Jump to content

Talk:Tabernacle Choir

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Cremaster irrelevant

[edit]

Why is the mention of the 2nd Cremaster film considered irrelevant? --203.26.206.130

Because it's an incredibly obscure film. It looks like you linked it just to prevent the article from becomming an orphan. Nowhere does The Cremaster Cycle article mention the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, so they couldn't have played a key role in the film. And from the description of the series, it doesn't sound like they'd appear in it willingly. The choir has been featured in scores of other much more widely seen movies (knowingly and willingly, such as Mr. Krueger's Christmas), but the article doesn't mention those films. The art film is just too obscure to merit mention. If you want to make a case, state it here. We can talk about it. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:12, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

I think the very obscurity of the film is what makes the fact that the Mormon Tabernacle choir participated interesting. And the reader of this article will not be left wondering 'what is the second film of the cremaster cycle' - there's a hypertext link to the Cremaster article. On this encyclopedia, we have the opportunity to be as comprehensive as possible. Other projects involving this choir are noted on the page, such as work with orchestras etc. therefore why not list all film appearances or soundtrack mentions just for the sake of accuracy and offering as much information as possible? I added the Cremaster reference because it was interesting to me that a religious choir would be involved in a film such as Barney's. The film is set in the Salt Lake Valley, hence the inclusion. Maybe a reference to the choir should be added to the Cremaster page? And the phrasing should probably be changed from 'This choir also features...' to 'This choir also appeared in...'

Did the MoTab participate or were they merely included? I highly doubt that the MoTab would actively participate in a movie named after testicle muscles, no matter how artistic it was. Including them is one thing, having them perform for the film is another.
Being comprehensive is one thing, but mentioning every fleating relationship is another. For example, should we mention that John Cusack appeared in The Player even though his participation was by chance and he was onscreen for about 3 seconds?
So, yes, if you think it is that interesing, include the information on the Cremaster page.
And please sign your posts. You can do this with 3 or 4 tildes (~~~ or ~~~~). The latter form adds a timestamp. Peace. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:23, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

They were included on screen. I suppose what this comes down to is the division between information and trivia. 203.166.57.11 01:08, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Craig Jessop steps down as director, Mack Wilberg appointed interim director

[edit]

The Church announced today that Craig Jessop, Choir director for the last ten years, is stepping down to enjoy family time, resume teaching, and work on personal projects. Mack Wilberg will serve as interim director until a new director is chosen. See the following sources for verification. Consequently, this article should be changed to reflect newest information. Jessop stepping down as director of Mormon Tabernacle Choir Choir's Jessop is resigning Tabernacle Choir Director Jessop resigns Hope this information is helpful to you. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is doing a fantastic job which you can see on TV/BYU Channel. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube spamming

[edit]

Do we really need all those links to YouTube at the bottom of the article? I can understand a few, just to give interested readers some example, but do we need like a dozen? Anyone competent with a web browser can just search YouTube for more examples if they're interested. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 19:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Let's just leave one for now, so the novice YouTube users can at least find others easily if needed. --Eustress (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement

[edit]

The History section needs to be expanded substantially considering the Choir's longevity. With whom they have performed, where they have performed, the beginnings and evolution of the choir, etc. It would also be nice to integrate the tour lists into some kind of prose. I'll also look for more pictures. --Eustress (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC) I am distressed to see the non-journalistic style of this article, and that it is locked to prohibit editing. This platform, Wikipedia, is intended to be third-person unbiased and omniscient. I got this far: "The LDS Church has considered music a vital part of worship from the beginning of its history. Early headquarters of the Church in Kirtland, Ohio and in Nauvoo, Illinois both had standing choirs. It was no surprise then..." and cringed at the clearly copy/paste from LDS promotional material. Better stated as "The LDS Church has involved music in its worship from the church's inception. Early headquarters in Kirtland, Ohio, and Nauvoo, Illinois, both had standing choirs." DELETE "It was no surprise then..." as totally first-person editorializing, totally inappropriate. -- Editor-at-large Sept 13 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.114.253 (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discography

[edit]

