Talk:Step 10. Submitting names

From FamilySearch Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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for the Wasatch Front (UT and ID), and Japan, Korea, China these instructions for using the IGI and TempleReady are outdated and irrelevant.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)

Hello - in patrolling the wiki the "content" template brought this article [Step 10] to my attention.  May I suggest that the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph be removed and the rest of the sentences remain as is.  It points researchers interested in IGI or LDS ordinances to Mormon Genealogy article and restores the neutrality requested in the article.  I personally appreciate this guide, however, the step 10 revision as suggested would provide a better overview and direction to future wiki researchers.  As a descendant of Tongan, Samoan, Fijian, Tahitian, and Hawaiian ancestry, I turn to other sources for ancestral information intially rather than the IGI ... even when I lived in Utah.  Please consider the recommendation within this 'talk'.  Thanks.CIrwin

Hi Caroline,
Of the three censors who have tried to suppress IGI and LDS Church information you are definitely the kindest and most reasonable sounding.
But the problem is that step 10 in the Pacific Island Guide has already been suppressed. I completely gutted the content of this step (originally an article several screens long) in order to comply with the unreasonable and OUTRAGEOUS demands of the previous censor. And now it gets hit with this censorship yet again. You censorship masters will never be happy until there is absolutely NO MENTION of anything LDS or IGI anywhere on the Wiki.
Your request that I suppress one-fourth of the sentences of this article IS OUTRAGEOUS! It is outrageous because I already suppressed over 95 percent of the article. The first two sentences warn this is an optional page (nobody is compelled to read it) and it is intended for LDS readers (so don't be offended if it has a single sentence vaguely stating what LDS people with Pacific ancestors can do with their genealogy).
This nonsense about a neutral point of view is absurd because you don't allow ANY content about the LDS Church on pages like this. Please read Wikipedia's definition of neutral point of view that explains neutrality does NOT mean suppressing a point of view, it means balancing them and explaining ALL reasonable points of view.
To be truly neutral it would be better to point out that Roman Catholics believe in paying for and having masses said for the dead, and several oriental religions pray to ancestors. So suppressing how LDS faithful honor their ancestors is the WORST FORM OF CENSORSHIP and least neutral way of handling a situation.
Please understand I am not angry at you personally, but I am really irritated that having dealt with this a few months ago on this page it comes up again. You guys never seem to stop and leave well-enough alone. When one censor says I have complied, the next new one will come along and say of exactly the same material OH NO, that's simply not good enough.
If you censors were consistent you would also ban mentioning working for the LDS Church or affiliated organizations on Wiki Profile pages, ban mentioning LDS affiliated things like the Family History Library, Family History Centers, FamilySearch, newFamilySearch, the Wiki, Personal Ancestral File, the LDS version of the Freedman's Savings and Loan records, Utah history, all sections of the Wiki related to "Tracing LDS Ancestors," all research outlines (created by the Family History Library), and researching or ordering microfilms at Family History Centers, and of course the Pacific Island oral histories compiled by LDS Church commissioned researchers.
To show how unfair it is for you to supress the sentence in this article, I would be willing to bet none of you censors would make a peep about mentioning Roman Catholics have masses said for the dead, but you WILL NOT ALLOW a single vague sentence about what LDS people do.
DiltsGD 19:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)