This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Russell M. Nelson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | A news item involving Russell M. Nelson was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 21 January 2018. | ![]() |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There is a mini-bio for Wendy Watson Nelson (Wendy L. Watson) under the Family section. This should be shortened to one sentence, and the other information can be put in her own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by X-Kind ( talk • contribs) 10:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
There has been somewhat of an edit war going on on this page, with some insisting that no citation is needed for the "fact" that Nelson is now President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Those of us with a sound understanding of the way succession works in the Church, particularly as it relates to the apostleship, agree that Nelson is now the Quorum President. However, there has been no source indicating that he has been set apart or sustained in that capacity, either by the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles or by the Church at large. Until that happens, and until we have a source to cite that states it has happened, we can only say that with Packer's death, Nelson becomes the de facto Quorum President and attach a citation needed tag on it. Not only is this necessary, it's also Wikipedia policy. So I would respectfully ask that Nelson only be referred to as the de facto Quorum President unless and until we have a source stating that he has been so sustained and set apart. When we do have a source, the current wording can be adjusted accordingly. Until that time, please do not revert the information as it now stands until a consensus is reached on this matter or a source is provided. Thank you. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 10:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
An anonymous editor has pre-emptively changed President Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve to President of the Church, prior to his announcement of leadership on 16 January. While this may appear to be a foregone conclusion, the Church's official newsroom and newspaper have not yet announced such change, but only the Pres Nelson (of the Q12) will make an announcement to the Church at 9AM MST. Let's please allow the actual facts to drive the article - thanks. ShaziDaoren ( talk) 12:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Russell M. Nelson. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello again, everyone! While I appreciate the efforts of editors that have reverted my recent edits on this page (and have the utmost respect for the general work done by such editors and their efforts to utilize the correct policies for the improvement of such articles, I have a slight quibble with the revert of my changes to the order of information in the lede. I went to the section of the article to which I was referred for the precedent of the prevailing policies in this case, and one paragraph in particular from that section stuck out to me. Here's what it says:
"In general, present a biography in chronological order, from birth to death, except where there is good reason to do otherwise. Within a single section, events should almost always be in chronological order. Exceptions to this rule may be apply to lists of works, such as publications or other media productions, where the most recent may be listed first, as well as for distinctions such as orders, decorations, and medals."
My interpretation of that would be to say that, according to those guidelines, since there is a distinction in terms of why and how Nelson came to his current position as Church president (which could, in the terms of Church doctrine, be comparable to how Wikipedia would in this case define "orders", then how and why he has now become the Church president is more vital to substantiate and take precedence in this article's lede than would his career and prestige as a surgeon or any other biographical details. The fact of the matter is, if anyone else who had been ordained an apostle after Monson but before Nelson were still alive, they would be the Church president, not him. An outline explaining why he is the senior apostle and thus the current president of the Church is therefore very relevant to detail at the beginning of the lede.
That said, I recognize the need to give those who disagree on this point the benefit of the doubt and also the chance to tell me why they might disagree, and what makes them think I might be in error on this point. When in doubt, I always try to assume good faith, except when I can categorically prove that is not warranted. So, having posted these thoughts, I will not take steps to revert the revert of my changes unless and until the consensus concurs with this assessment. Thanks for wading through this explanation, and I hope it shows where I am coming from. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 03:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know. I appreciate your ongoing diligent efforts to improve Wikipedia. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 05:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello again, everyone! While I appreciated (and to a certain extent agree with) User:ChristensenMJ's statement in a recent edit summary to the effect that he was not sure every detail of Nelson's prophetic administration should be mentioned on this page, at the same time, the Church is in somewhat of an unprecedented period of time. The Church went from having a Church president that had reduced his role in the day-to-day administration of the Church (including a reduction of the number of public appearances and addresses to the membership of the Church) to a president who, though nearly 3 years older than his predecessor, may be said to be more healthy now than President Monson was during the last 5-7 years of his life.
As a consequence, President Nelson has been very much keen on getting to work. While it is unknown how many of the changes that have taken place in the almost 7 months of his administration thus far were under study during the tenure of his predecessor, the number and impact of those changes, given the short amount of time he has served, opens a historically-significant chapter for the Church.
Additionally, the only reason more was not reported on President Monson's travels as Church president is because, during 2014 and even more so from 2015 to his death, he was not able to be out and about among the people, even though he very much wished to be, according to all reports I have seen. President Nelson, AFAIK, has no such issues to deal with at present.
