Talk:Protesters demonstrate in front of Latter-day Saint temple in L.A.

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Before putting this up for review[edit]

Before putting this up for review again, I think it would be irresponsible to publish this without including the many later developments that have occured since November 7. See: Google news

Also, for our international readers, please mention what country this is taking place in, if not in the title, then certainly in the first paragraph. --SVTCobra 06:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What later developments? People have been fighting against Proposition 8 since its inception, and have been speaking out against it the entire time; it seems to me that what has happened afterwards has largely been more of the same. Jade Knight (talk) 07:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By that logic it is not news in the first place. --SVTCobra 07:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's ridiculous: it's news according to the L.A. Times, CBS, and several other notable sources. Jade Knight (talk) 07:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm simply asking you what later developments you seem to think need to be included. What would be best, of course, would be if you would be bold and add those developments yourself. I've mentioned the Sunday protests, which seem to be the only related events that are "new" in any meaningful sense to me. But you're welcome to add any events you think are meaningful. Jade Knight (talk) 07:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I provided a link to a simple search on Google news. There are literally hundreds of stories, some just hours old. Did you miss that in my original comment? --SVTCobra 07:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did you ignore the comments I just made? I added reference to the Sunday protests (i.e., from today). If you personally happen to think some of the other stories bring up events which need to be put in here, I recommend you either be bold and add them yourself, or at least do me the courtesy of telling me which events you think need mentioning; it should be obvious that "hundreds of stories" should not all be placed within this one article. Jade Knight (talk) 07:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This seems noteworthy: Protests sweep across Calif. on post-Prop 8 Sunday. But I don't have time write it. Being bold has nothing to do with it. How about you be diligent and practice responsible journalism instead?--SVTCobra 08:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Next time you want to criticize me, I recommend you take a really careful look at the article's recent history, first. Do so now, please. Jade Knight (talk) 08:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My original comment — which is what we are talking about, right? — predates you adding stuff to the article by over an hour. Now, please, stop wasting by time with needless debate. --SVTCobra 10:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm talking about your comment made at 8:02, which entirely ignores the improvements I had made to the article before then. Please stop wasting time with needless debate. Jade Knight (talk) 07:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi. My point of view, for what it may be worth, is that this news article by editor Jade Knight, on a sensitive and current societal issue, it is currently written [1] in a balanced way, i.e. both sides position have been given a correct weigth. As an interested international reader, in spite of holding a clear position on this issue in line with proponents and defenders of w:Proposition 8, this valuable news article present a clear descriptive and unbiased picture of these recent events that I was not acquainted with. The article link above mentioned-suggested by editor SVTCobra contains, from my point of view, too much undue weight to anti-Propositon8 activists. Thank you. --Vilalva (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This article lacks certain crucial pieces of necessary information. First, there is no mention of the fact that most of the "other Christian groups" are Evangelical. Supporters of proposition have cautiously avoided using the term in secular California media, and its absence indicates that part of this article falls in line with that point of view. For this reason, the article cannot be called a balanced work, nor journalism. There are no quotes from the L.A. Times article from No on 8 supporters, and in fact the only quotation is the most bland and least eloquent choice of points to be made. I suggest using the moderate and tempered quote from Kim Farah and the impassioned statement from Lorri Jean to provide counterpoint to Jeff Flint, who gets his own paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pointofinformation (talkcontribs) 08:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was having trouble finding quotes from individuals about the temple protest when writing this (instead of simply quotes about Proposition 8, which is not what this article is about). Have you found any (feel free to post them here on the talk page)? Out of curiosity, do you have a reliable source stating what "most of the 'other Christian groups'" were? My understanding is that there was significant support from Catholics as well as other Christian groups, and Catholicism isn't what I'd consider "Evangelical". Jade Knight (talk) 08:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Title - do not move again[edit]

The Church, is "Latter Day Saints" referring to the fact that their belief is that there were multiple saints. This means that "latter-day Saint temple" is wrong. The temple belongs to the "Latter-day Saints".

I believe this is not the first time I've had to correct this. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Latter-day Saint" is the proper singular noun and adjective. "Latter-day Saints" is the plural noun. To say "Latter-day Saints Temple" would be akin to saying "Jews Synagogue" or "Muslims Mosque": it is nonsensical. And it's "Latter-day Saints", not "Latter Day Saints" (though the latter can be used to refer to the movement as a whole, and not just the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). For more information, check out Wikipedia:Manual of Style:LDS and Wikipedia:Naming conventions:LDS; there's a good deal of information there which might help clarify. You'll notice that they consistently use "Latter-day Saint" or "Latter Day Saint" as the adjective throughout, and never "Latter-day Saints", which, as I have pointed out, is nonsensical. I'm not entirely sure what you mean that "their belief is that there were multiple saints", or how that relates to naming conventions. I'm sure if you glanced over the Wikipedia style guides, however, you could learn a great deal about Latter Day Saint (referring to the movement as a whole) naming conventions. Jade Knight (talk) 13:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You might also note that Wikipedia has a category called w:Category:Latter Day Saint temples, not w:Category:Latter Day Saints temples. Jade Knight (talk) 13:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And, just in case Wikipedia doesn't count as a reliable source, you might notice that at the official Latter-day Saint website, they use the form "Latter-day Saint temple". Jade Knight (talk) 13:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

International audience[edit]

Wikinews has an international readership. It would be nice to find a place in the article to mention the country in which this is taking place. Cheers, --SVTCobra 18:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Why is this article in the Category:Religion, instead of it's subcategory Category:Mormonism? -- 01:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SVG map[edit]

{{editprotected}} A map with the same name but in SVG format should be replaced with the current PNG version.