The discography could really use dates on all of the albums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncolton (talk • contribs) 18:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the ones I tracked down just now, from information on their website. I found the search function here to be very useful, although browsing for the CDs did not hardly work at all. http://www.mormontabernaclechoir.org/products/search A Christmas Gloria - 1998 Choose Something Like A Star - 2005 Christmas With The Mormon Tabernacle Choir - 1993 Consider the Lilies - 2003 Copland: Old American Songs - 1987 Live in Jerusalem - 1993 Love is Spoken Here - 2005 Handel: Messiah (complete, conducted by Sir David Willcocks) - 1995 More Greatest Hits 18 Best-Loved Favorites - 1995 O Divine Redeemer - 1992 Peace Like a River - 2004 Ring Christmas Bells - 2009 Showtime! Music of Broadway and Hollywood - 2007 Spirit of America - 2003 The Sound Of Glory - 2001 Johncolton (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I can work on that!71.202.132.106 (talk) 23:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is the choir used during services?

[edit]

There is no discussion of how the choir participates in services at the Tabernacle, assuming it does so. Given that this is a religious choir, some discussion of its religious role is warranted. --Bruce Hall (talk) 12:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Choir has its own weekly broadcast "Music & The Spoken Word." It also customarily provides music for at least 3 of the 5 general conference sessions held in the Conference Center. Unless I'm mistaken, all of that is mentioned in the article. If you could provide specifics to clarify what you mean, we might be able to help you more. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good Q/A. Services are in ward chapels, stake centers, and mission field buildings; sessions and ordinances are in temples; and the Tabernacle and Conference Center are for musicals, world broadcasts, and ETC. Hope this helps, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I was reverted here, and reverted again: these fall so foul of WP:EL that they're practically spam. (The argument that "they're relevant to the article" doesn't mean anything.) If I must: "Music and the Spoken Word Official website" is irrelevant since that isn't the topic of the article; it's an associated act that's already wikilinked. The EL section is not for associated links. "Bonneville Communications, Producer of Music and The Spoken Word: why would we list the website of the company that produces something that's not the topic of the article? "Official YouTube channel": website is already listed so this is redundant. "Information on the Mormon Tabernacle Choir at Utah.com": clearly spam link. These links are not acceptable. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, that's just your opinion. The Mormon Tabernacle Choir and Music & the Spoken Word are inseparable. Without the Choir, there would be no "Music" portion of the program. The principal function of the Choir is to perform weekly with the official choir broadcast. That's established in the article itself. Instead of repeatedly reverting, you should wait for a consensus to be formed on this issue. That's two or more editors agreeing on one side or the other, whether you agree with the consensus or not. That's the way WP works. Please don't revert again until others have a chance to comment. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take it to the spam board. I don't think I need to take advice on how Wikipedia works from an LDS advertiser. Drmies (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
well, you have 2 editors against you, jgstokes. I'm with drmies here. WP:ELNO says those links shouldn't be there. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 17:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I clearly have at least three editors on my side, as evidenced by the fact that mine was neither the first nor only revert. However, I have looked at the links added by you and have no objections to the page as it now stands. I'm not entirely unreasonable. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I'm not an "LDS advertiser." I am merely a member of the LDS Church who has a vested interest in making the page the best it can be. Drmies's edits were not helpful. The work done by Anuva6 satisfies me completely. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref/Citations : Bare URLs

[edit]

I am working to resolve the Bare URLs in Ref/Citations. Bear with me for a little while as it is a work in progress. Peaceray (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The references you added look great! Thanks for doing all that research and finding these sources. If you find any others that might be helpful, please feel free to post them as well. Thanks again for your great work! --Jgstokes (talk) 03:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All done! I removed the {{cleanup-link rot}} template. Just to be clear, I did not do the research or find the sources, except for replacing an irretrievable source. What I did do was to go to each URL & use the information (page info in Firefox, properties in IE) & the information from the web pages/sites to gather the info for the {{cite web}} & {{cite news}}. I also added wikilinks to the publisher & newspaper when available, & added the ISSN & OCLC #'s when I could find them. Peaceray (talk) 06:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No book citations? Well, here's some possibilities.

