue, the more reluctant other editors will feel to jump in. So, let's have a consensus here, people. The statistics and citations favor "Tambuli", but what do you think? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The body of this article supports my position that "Tambuli" only referred to the English-language version of the magazine and contradicts the parenthetical as it currently reads. Thus, I propose the compromise position of "formerly Tambuli in the English-language version." To say formerly "Tambuli" ignores all the names used by the magazine in the other languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heg24 (talkcontribs) 05:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with that compromise for the time being until we can get some sources and/or other input. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The clarification "in the English language" is sufficient since we now have sourced proof of what was claimed. However, based on past experience, I cannot say how authoritative or accurate the Encyclopedia of Mormonism as as far as determining what actually was. It has not been endorsed or approved or advanced by Church leaders, and may merely be an attempt of a few to define the Church's position on and definition of things. However, since there's now a source, I have no concrete objection to the wording being altered, provided that the source you provided is listed in the article. It may also be helpful to refer readers to one of the appendexes (I believe it's "C"), which gives the names and timelines of different periodicals. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 03:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)