For that reason, the fact that he has done more in these almost 7 months than President Monson did in the last 3-5 years of his life is indeed significant. That said, I would not be opposed to slimming down the section however we need to do so, since there will almost certainly be other noteworthy developments during whatever remains of President Nelson's administration (which could be longer than many, myself included, originally anticipated).
Perhaps what could be done is to combine aspects that follow similar themes together. We could have one section discussing the reorganization of the First Presidency and his subsequent first two apostolic picks (including their historical significance), another discussing the major announcements of his presidency (in terms of policy and practice changes), another section for his travels thus far, and one final one for the temple developments of his presidency (including the announced dedications and rededication, the new locations for which he announced temples last April, and the unique circumstances surrounding the announcements that were historically significant).
Later on, as more things transpire during his presidency, perhaps those additional developments will overshadow and outdo what has already been seen, in which case, any of those previous developments can be summarily condensed. But I feel personally that we would be doing the readers here a disservice if, until we know how extensive other potential developments might turn out to be, we do not place a proper focus on what has already been a historically-significant 7 months for the Church under President Nelson's leadership. Those are just my thoughts, however, and if the consensus opts to condense this content right now, I will not oppose that happening. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 00:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, ChristensenMJ, for that clarification. I agree that noting every nuance of any Church president's ministry could make articles about them unduly lengthy, and would be somewhat of a disservice to the readers who peruse them. That said, the fact that there have been so many major announcements in the first seven months of President Nelson's administration (which, unless I am incorrectly recalling, did not occur on such a significant scale for any previous Church president, regardless of health) is somewhat unprecedented.
It could also be argued (if I have correctly read this policy correctly that detailing all major events in the administration of any current leader is relevant for the time, but would have a reduced weight and coverage after such leaders are no longer in place. For example, there has been a long-standing practice of listing all major events in the administration of the current president of the United States, but reducing the weight and length of the details on such administrations after those men are no longer in power. When Barack Obama was president, focus was given on his article to all major events and policy developments. Now that he has concluded his term, the detailed focus is on the administration of Donald Trump, and Obama's page has been reduced to major significant highlights rather than every nuance and detail.
But to get back to the relevant subject, President Nelson, his trips to Canada could be argued to be significant simply by virtue of his wife's status as one who was born there. As for the hymnbook and children's songbook, it could be argued that since that revision process is detailed elsewhere, it should not be mentioned here. At the same time, given that the Church has not seen a revision of either book since the administration of Ezra Taft Benson, the fact that Nelson's administration is leading the revision process, whether or not that process was under consideration prior to the death of Thomas S. Monson, is significant.
I guess the task then becomes determining which highlights of his administration will be most remembered as significant, and which are merely minor events that will fade in importance over time. That is a question I personally do not feel qualified enough to answer, since we have no way of knowing how extensive such developments will continue to be, or how long his administration might last.
All of that noted, if there is any way to refine and fine-tune the tone and length of this content, I would be perfectly willing to embrace such changes. But for now, this is current information, which is certainly relevant for readers who want to learn more about what is happening right now in the Church and with the ministry of its' current president. But that is merely my own opinion, and if the consensus agrees with your assessment, I will be fully on board with that. Thanks again, ChristensenMJ! -- Jgstokes ( talk) 20:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, due to the persistent vandalism that increased after the last semi-protection expired, I've asked that the page receive semi-protection indefinitely over on Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection. Rachel Helps (BYU) ( talk) 15:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church).[4] Nelson was a member of the LDS Church's Quorum of the Twelve Apostles" to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.[4] Nelson was a member of the Restored Church of Jesus Christ's Quorum of the Twelve Apostles" because "LDS" is no longer a name propagated by the church. Thank you! Tatestaker ( talk) 02:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