[edit]

There are no book citations in this article! There seems to be a number of books written about the Choir.

To begin with, here is what is online, ten books as of this moment.:

  • "Search results for 'Mormon Tabernacle Choir' (eBook)". worldcat.org. Retrieved 2014-03-17.

Here is the list of all books in OCLC (Worldcat), about 292 books or editions in all formats:

Here is a link to the {{Cite book}} template. At a minimum, one should be able to list the author last & first name, title, year & location of publication, the publisher, & an OCLC #. If they are available, please include a url for eBooks, the ISBN available, & an authorlink if there is an article on the author.

I did some work cleaning up bare URLs & the SLTrib citations; I am moving on to other articles. Happy editing!

Peaceray (talk) 06:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Church abbreviation keeps getting deleted

[edit]

@Joemeservy: In the lead section, why do you keep removing "(LDS Church)" after "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"? Recent examples: [1], [2], [3]. "LDS Church" is used later on in the article, so the first time the church is mentioned, we use the full name and establish an abbreviation that will be used throughout the article. "LDS Church" is the recommended Wikipedia abbreviation used per WP:MOSLDS. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree WP:MOSLDS is clear. This is the way it is supposed to be.--- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It happened again. @Joemeservy: please comment here to discuss rather than just repeatedly removing it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MoTAB ?

[edit]

I grew up in the Salt Lake City area, sang in ward choirs, high school choirs, BYU (five choirs, including tours to Las Vegas and Canada) and University of Utah choirs (including representing western states in Hawaii), and never heard the Tabernacle Choir referred to as the Mo TAB. I did, however, when I started college choirs, hear them referred to as the Tab Choir: "Come on, [sing right]; you are not the tab-choir", Kirt Weinsinger told BYU University Chorale my freshman year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Edwin Shipp (talk • contribs)

Is the intent here to explore whether MoTab is appropriately included in the opening as a colloquially-used nickname? Though this is no more scientific or reference-based than anything else might be, I have heard it referred to as the MoTab for many years and in many locations. ChristensenMJ (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've found quite a few recent references to "MoTab" in media: eg, Daily Herald (Utah County), Salt Lake Magazine, and BYU TV. (Notably, it's often used in an article headline, no doubt to save space.) I've also found a few, though not as many, uses of "Tab Choir", most of them from the Daily Herald: eg, [4]. So it seems to me that both are likely legitimate short forms. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I grew up in Provo, and often heard the choir referred to as the MoTab, and now that the names been changed, TabCaTS (though tbh only from people in music). this is my first time editing a post, apologies for no sources beyond word-of-mouth Pocketstitched (talk) 05:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Status (amateur or what)

[edit]

I think that the status of the choir needs to be mentioned for clarification. I don't like "all-volunteer" because that makes being a choir member sound like an unpleasant job that someone had to do. It also sounds slightly boastful on the part of whoever requires people to volunteer (COJCLDS in this case). Amateur is technically correct, but another editor thinks it has a negative connotation. I think the way it has been handled at the Huddersfield Choral Society seems a good way (I need to remove some peacockery there before you look). Does anyone else agree?. Op47 (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

