Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Disputed edit Jan 24

@Jgstokes @Glman I noticed that you two have been deleting and restoring the same passage of text over the past few days. Let's talk it out here rather than continue to edit war. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 02:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. My biggest issue is the removal of sourced and relevant content. If it were unsourced and irrelevant, the removal would have been appropriate. But it is sourced, relevant, and accurate. That was the reason for my actions in this case. The text in question has been in the article for a while, which is why restoring it to the status quo was necessary. Thanks again. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 02:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jgstokes The content I removed has just been added. I did not remove old sourced content. Rather, I reverted a change that added new and removed old content. I in no way was engaged in an edit war. I never reverted a change multiple times. glman (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@NightWolf1223 What are you referring to? I reverted one edit from the tagged user who reverted without context an earlier reversion that added and removed content. I do not believe this in any way constitues an edit war. glman (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

You removed content after Jgstokes had restored it. When your edit was reverted you should have taken it here rather than remove it again. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 02:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@NightWolf1223 My initial edit was a reversion of two consecutive edits by another user. Jg. reverted my reversion without an edit summary. I think it's just a misunderstanding of my initial edit. I'm good - just confused. Looks like my initial edit did not include "rv" in the summary. That's my bad. glman (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes it appears that way. My deepest appologies to you,@Glman for any mental stress that this may have put on you. I did not see that the text had been recently added. Really, that text probably should have been discussed here before addition to the artlicle. We can continue discussing the disputed text here. Again, my appoligies. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 02:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@NightWolf1223 - You're good. I think we all just misunderstood. As I mentioned to @Jgstokes on their talk page, I'm open to editing with the current content. However, it was added and reverted in my initial edit, and I still don't feel it needs to be included in the lead. It also removed sourced content, which was my concern. glman (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

My concern was that you removed information that was sourced and relevant to the subject of the article in question. It doesn't matter whether or not it was a recent or longstanding inclusion. And such a removal should, per Wikipedia policy, have been discussed before any removal was undertaken. This article is being improved all the time, and unless I am mistaken, the disputed content in question was added by a longtime contributor to this article, and the information is correct in relation to the article subject.

If you have specific concerns about the edit, or a relevant reason for the removal of it, by all means, let's discuss that. And if you have improvements in mind for this article, that too can be discussed. But, per established policies, those changes should be supported by consensus before they are implemented. That's always been how Wikipedia works. And that's why I reverted the content you attempted to add twice.

If the consensus supports your removal of the information, and your proposed additions, I will stand behind that. But the removal before discussion and the establishment of consensus should not have occurred. Hope that explains my two reverts. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 03:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jgstokes I think you misunderstood my edit. All I did was revert two consecutive BOLD edits by razamachaz that removed longstanding sourced content and added content from a primary source. This is entirely allowed, and the discussion should have gone to talk page before readding the content I reverted. I returned the page to the STATUSQUO. I made no additions, I reverted a bold edit. Today, you reverted my reversion with no summary. Please review the history and you will see this is the case. The page should be restored to the status quo prior to Razamachaz' removal of content and addition of primary content. Then we can discuss if his content shuld be added. glman (talk) 04:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the editing history, which is why I know the information in question was added by a longtime contributor to this article, and that it is accurate information that shouldn't have been removed without discussion. I explained my reasoning, which is also consistent with Wikipedia policies. We'd be far wiser to move on. Aside from the fact that a primary source was used, that alone is not sufficent grounds for removal without discussion.

The information is both accurate and relevant to the article subject, and I believe it was also supported by secondary sources. If it wasn't, it can be. And again, it was added by a longtime contributor to this page (unless I am mistaken about that), so it shouldn't have been unilaterally removed without discussion.

Again, we can discuss any changes you may feel are appropriate, but, per Wikipedia policy, those changes shouldn't be unilaterally made without consensus support. If you want to discuss those changes now and the reasoning behind it, I'm all ears. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 04:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jgstokes It is absolutely appropriately to remove added content and discuss before readding. The opposite is not true. Not sure what policy you're referring to, but you'd got it backwards. I restored the page to STATUSQUO and you reverted my edit without an edit summary (WP:REVEXP ). I'm not concerned about the content of the edit at this point, but your reasoning does not make sense nor does it follow the policy. I restored the content to status quo, which is the accepted pracrice, with an edit summary, which is best practice. The page needs to be restored to status quo, which is before Raz's edit, and they/we can discuss the proposed change. That's how consensus works. I am not upset about the content, but I am frustrated by the assertion that I have not followed policy. glman (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

We can keep launching recriminations at each other all day, but that is not productive, nor is it addressing the key point at hand, not to mention it is a failure to assume good faith. Let's just agree that we were both in the wrong and move on. Do you have any other objections to the material in question other than it uses primary sources? Primary sources are allowed in some cases, especially when it is supported by secondary sources. And can you speak more about the changes you want to make and the reasoning behind them? User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 05:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jgstokes I have not launched any attacks at you. Please don't accuse me of acting in back faith when I followed policy, used edit summaries, and clearly explained what had occurred. The edit removed sourced content and replaced it with primary content that is not needed in the location. The removed content, at a minimum, needs to be readded. Again, we should restore the page to status quo and then dicuss adding the content, not vice versa. I agree this began as a misunderstanding, but in order to resolve it we need to return the page to the status quo and discuss. glman (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I’d like to jump in here. Completely unrelated to the process discussion above, and nothing personal, but:

I am strongly opposed to inclusion of the new material. Saying a religion invites others to “come unto Christ” is effectively meaningless at best, and implicit proselytizing at worst (POV). It doesn’t summarize what the rest of the article says, which is the point of a Wikipedia article’s lead section. The citation is a primary source, which comes with its own problems. And most of all, I could probably have picked just about any short passage of LDS scripture and say that’s what the Church teaches, and have it be just as strong of writing as this is. All of that to say, I think this new content represents a step backward in article quality. I would support a reversion. Trevdna (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention - per the recent Peer Review, we should be trimming the lead of its discussion of church beliefs, practices etc., not expanding it. Trevdna (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Trevdna These were my concerns as well. glman (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree , barring the presentation of independent secondary sourcing that can establish encyclopedic significance, the material in question is clearly WP:UNDUE and WP:PROMOTIONAL, especially in the lead section.

Church members believe to receive eternal life, they must "come unto Christ" and assist in God's work by living the gospel of Jesus Christ, caring for those in need, inviting all to receive the gospel, and uniting families for eternity.

Left guide (talk) 07:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Left guide and @Trevdna, thanks for jumping in. Based on the reasoning you provided, I can see your points. @Glman, I never said you were acting in bad faith. What I said was "We can keep launching recriminations at each other all day, but that is not productive, nor is it addressing the key point at hand, not to mention it is a failure to assume good faith." If you saw that as a personal attack, I apologize. I took a few days away from Wikipedia after I foolishly made our discussion more heated and antagonistic than it should have been, and I agree with Left guide and Trevdna that the material is not appropriate. I will return the material to the status quo before my foolish and uncalled for revert. Thanks to you all. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 04:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

References