With all due respect to Pres. Dr. Nelson's accomplishments, does the sheer mass of info presented here fit the spirit of Wikipedia? For instance, do we need to include all his travels as President of the Church, or even the type of heart operations he performed? Trumblej1986 ( talk) 03:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Many of the paragraphs could be pared down to a a sentence, or even eliminated all together. I don't think his visit to Canada, Easter Europe, or South America warrant such specific, pointed mentions; simply mentioning that he has visited countries x, y, and z as part of his global ministry would be sufficient, imo. Additionally, his first visit outside of Utah, while interesting from the vantage point of a member of the Church, seems very trivia-ish to me. Further, without clarifying statements on the notability of his performance of certain surgeries (e.g., first Utah open heart surgery, surgery on a past incumbent of the office he now holds, etc), it, again, smacks of trivia. The reason I didn't address this in the previous topic of his prophetic administration is because my concerns about the article are broader than just his tenure as President. And while a highly visible person should receive attention in the news for important travels and statements, in an encyclopedia, we have to balance how important such things are from a broader historical perspective. I get the desire to correct the record on LDS matters (having been LDS myself), and the desire to ensure proper positive attention on the church, and, by and large, I think you've been successful at that. But, we can't miss the forest for the trees, and take into account the due weight necessary for all information bits in the article, and not just post everything we can find on the subject. Trumblej1986 ( talk) 10:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
If I can chime in again here: I have no objection to Rollindan condensing this content as he sees fit, I have still not heard any thoughts on my recommendation that some of the information be transcluded into separate article(s), with a link to said article(s) and brief summaries on the more lengthy section in this main article. But I would also have no objection to some information relating to the Nelsonian reforms being relocated to the article on the faith in this century. Just some additional thoughts and suggestions from me. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 21:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi all! Per prior concensus (see above), it was generally agreed that the article on President Nelson needs rewriting and reorganization. As a first thought, the section on his presidency is quite cluttered with a variety of different events announcements. If no one objects, I'm going to reorganize this section into four subsections: the header, "Worldwide Ministry", "Policy Changes and Announcements", and "Temples", all of which have been major themes of his first 18 months as president. Note that this would not substantially remove any content, but would allow for it to be organized more properly. Thoughts? Rollidan ( talk) 02:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
As a second though, the article could definitely benefit from some additional photos to the one in the lead. Any thoughts or suggestions? Rollidan ( talk) 15:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
I removed the content below as per WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Russell Nelson was involved in any way in with satanic rituals and devil worship including child sexual abuse. The lawsuit alleging this material went down in flames and was dismissed. As such, this content violates WP:BLP. Please discuss it and reach consensus before reinstating it. Octoberwoodland ( talk) 04:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
In 2018, a daughter and son-in-law of Nelson were accused in a lawsuit of participating in a Satanic ritual abuse ring in Bountiful, Utah, in 1985, and Nelson was accused of using his influence to cover up the abuse. [1] [2] A law enforcement investigation at the time found no evidence of any abuse ring, and the local Bountiful church leader stated that neither Nelson nor any other high-ranking church leader attempted any cover-up. [1] In 2020, the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice. [3] At the time of original accusations, there were over 220 allegations of ritual sexual abuse in Utah, none of which were corroborated by evidence. These were widely attributed to recovered-memory therapy, a therapeutic practice that often results in false memories. [1]
References
Opposed | Ambiguous | In Favor |
---|---|---|
@ Jgstokes: | @ White whirlwind: (leans to oppose?) | epachamo |
@ Octoberwoodland: | @ Devokewater: | |
@ FyzixFighter: (with a rewrite) | ||
@ Good Olfactory: (I assume in favor based being the original author) |
I have opened a discussion at the BLP Noticeboard at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Russell_M._Nelson Octoberwoodland ( talk) 21:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Opposed | Neutral | Support |
---|---|---|
@ Jgstokes: | @ Good Olfactory: | @ Epachamo: |
@ Octoberwoodland: | @ Devokewater: | @ FyzixFighter: (with a rewrite) |
@ Johnpacklambert: | ||
@ White whirlwind: (weak oppose) | ||
@ Zaereth: (BLP Noticeboard) | ||
@ Nil Einne: (BLP Noticeboard, BLP Concerns related to Nelson's children) |
The previous table posted by
User:Epachamo falsely claims an editor who did not vote is part of the discussion (which they are not). Another editor said they felt the content was of low priority is listed at Neutral when there statements made it clear they don't feel that content belongs in the article at this point.
User:Epachamo also has intentionally omitted another editor who voted to oppose.
Octoberwoodland (
talk)
22:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
The discussion has closed at the BLP Noticeboard Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive319#Russell_M._Nelson. The results are 6 editors who oppose inclusion. 2 editors who are neutral, and 2 editors who favor inclusion. Consensus is to exclude the disputed content. Octoberwoodland ( talk) 06:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Comment: I am going to quote WP:BLPCRIME in its entirety. Note that for a public person like Russell M. Nelson, there is nothing in there that prohibits inclusion of the content: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other,[d] include sufficient explanatory information."
The section can and should be re-written to remove any and all reference to Nelson's children, which would make WP:BLPCRIME not applicable at all.