peacockery removed now. Op47 (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am personally of the opinion that "all-volunteer" is a and necessary and clarifying phrase. I know of some religious choirs I've heard of that have a system whereby they are compensated in ways for their service, whether such compensation is monetary or otherwise. Far from being negative, the phrase is necessary for that reason. And I don't appreciate the edit war, however minor, being waged over this issue. There's nothing "unpleasant" I can see about the phrase, unless anyone chooses to see it that way. And the fact that this so-called "peacockery" was unilaterally removed by you after just six minutes without allowing proper discussion to take place and a consensus to be reached first is a blatant breach of Wikipedia's policies regarding consensus. Since the phrase was added by consensus after much discussion, it would take such a consensus to sanction its removal or edit. I am therefore reverting, and would strongly encourage you not to revert again until sufficient discussion has taken place and a consensus has decided to retain or remove it. I always in these cases prefer to assume good faith, but this knee-jerk reaction on your part is not a good idea. Take it from someone who has done similarly in the past and been called out for it. --Jgstokes (talk) 08:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I said Peacockery removed, I was talking about the Huddersfield Choral Society, not the MTC. The change that I removed after 6 minutes was tha addition of world renowned. Bahooka removed the word amateur from the description and I agreed with him, if you had read the edit summary and I removed a similar phrase from the lede. I am not having an edit war, which you would know if you read my edit descriptions, and I resent that you are saying different. I have removed any hint of amateur and all volunteer so that a concensus may be reached. I note that your main interest is LDS articles and that you are an LDS. You need to be careful as this could be seen as having a conflict of interest. Your response is an example of why that may be a problem. My motive is to make this article neutral and I consider the implication to the contrary to be uncivil. Op47 (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tour 2012 western us

[edit]

In 2012, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir traveled to Ephraim, Utah for a concert at Snow College to celebrate the dedication of the Pioneer Heritage Gardens in nearby Manti, Utah.

https://www.lds.org/church/news/pioneer-heritage-center-and-gardens-dedicated-in-manti-utah?lang=eng — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiJolly (talk • contribs) 18:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mormon Tabernacle Choir. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 22:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mormon Tabernacle Choir. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 02:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Audio clip is wrongly titled

[edit]

First time writing for Wikipedia. The audio clip for the christmas concert is titled "Angels we have heard on high". This is incorrect. The actual title for this song (whose chorus is very similar to "Angels we have heard on high") is "Angels From The Realms Of Glory". It is a different song — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40E:8005:1BB0:910D:651:E0E:F87F (talk) 06:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mormon Tabernacle Choir. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 19:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 October 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 17:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mormon Tabernacle Choir → The Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square – As noted and cited in the article, this choir has been renamed as part of a global effort by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to deprecate the use of the term "Mormon" by the church and its members. Media outlets not affiliated with the church are using the new name (for example, The Salt Lake Tribune). While the change is recent, it is becoming the usual common name of this group, so (per WP:UCN and Reasons for moving a page), the article should be renamed, with the current name as a redirect (that is, the inverse of the situation now, in which the new name is a redirect). The previous attempt to move the page was reverted due to lack of discussion, so this is obviously controversial. Thus, I am making this request to provide a forum for necessary discussion. GeoGreg (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mormon Tabernacle Choir → The Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square --Speaking for the legal entity that is now known as "The Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square" we concur with this recommendation based on the above, namely that the new page be named "The Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square" ("The" included as part of the name and the T capitalized) with a redirect from the page "Mormon Tabernacle Choir." Scobarut (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC) scobarut — Scobarut (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name of the Choir

[edit]

It says in the main title that they are still the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, they changed their name last October to the Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square. Raymond.berger4 (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond.berger4, please see the talk category just above this. Consensus is to wait until the common usage is addressed. ChristensenMJ (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Time passes, usage changes

[edit]

All of the objections raised by editors above are gone now. The new name “Tabernacle Choir” is more commonly used in media than “Mormon Tabernacle Choir”. Using a google search, it’s clear to see that most articles about this entity are written by Deseret News or Salt Lake Tribune, both of which adhere to the new style. Using “at Temple Square” seems less common.

Many editors in the above consensus cited WP’s common name procedure, but “Tabernacle Choir” is more concise than “Mormon Tabernacle Choir” and is equally precise and recognizable, which are the main criteria we evaluate on.

