Difference between revisions of "Talk:Step 10. Submitting names"

From FamilySearch Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (moved Talk:Step 10. Submit names to the IGI to Talk:Step 10. Submitting names: make this a little less LDS and much more up-to-date)
(No difference)

Revision as of 23:33, 7 February 2012

Please do NOT delete this page. We have worked hard to minimize the amount of "Churchiness" it contains. Another version was already deleted on 12 March 2009.

Ruthlessly deleting any reference to the LDS Church or Temple ordinances is not really a neutral point of view. It is in fact suppression. According to Wikipedia, to be neutral means you allow a reasonable discussion of all points of view that can be documented.

Pacific Islanders often have difficult to research situations that require a maximum of spiritual power to be successful. Good research techniques would also help. The case studies in this Wiki article were put together with names-submission an inherent part of the research procedure. To destroy the connection between research and submitting names to the IGI would do violence to the concept sharing your research with others in one of the most widely used genealogical indexes. Suppressing the concept of submitting to the IGI is bad genealogical technique, and therefore, anti-genealogical. I believe it would hurt the genealogical community to suppress the teaching of sharing of genealogy through this means. And I am also convinced it would hurt the sensitivities of Pacific Islanders to whom the name-submission aspect of family history is especially sacred.

I appreciate the need to minimize talk of the LDS Church and its interests in order to maximize the ability to attract the widest possible audience in the genealogical community to the Wiki. I find it highly unlikely the wider genealogical community would be driven from using the Wiki because of the way this topic is handled on this page. But I believe suppressing the teaching of sharing genealogical research though the IGI would be offensive to Pacific Islanders. You are more likely to offend and to lose more Wiki users suppressing this page than you would lose by allowing it to continue.

If you still have an overwhelming need to prevent us from discussing good genealogical technique, I invite you to propose possible compromises or better ways of wording this page. Please work with us rather than suppressing us.
Diltsgd 01:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

David, I have two concerns.  First, except for the Wasatch Front (UT and ID), and Japan, Korea, China these instructions for using the IGI and TempleReady are outdated and irrelevant.  Second, I believe that by referring them to their consultatnt and to the appropriate literature we are doing enough, and we still have too much in these instructions.  If you would allow me I would be happy to edit this page so that the genealogical intent is complete and members are guided to the correct sources for the spiritual intent.  If you want I can do the edits offline and send them to you for your comments and approval and then make the changes.

Whatever you prefer.

Jimgreene 02:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Jim and Fran,

I would like to see what Fran suggests.  When the New Familysearch is available to all members, most of this information will be outdated anyway. I wonder what the special challenges will be for island people who are submitting the names of their ancestors on the new familysearch..  This page will need to be rewritten again, perhaps.

Noel 2:30 pm .  1 April  2009

Except for pacific islanders living along the wasatch front, the process for submitting names to the temple no longer involves IGI or TempleReady.  This really needs to be changed soon.

Another important point is that we have an agreement with the Correlation Department that we will not have doctrinal information or discussions on the Wiki, in return they have agreed not to correlate it.  If we were to have to have them correlate it then we would be back to the huge time delays in getting information out that we had pre-Wiki.  So it is not just that we need to have a neutral point of view, in the case of doctrine neutral means only brief references and links to materials that are correlated.

Again, we need to re-work this page fairly soon.  I am willing to take a stab at it if you want me to.

Jimgreene 03:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)