WP:UNDUE is being misapplied here as well. I will quote the first paragraph of that policy: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." The fact that he was accused is not a minority view! Everyone agrees that he was accused, it is the majority view. There are many views surrounding it that should not be included, for example, the SRA is real viewpoint should not be included as that is a minority view.
Note also that WP:UNDUE might mean that even if the content is not appropriate for this particular article, it does not mean that it doesn't belong on Wikipedia in a different article. For example, modern support for flat earth is not included in the article on the earth, but there is a whole article on it Modern flat Earth societies that exists on Wikipedia. So while this disputed content might not be appropriate for the biography of Russell M. Nelson, it is entirely appropriate for an article on SRA. see WP:RSUW.
WP:BLP is also being misapplied here. From subsection WP:PUBLICFIGURE, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." It just needs to be written in a way so that Nelson is not implicated by association, and that there is a presumption of innocence. Epachamo ( talk) 17:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
This person has been incorrectly categorized as a cardiologist when in fact he was a cardiothoracic surgeon. Cardiology is a subspecialty of Internal Medicine. Cardiothoracic surgery is a surgical subspecialty. They are not the same thing. Ewingdo ( talk) 04:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:22, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Russell M. Nelson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | A news item involving Russell M. Nelson was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 21 January 2018. | ![]() |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There is a mini-bio for Wendy Watson Nelson (Wendy L. Watson) under the Family section. This should be shortened to one sentence, and the other information can be put in her own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by X-Kind ( talk • contribs) 10:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
There has been somewhat of an edit war going on on this page, with some insisting that no citation is needed for the "fact" that Nelson is now President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Those of us with a sound understanding of the way succession works in the Church, particularly as it relates to the apostleship, agree that Nelson is now the Quorum President. However, there has been no source indicating that he has been set apart or sustained in that capacity, either by the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles or by the Church at large. Until that happens, and until we have a source to cite that states it has happened, we can only say that with Packer's death, Nelson becomes the de facto Quorum President and attach a citation needed tag on it. Not only is this necessary, it's also Wikipedia policy. So I would respectfully ask that Nelson only be referred to as the de facto Quorum President unless and until we have a source stating that he has been so sustained and set apart. When we do have a source, the current wording can be adjusted accordingly. Until that time, please do not revert the information as it now stands until a consensus is reached on this matter or a source is provided. Thank you. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 10:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
An anonymous editor has pre-emptively changed President Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve to President of the Church, prior to his announcement of leadership on 16 January. While this may appear to be a foregone conclusion, the Church's official newsroom and newspaper have not yet announced such change, but only the Pres Nelson (of the Q12) will make an announcement to the Church at 9AM MST. Let's please allow the actual facts to drive the article - thanks. ShaziDaoren ( talk) 12:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Russell M. Nelson. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello again, everyone! While I appreciate the efforts of editors that have reverted my recent edits on this page (and have the utmost respect for the general work done by such editors and their efforts to utilize the correct policies for the improvement of such articles, I have a slight quibble with the revert of my changes to the order of information in the lede. I went to the section of the article to which I was referred for the precedent of the prevailing policies in this case, and one paragraph in particular from that section stuck out to me. Here's what it says:
"In general, present a biography in chronological order, from birth to death, except where there is good reason to do otherwise. Within a single section, events should almost always be in chronological order. Exceptions to this rule may be apply to lists of works, such as publications or other media productions, where the most recent may be listed first, as well as for distinctions such as orders, decorations, and medals."
My interpretation of that would be to say that, according to those guidelines, since there is a distinction in terms of why and how Nelson came to his current position as Church president (which could, in the terms of Church doctrine, be comparable to how Wikipedia would in this case define "orders", then how and why he has now become the Church president is more vital to substantiate and take precedence in this article's lede than would his career and prestige as a surgeon or any other biographical details. The fact of the matter is, if anyone else who had been ordained an apostle after Monson but before Nelson were still alive, they would be the Church president, not him. An outline explaining why he is the senior apostle and thus the current president of the Church is therefore very relevant to detail at the beginning of the lede.