The excuses for opposing the name change are running out, and it’s looking like only plain old bigotry is keeping it from changing now. Brirush (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 August 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 14:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Mormon Tabernacle Choir → The Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square – The Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square does not go by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir anymore. The media uses the new name, the app has the new name the website has the new name. The old name is no longer used.It has been called The Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square for almost a year now and needs to be changed. PWHIT66 (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents: common usage has changed as a result of the name change, so any prior objections to the change are surely moot at this point. If the consensus is in favor of this name change, I will gladly add my voice to agree. But if for any reason anyone has any objections to the suggested move, I'd say those would need to be addressed before the change is implemented. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I support the name change. So long as WP:COMMONPLACE has changed, let's get it moved. changing to oppose following other's views. Rollidan (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. A Google search restricted to the previous month yields 3,450 results for "Mormon Tabernacle Choir" and 2,270 for "The Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square". The current title still appears to the the most common name. Try back in another year or two. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No, it doesn't need to be changed. The common name in the broad community has not changed. This is a very well known institution, and the proposed name is much less recognizable. Steven Georgiou became Yusuf Islam more than 40 years ago, but he's still Cat Stevens to most of us, and Stokely Carmichael became Kwame Ture about 50 years ago. Rebrandings don't always catch on among the broad public. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This name change is not a "proposed" change. It is one that has already happened. From the moment this change was originally covered in the mainstream media following the announcement of the change, the weekly broadcast has used the new name. The new name has been widely covered in the mainstream media, and the fact that the majority of sources available through the Google search noted by Rreagan007 in the above comment uses the new name vs. the old name suggests more that old habits die hard, and that in some cases, certain outlets have been unwilling to embrace the name change. But the inescapable fact is that, like it or not, the organization's name has changed, and if you go further into the references to the old name, you will find that those references are outdated, some of which may, on further review, be found to be biased on this issue. Yes, it has been less than a year since the name change was announced, and yes, it may take some time for all sources to embrace the new name of this organization, but the question I keep coming back to is whether the coverage using the old name should be seen as more meritorious, credible, relevant, or on point as the coverage using the new name. My answer to that at this time would be a resounding "no." Just some additional thoughts from me, for what they may be worth to the continued discussion. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Nothing has changed since the last RM. Still its common name throughout the world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 27 April 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is a clear consensus that the COMMONNAME has not changed. – bradv🍁 04:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mormon Tabernacle Choir → The Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square – This article title should be changed to "The Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square". Since last discussed, things have changed, and the new moniker better meets Wikipedia's 5 naming criterias WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. The main objection has been WP:COMMONNAME, which is no longer the case. Recognizability – Besides being referred to as "The Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square" by the news media, Google Searches indicate that the common usage has shifted to "The Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square. If you google "Mormon Tabernacle Choir", Google will link to Wikipedia, but replace our title with "The Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square", a clear indication that Google's algorithms believe that a shift has happened. Additionally, "Mormon Tabernacle Choir" may no longer NPOV. Anecdotally, I can affirm that using "Mormon" elicits a quite visceral response from a large section of the "Mormon" population. If widespread, per WP:NPOVNAME, the current name would be a violation of Wikipedia policy. Epachamo (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. buidhe 23:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Epachamo, while I agree that the standard common usage has changed, and that this article's name should be changed to reflect that, your comment on what was said by President Nelson may not be correct. The actual quotation to which you were referring states: "To remove the Lord’s name from the Lord’s Church is a major victory for Satan." If Wikipedia is truly meant to be neutral on topics covered and statements made, then it seems a bit disingenuous, IMHO, to mention the "major victory for Satan" as a rationale for changing the name on a Wikipedia article. Aside from that qualm with your comment, at this time, I would have no objection to changing the name of this article, especially if the move has sufficient support by consensus. --Jgstokes (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jgstokes, you make some good points. My point I was trying to make was that it is considered offensive to a segment of society, and therefore against the NPOV ideal of Wikipedia. It was directly after President Nelson's talk that the name of the Tabernacle Choir was changed, so I do think it somewhat relevant. We don't take marching orders from President Nelson on Wikipedia, but it is evidence of a particular point of view. Regardless, point taken, and I have removed the mention of "major victory of Satan" and tried to moderate the language. Epachamo (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It was last discussed less than a year ago. Nothing has changed. Srnec (talk)
  • Comment. If this page is moved, I think it should be moved to just The Tabernacle Choir per WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME. I wouldn't think that the average person would refer to it by the full official name and would usually just refer to it as "The Tabernacle Choir". Even on the official website (www.thetabernaclechoir.org), they often refer to themselves as simply "The Tabernacle Choir", and where "at Temple Square" is included, it's usually included in lower-size font. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with the name "The Tabernacle Choir". The WP:CONCISE makes sense to me. Epachamo (talk) 03:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Srnec, I'd disagree with you that nothing has changed. Epachamo has described how the algorithms on Google searches now redirect Mormon Tabernacle Choir to Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square. If that is true for other search engines (which it may or may not be), then the name yielding the highest such results on more than one major search engine should be an indicator that the name needs to shift somehow. Rreagan007, I'd concur with your suggestion that a more concise name for this page to "Tabernacle Choir" would likely be appropriate, given the new symbol that has been released for the Choir. There is a lot to consider here as far as whether or not to change the name of this article, and again, in general, I am willing to accept the consensus on this matter, whatever that decision might be. Thanks again, everyone! --Jgstokes (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what Epachamo is talking about. When I Google "Mormon Tabernacle Choir", the link to Wikipedia comes after the official website and it displays as Mormon Tabernacle Choir. Try this. Looks to me like Epachamo is juicing the stats by comparing a search term with a search topic. Srnec (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Srnec, Maybe some good faith WP:AGF? When you google "Mormon Tabernacle Choir", google's AI connects that phrase with the topic, "Tabernacle Choir on Temple Square". I was referring to the topic box on the right in a browser, or right at the very top in a mobile browser. As far as my 'juicing the stats', that is definitely not the case. Their is no topic "Mormon Tabernacle Choir" but there is one for "Tabernacle Choir on Temple Square", which further proves my point. Incidentally, the search term "Tabernacle Choir" beats "Mormon Tabernacle Choir". Try this. Regardless, if they are even remotely close, "Mormon Tabernacle Choir" is still controversial. Epachamo (talk) 03:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how what Google calls the topics is at all relevant. People do not search for "Tabernacle Choir on Temple Square". Because they've never heard of it. You wrote that Google Searches indicate that the common usage has shifted, but they indicate no such thing. Srnec (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Google is in it to make money. Choosing the most relevant name for their topics helps them make more money. Google spends billions to get their algorithms right. Google thinks "Tabernacle Choir on Temple Square" is the most relevant name. Furthermore:
  • There have been over 14000 page views of this article in the last month. When this was discussed a while ago, there were purportedly google search result numbers of '3,450 results for "Mormon Tabernacle Choir" and 2,270 for "Tabernacle Choir on Temple Square"' (which is not a 'significant majority' anyway). If this is true, then people are almost 3 times more likely to use Wikipedia than Google. Wikipedia's name choice could be skewing what people search for, limiting the effectiveness of naked google search numbers in the first place.
  • There are two reasons why the name should be changed that I mentioned, either one of which is a valid reason. "Mormon Tabernacle Choir" is no longer a WP:NPOVNAME, and elicits a visceral response. If there is a 'significant majority' that use the moniker, Wikipedia will use the NPOV name anyway. I see no indication that a 'significant majority' exists. Epachamo (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Repeating this same move request again seems like just trying to wear out the opposition. My impression is that the common name in the broad community has not changed. This is a very well known institution, and the proposed title is much less recognizable to most people. Steven Georgiou became Yusuf Islam more than 40 years ago, but he's still Cat Stevens to most of us, and Stokely Carmichael became Kwame Ture about 50 years ago. Rebrandings don't always catch on among the broad public. The Choir itself used this name for a long time (roughly 150 years?) that is how it is primarily known to the general public. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I repeated the move request again because times have changed since the last request. Your examples of the Cat Stevens and Stokely Carmichael only extend so far. I argue that a better example would be Cassius Clay changing his name to Muhammad Ali.
  • A good indicator of which it is, is Google. If you google Cassius Clay, Google links it to a topic it has titled "Muhammed Ali". If you google Yusuf Islam, you are linked to a topic titled "Cat Stevens". If you google "Mormon Tabernacle Choir", you are linked to a topic google has titled, "The Tabernacle Choir on Temple Square". If google has caught on, and major media outlets have caught on, its a pretty good indicator that the name has entered into common vernacular. I personally haven't heard the phrase "Mormon Tabernacle Choir" from friends and neighbors in probably over a year.
  • I would agree that "Mormon Tabernacle Choir" is still recognizable, and maybe in some regions of the country, more recognizable. If it is not absolutely clear that a 'significant majority' uses a particular name, why not go with the name that is more precise and the organization doesn't find offensive?
  • The first time the request was made, I myself would have been in the oppose camp. The request the last time was hardly unanimous, and I'm surprised it was closed out after just a week (three users voted to keep the name, two voted to change it, and one person changed his vote from yes to no). Times are changing. Epachamo (talk) 04:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify. You say nothing has changed. Is that your opinion or do you have a reference? What about the NPOV objection? Please address that. Writing "Not again!" in an exasperated way does not demonstrate good faith. Epachamo (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sort of good faith that is demonstrated by re-nominating an article for moving so soon after the last RM failed, you mean? And where does NPOV come into it? Given it's been the common name for donkey's years and we have an article titled Mormons? I reiterate, nothing whatsoever has changed since the last RM. Or the one less than a year before that. This appears to be just an attempt to carry on nominating until the name gets changed. And that is against the spirit of RM. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Necrothesp, I might see more merit in your comment if the renaming proposals were being repeatedly made when nothing had truly changed in relation to the article's topic. Since the last such discussion, as outlined, more media outlets are independently opting to use the new name in reference to the choir. I haven't run the percentages here, but it appears as though the amount of mention by old name vs. new name is not nearly as significantly leaning towards usage of the former.
That being said, if there is indeed a determination to wait and see how things unfold in that respect going forward, I think a reasonble suggestion would be to wait to open a discussion like this for yet another time after around 8-10 months have passed. If, as appears to be the case, more sources covering the organization in question do wind up using the new name instead of the old, that would, I feel, be a reasonable indication that it is time at that point to revisit this again. And I say that as one who is doing the best he can on his end to assume good faith on the part of all participating here, and in an effort to be sufficiently neutral in my own conveyed opinion on a personal level.
In fact, based on the give and take here thus far, it may be reasonable to evaluate the comments up to this point, close up the discussion for the time being, and revisit it again anywhere from 6-10 months from now when things have gotten back to normal following the COVID-19 situation, because by that point, with life normalized to any degree, the coverage of the Choir by its' prior or current name may be easier to analyze at that time than it may now be in view of the pandemic. Just some additional thoughts from me, for whatever they might be worth to those who read them here. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Necrothesp, you say that nothing has changed, but I think evidence shows differently. This is the very first time I have requested a name change or even participated in the discussion, so to say that my purpose and intent is to wear down the opposition is unfounded. The below table shows that quite a bit has changed, even since the last time it was proposed. If you feel like I am showing bad faith and cherry picking the data, by all means please add media outlets to this list. Epachamo (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Media outlet using "Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square" or just "Tabernacle Choir" Media outlet using "Mormon Tabernacle Choir"
The Oklahoman The Town Line
PBS Daily Herald
NPR NPR
Playbill iHarare
Kaysville Standard Red River Radio
Topeka Capital Journal WTTW
Spectrum Spectrum
WKAR
Channel Guide
Heavy
Fox 13 News
Daily Herald
Cache Valley Daily
Deseret News
Salt Lake Tribune
KUTV
KSL TV
Broadway World
LA Times
KUER
San Francisco Chronicle
  • Oppose, for all the reasons given above by the Oppose side. The Support side is cherry-picking sources close to the CoJCoLDS (is there truly no simpler name?), this doesn’t reflect common usage throughout the world. —ThorstenNY (talk) 23:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how the sources above are cherry picked. Even if one were to take out the sources affiliated with the church (Deseret News, KSL, KSLTV), that would leave some 17 sources using the new name, versus 7 using the old name. As has previously been said, if there more secondary sources which could be added, they are welcome to be added, but I am unaware of any. Regarding the common usage, I see Tabernacle Choir as more commonly used than the old name or the full official name. See this as well.Rollidan (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, again with the bad faith accusations WP:AOBF. If you feel I am cherry-picking the data, I encourage you to find a source I missed with the table. Most sources simply don't cover the Tabernacle Choir. I couldn't find anything in the New York Times, Washington Post, or several others I searched. Epachamo (talk) 03:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Record of Name Usage

