User talk:TrulySaid

Welcome!

Hello, TrulySaid, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! —C.Fred (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Your edit to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints requires discussion
Thank you for boldly making an edit to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Unfortunately, you have attempted the edit multiple times, but each time there appears to be disagreement with the edit.

I suggest opening a discussion on Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints about the edit. You should include the reasons for making the change, the source that supports the change, and some explanation on how that source is a reliable source. It appears that this last point, the reliability of The Cumorah Project and its report, is the major point of contention, so you should probably focus your effort there. You may want to find other sources that have stated the same thing regarding the lack of publication of attendance data—if, for instance, US News & World Report ran a story reporting the same finding, that would be reliable. —C.Fred (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, it's considered bad form to make edits without providing an edit summary. You will find it very difficult to work with other Wikipedians if you do not use edit summaries and the article's talk page. If you consistently push your edit onto an article over and over, despite others' reverting you, this is called edit warring, and is also frowned upon. Don't get discouraged; getting things done on Wikipedia can be a steep learning curve at first, but it's not hard once you get the hang of it. ...comments? ~B F izz 20:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions.

January 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ''You've been asked to discuss this on the talk page. Please do so.'' tedder (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
 * 3) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Why is the http://www.cumorah.com/ NOT a reliable source? It has research, analysis, and resources concerning the membership claims listed. Some of the researchers are LDS, too. I also referenced lds.org as a source right at first concerning your membership claim. I'm new to this venue and it is not my intention to war. I would like to see some sort of edit to correct the misrepresentation of the numbers in the article. The LDS Church is known to inflate the numbers by counting inactive members and others who no longer participate. The LDS Church requires members to officially resign in writing before they ever take people off their membership rolls. Many people don't bother to officially resign yet they are still counted. I think it is misleading and inaccurate to count people as members who no longer believe in the church. Here's another source to support my edit. http://mormoninfo.org/news-info/news/lds-church-really-fastest-growing-church. I don't think it constitutes a neutral stance to reject non-LDS sources that challenge the membership numbers in favor of strictly LDS sources that support LDS claims. LDS sources don't account for inactive members as well as others who may appear on the membership rolls but have no active participation such as young unbaptised children and members who are dead. I don't think it is unreasonable to edit the article to state this conclusion as the DS Church itself states: The Church makes no statistical comparisons with other churches and makes no claim to be the fastest-growing Christian denomination despite frequent news media comments to that effect. Such comparisons rarely take account of a multiplicity of complex factors, including activity rates and death rates, the methodology used in registering or counting members, and what factors constitute membership. This is on: http://lds.org/church/facts?lang=eng Please comment as to a reasonable solution. I think there is reasonable justification to edit your membership numbers as less than stated.


 * I think StormRider brings up a good point at Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: there's no evidence that other churches don't do the same things with their attendance counts, so why single the LDS out for it? Based on that, there's no reason to mention it in the article, regardless of source. —C.Fred (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

How do you know I'm singling out the LDS? I'm not. I would be happy question any inacurrate claim concerning membership in any religion if it is inaccurate. Claiming I'm singling out the LDS Church is no reason to reject my edit. Other religions I've checked so far have qualified their numbers and are more detailed on how they reached those numbers where the LDS site simply states the numbers without any qualification (or disqualification). The LDS site doesn't describe how the numbers are reached. The LDS site only states the numbers, but makes no mention of any neutral, non-LDS source or surveys that show other numbers. In contrast, other denominations often use substantially stricter rules in counting membership. Latter-day Saints have a looser standard for counting members than many other religious denominations and is reflected in lds.org ans well as cumorah.com The question here is why does the LDS faith choose to overstate their numbers while my research concludes that other faiths choose to understate theirs? Measurement of faiths in the U.S. is done on the basis of two measures: members (a narrow definition) and adherents (a broad definition). Most faiths report both, and some even subdivide members into those who are active and those who are not. Unlike other faiths, the LDS church only reports numbers of adherents. This includes everyone who was ever baptized in the church, with the exception of those who are excommunicated, or who have successfully petitioned to have their names removed from the rolls. Most people who leave the church never bother to resign. Since baptism occurs at age 8, many adults who were baptized as children but no longer have interest in the LDS faith are counted as adherents (that is not typical of other faiths). There is substantial probability of double-counting that can lead to inflation of LDS numbers. For example, someone baptized in the LDS faith who chooses to be baptized as (say) a Catholic and who attends that church regularly would be counted as both a member of the Catholic church and an adherent of the LDS church until successfully removed from the rolls. In sum, I think there is an open question here about why the LDS church hierarchy chooses to state its numbers more liberally than other faiths, or alternatively why other faiths choose to measure their numbers more conservatively. This my basic argument for qualifying the numbers on the LDS site and it HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SINGLING OUT LDS as you so ungraciously accuse me. I still think I have valid reasons and arguments to support my request. I would expect you to have a better argument than saying "there's no evidence that other churches don't do the same things with their attendance counts. Can you prove that they do? Wikipedia states: We strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". I'm addressing the problem with LDS numbers and whether I do or not concerning other religions or beliefs has nothing to do with the issue at hand with this site. According to Wikipedia a fair, neutral description of the facts is what they strive for and I have the ability to edit. I am still looking for a reasonable solution before I continue to object further to your objection to the truth of this matter.