That said, I recognize the need to give those who disagree on this point the benefit of the doubt and also the chance to tell me why they might disagree, and what makes them think I might be in error on this point. When in doubt, I always try to assume good faith, except when I can categorically prove that is not warranted. So, having posted these thoughts, I will not take steps to revert the revert of my changes unless and until the consensus concurs with this assessment. Thanks for wading through this explanation, and I hope it shows where I am coming from. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 03:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know. I appreciate your ongoing diligent efforts to improve Wikipedia. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 05:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello again, everyone! While I appreciated (and to a certain extent agree with) User:ChristensenMJ's statement in a recent edit summary to the effect that he was not sure every detail of Nelson's prophetic administration should be mentioned on this page, at the same time, the Church is in somewhat of an unprecedented period of time. The Church went from having a Church president that had reduced his role in the day-to-day administration of the Church (including a reduction of the number of public appearances and addresses to the membership of the Church) to a president who, though nearly 3 years older than his predecessor, may be said to be more healthy now than President Monson was during the last 5-7 years of his life.
As a consequence, President Nelson has been very much keen on getting to work. While it is unknown how many of the changes that have taken place in the almost 7 months of his administration thus far were under study during the tenure of his predecessor, the number and impact of those changes, given the short amount of time he has served, opens a historically-significant chapter for the Church.
Additionally, the only reason more was not reported on President Monson's travels as Church president is because, during 2014 and even more so from 2015 to his death, he was not able to be out and about among the people, even though he very much wished to be, according to all reports I have seen. President Nelson, AFAIK, has no such issues to deal with at present.
For that reason, the fact that he has done more in these almost 7 months than President Monson did in the last 3-5 years of his life is indeed significant. That said, I would not be opposed to slimming down the section however we need to do so, since there will almost certainly be other noteworthy developments during whatever remains of President Nelson's administration (which could be longer than many, myself included, originally anticipated).
Perhaps what could be done is to combine aspects that follow similar themes together. We could have one section discussing the reorganization of the First Presidency and his subsequent first two apostolic picks (including their historical significance), another discussing the major announcements of his presidency (in terms of policy and practice changes), another section for his travels thus far, and one final one for the temple developments of his presidency (including the announced dedications and rededication, the new locations for which he announced temples last April, and the unique circumstances surrounding the announcements that were historically significant).
Later on, as more things transpire during his presidency, perhaps those additional developments will overshadow and outdo what has already been seen, in which case, any of those previous developments can be summarily condensed. But I feel personally that we would be doing the readers here a disservice if, until we know how extensive other potential developments might turn out to be, we do not place a proper focus on what has already been a historically-significant 7 months for the Church under President Nelson's leadership. Those are just my thoughts, however, and if the consensus opts to condense this content right now, I will not oppose that happening. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 00:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, ChristensenMJ, for that clarification. I agree that noting every nuance of any Church president's ministry could make articles about them unduly lengthy, and would be somewhat of a disservice to the readers who peruse them. That said, the fact that there have been so many major announcements in the first seven months of President Nelson's administration (which, unless I am incorrectly recalling, did not occur on such a significant scale for any previous Church president, regardless of health) is somewhat unprecedented.
It could also be argued (if I have correctly read this policy correctly that detailing all major events in the administration of any current leader is relevant for the time, but would have a reduced weight and coverage after such leaders are no longer in place. For example, there has been a long-standing practice of listing all major events in the administration of the current president of the United States, but reducing the weight and length of the details on such administrations after those men are no longer in power. When Barack Obama was president, focus was given on his article to all major events and policy developments. Now that he has concluded his term, the detailed focus is on the administration of Donald Trump, and Obama's page has been reduced to major significant highlights rather than every nuance and detail.
But to get back to the relevant subject, President Nelson, his trips to Canada could be argued to be significant simply by virtue of his wife's status as one who was born there. As for the hymnbook and children's songbook, it could be argued that since that revision process is detailed elsewhere, it should not be mentioned here. At the same time, given that the Church has not seen a revision of either book since the administration of Ezra Taft Benson, the fact that Nelson's administration is leading the revision process, whether or not that process was under consideration prior to the death of Thomas S. Monson, is significant.
I guess the task then becomes determining which highlights of his administration will be most remembered as significant, and which are merely minor events that will fade in importance over time. That is a question I personally do not feel qualified enough to answer, since we have no way of knowing how extensive such developments will continue to be, or how long his administration might last.