[edit]

I have moved this table out of the "closed" discussion as a living record to provide a metric of how the media refers to the article subject over time, to assess changes in Common Usage. Editors are encouraged to add or challenge any source. Epachamo (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Media outlet using "Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square" or just "Tabernacle Choir" Media outlet using "Mormon Tabernacle Choir"
The Oklahoman The Town Line
PBS Daily Herald
NPR NPR
Playbill iHarare
Kaysville Standard Red River Radio
Topeka Capital Journal WTTW
Spectrum Spectrum
WKAR
Channel Guide
Heavy
Fox 13 News
Daily Herald
Cache Valley Daily
Deseret News
Salt Lake Tribune
KUTV
KSL TV
Broadway World
LA Times
KUER
San Francisco Chronicle
  • No other institution that actually went through an actual name change would we even have a discussion. The above is a sign of very clear bias and enmity against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The continued insistence on this depricated name is a clear case of wrongful bigotry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs) 20:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does the left column report combined statistics for two different names? Also, I notice that nearly all of those linked sources appear to be affiliated and promotional in nature – not really independent. I see a logo adopted last year that is also featured at the top of the article. The logo relegates the "at Temple Square" to micro-font obscurity. — BarrelProof (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BarrelProof: Feel free to split out the left column, I would not be offended. You say, "nearly all of those linked sources appear to be affiliated and promotional in nature – not really independent." Please elaborate. The only one of those sources that is owned by the LDS Church is the Deseret News. I don't understand how you could say that any of the others like the LA Times, PBS or especially the Salt Lake Tribune is not independent. Even if it were all promotional, it still goes through an independent editor before being published (editors who are interested in making sure their readers can connect with the best information, btw). This meets the requirements of Wikipedia for independence. Even if none of them were independent, it is still a valid point of evidence demonstrating shifts in common name usage. Epachamo (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even when published in third-party sources, puff pieces that promote particular events should not really carry much weight (especially, e.g., when PBS is promoting an event that will be broadcast on the PBS television system). — BarrelProof (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 January 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Tabernacle Choir (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 10:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Mormon Tabernacle Choir → Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square – Every time a university changes its name we immediately change our article name, we do not insist on showing that the new name reflects common usage. Above people have actually demonstrated that the most common usage is now the respect the name given it by the institution and follow that in reporting. This is a depricated name, and not showing respect for an institutions own decision to change its name here when we show immediate respect in almost all cases where a name change actually occurs is highly disrespectful John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Presidents of the Choir

