Talk:Boston Massachusetts Temple

No, a lawsuit does not make the article into a "controversy"

It should be pointed out that many LDS Temples are tied up in lawsuits. This is the whole reason Orin Hatch pushed through the Religious Land Use Act.

Large construction projects are lawsuit magnets, and many recent Temple projects have encountered significant legal resistance. Among the proposed or constructed temples to be sued over:

• White Plains New York (state and federal lawsuits, unresolved)
• Bluffdale Utah (municipal zoning issue)
• Hartford Connecticut (fifteen years of legal problems causing project to be abandoned)
• Manhattan (lawsuits over the added spire, formalities)
• Orlando (environmental suit)
• Denver (location changed, settlement with neighbors)
• Mount Timpanogos Utah (two-year lawsuit with cash settlement)

I'm sure others exist; this is with about 20 minutes of searching a news database. Cool Hand Luke 21:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If a lawsuit does not indicate "controversy", I don't know what would.... There are controversies. Get over it. -SESmith 23:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Pardon? Get over what? WP:CAT says that categories must be defining characteristics of a subject. It's not here, and it's certainly not in the other articles where the lawsuit isn't even mentioned. You said yourself that consumer products do not deserve a controversy category. They've also been disputed, but with most consumer products, as with these buildings, controversy is not a defining characteristic. Cool Hand Luke 00:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The topic of the controversy is about half the article, friend. If it's not going to be a "defining characteristic", then we need a whole hell of a lot more information about this building than what is in the article. If the article was expanded, I would be more likely to agree with you. -SESmith 02:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: "Get over it" is a figure of speech. Get used to it. -SESmith 02:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Your position on this is very fluid. When you reverted last time, you suggested in the edit summary that we should add the categories to articles that don't even mention lawsuits at all. Before then, you said that the lawsuit makes it unique among Mormon temples.

The real problem with this category is that it's poorly defined, especially considering how it's applied to people. Until this article convincingly falls into the four squares of the category, WP:CAT demands that it shouldn't be on articles like this. Cool Hand Luke 10:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've heard of the expression. Looks like an assumption of bad faith. Cool Hand Luke 10:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Fluid?—you mean like Mitt Romney's politics?—har har. (A little Massachusetts humor there for you.) Incidentally I never did say that this lawsuit made it unique. I asked how many others there were that you knew of.

Anyhow, I restate my previous comments. It's over half the article. Controversies exist. Some even touch on Mormonism. Some things that are controversial also have aspects that go beyond the controversy itself. Life is messy. Deal with it. -SESmith 11:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't deny that controversies exist and that some articles are in fact Mormon-related controversies. It seems that this is not one of them for several reasons: (1) it is not an article on the controversy, (2) the controversy is not a defining characteristic of the building, (3) the category doesn't seem to cover articles that are not about controversies, and (4) the controversy over this building is more about zoning than it is about Mormonism.

A better definition of the category might resolve these problems, but for now WP:CAT says that the category should be removed. Cool Hand Luke 15:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

In response to the 4 points above: (1) about half the article as it stands now is about the controversy, regardless of what the title is; if a page were created entitled "Controversy about the Boston Massachusetts Temple, it would be a quick candidate for a merge with this one, thus it is not created; (2) maybe not to you or other Latter Day Saints, but I can assure you it most certainly was and is a defining characteristic of the building to some people who live in Belmont, MA and the greater Boston area; (3) see (1); (4) the fight was fought on the basis of zoning laws but many of the underlying motivations on both sides were related to religion--the court case itself discussed the concept of a part of a building being "religiously necessary"--and the religion in this case was directly related to Mormonism.

You are Mitt Romney! [Yes. Yes I am. -SESmith 02:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)] [Thanks for your sense of humor. Cool Hand Luke 03:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)]

Ok, my problem with the category is the same as what I expressed on CFD, and I think this is an appropriate border case. It might qualify, but the category is defined poorly enough that it might not. I'm willing to let this drop unless another editor still finds a problem with the category on this article. Since we all believe in controversies here, I would think another editor also disliking the label would constitute pretty good evidence that it's controversial and should stay off, at least until the category is defined better. Cool Hand Luke 01:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just being fluid again, but you've converted me to the "borderline" rule. If serious doubt or debate exists as to whether it should apply (which there clearly is here), I suppose the safe thing to do is to not include it in the category. I think I was being a bit blind to the consideration that others could see this particular article as not fitting in the category. I probably was assuming bad faith (i.e. that you were just trying to quash the concept of the category in general rather than disputing its application here), and I apologize for that. Best wishes, -SESmith 04:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Posted a suggestion for defining the category at Category talk:Mormonism-related controversies. Cool Hand Luke 06:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Boston Massachusetts Temple. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070413090654/http://www.ldschurchtemples.com:80/boston/ to http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/boston/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070219003514/http://www.gbrowndesign.com:80/projects/institutional/boston%20_temple.html to http://www.gbrowndesign.com/projects/institutional/boston%20_temple.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)