Talk:Laie Hawaii Temple

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Move

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Credibility of source

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

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)