[edit]

Hello again, everyone! It has been somewhat traditional for the administrative side of concerts, tours, and other functions at which the Choir has performed to be handled by a president who is not otherwise connected to the Choir. Although I don't have a complete history of those who served as president, we do know that in the 1990s-2000s, Mac Christensen filled that role. In 2012, Brother Christensen was replaced by Ron Jarrett. And this year, Ron Jarrett has been replaced by former Utah Governor Mike Leavitt, with his wife called to assist him in that assignment. But the announcement of the new president noted that two counselors and their wives will also be assisting Brother Leavitt. Within the last 24 hours, the Newsroom noted that the two counselors assigned to assist Brother Leavitt were sustained during an evening devotional for the Choir. The two counselors are L. Whitney Clayton, an emeritus General Authority Seventy, and Gary B. Porter, who has filled administrative roles with the Church'a business entities. Would it be helpful to include information about the choir presidents in this article? I know that for a brief period in the 1970s and 1980s, part of the Church's Sustaining of Church Officers always included the leadership of the choir. That being said, I'm not sure how much information is available on past choir presidents, or whether the changes made with the latest announcements (a 3-man presidency serving with their wiives) are sufficiently notable for Wikipedia purposes. Any feedback any of you might have on this would be appreciated. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tabernacle_Choir&oldid=1235934985"