All of that noted, if there is any way to refine and fine-tune the tone and length of this content, I would be perfectly willing to embrace such changes. But for now, this is current information, which is certainly relevant for readers who want to learn more about what is happening right now in the Church and with the ministry of its' current president. But that is merely my own opinion, and if the consensus agrees with your assessment, I will be fully on board with that. Thanks again, ChristensenMJ! -- Jgstokes ( talk) 20:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, due to the persistent vandalism that increased after the last semi-protection expired, I've asked that the page receive semi-protection indefinitely over on Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection. Rachel Helps (BYU) ( talk) 15:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church).[4] Nelson was a member of the LDS Church's Quorum of the Twelve Apostles" to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.[4] Nelson was a member of the Restored Church of Jesus Christ's Quorum of the Twelve Apostles" because "LDS" is no longer a name propagated by the church. Thank you! Tatestaker ( talk) 02:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
With all due respect to Pres. Dr. Nelson's accomplishments, does the sheer mass of info presented here fit the spirit of Wikipedia? For instance, do we need to include all his travels as President of the Church, or even the type of heart operations he performed? Trumblej1986 ( talk) 03:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Many of the paragraphs could be pared down to a a sentence, or even eliminated all together. I don't think his visit to Canada, Easter Europe, or South America warrant such specific, pointed mentions; simply mentioning that he has visited countries x, y, and z as part of his global ministry would be sufficient, imo. Additionally, his first visit outside of Utah, while interesting from the vantage point of a member of the Church, seems very trivia-ish to me. Further, without clarifying statements on the notability of his performance of certain surgeries (e.g., first Utah open heart surgery, surgery on a past incumbent of the office he now holds, etc), it, again, smacks of trivia. The reason I didn't address this in the previous topic of his prophetic administration is because my concerns about the article are broader than just his tenure as President. And while a highly visible person should receive attention in the news for important travels and statements, in an encyclopedia, we have to balance how important such things are from a broader historical perspective. I get the desire to correct the record on LDS matters (having been LDS myself), and the desire to ensure proper positive attention on the church, and, by and large, I think you've been successful at that. But, we can't miss the forest for the trees, and take into account the due weight necessary for all information bits in the article, and not just post everything we can find on the subject. Trumblej1986 ( talk) 10:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
If I can chime in again here: I have no objection to Rollindan condensing this content as he sees fit, I have still not heard any thoughts on my recommendation that some of the information be transcluded into separate article(s), with a link to said article(s) and brief summaries on the more lengthy section in this main article. But I would also have no objection to some information relating to the Nelsonian reforms being relocated to the article on the faith in this century. Just some additional thoughts and suggestions from me. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 21:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi all! Per prior concensus (see above), it was generally agreed that the article on President Nelson needs rewriting and reorganization. As a first thought, the section on his presidency is quite cluttered with a variety of different events announcements. If no one objects, I'm going to reorganize this section into four subsections: the header, "Worldwide Ministry", "Policy Changes and Announcements", and "Temples", all of which have been major themes of his first 18 months as president. Note that this would not substantially remove any content, but would allow for it to be organized more properly. Thoughts? Rollidan ( talk) 02:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
As a second though, the article could definitely benefit from some additional photos to the one in the lead. Any thoughts or suggestions? Rollidan ( talk) 15:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
I removed the content below as per WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Russell Nelson was involved in any way in with satanic rituals and devil worship including child sexual abuse. The lawsuit alleging this material went down in flames and was dismissed. As such, this content violates WP:BLP. Please discuss it and reach consensus before reinstating it. Octoberwoodland ( talk) 04:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
In 2018, a daughter and son-in-law of Nelson were accused in a lawsuit of participating in a Satanic ritual abuse ring in Bountiful, Utah, in 1985, and Nelson was accused of using his influence to cover up the abuse. [1] [2] A law enforcement investigation at the time found no evidence of any abuse ring, and the local Bountiful church leader stated that neither Nelson nor any other high-ranking church leader attempted any cover-up. [1] In 2020, the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice. [3] At the time of original accusations, there were over 220 allegations of ritual sexual abuse in Utah, none of which were corroborated by evidence. These were widely attributed to recovered-memory therapy, a therapeutic practice that often results in false memories. [1]
References
Opposed | Ambiguous | In Favor |
---|---|---|
@ Jgstokes: | @ White whirlwind: (leans to oppose?) | epachamo |
@ Octoberwoodland: | @ Devokewater: | |
@ FyzixFighter: (with a rewrite) | ||
@ Good Olfactory: (I assume in favor based being the original author) |
I have opened a discussion at the BLP Noticeboard at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Russell_M._Nelson Octoberwoodland ( talk) 21:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Opposed | Neutral | Support |
---|---|---|
@ Jgstokes: | @ Good Olfactory: | @ Epachamo: |
@ Octoberwoodland: | @ Devokewater: | @ FyzixFighter: (with a rewrite) |
@ Johnpacklambert: | ||
@ White whirlwind: (weak oppose) | ||
@ Zaereth: (BLP Noticeboard) | ||
@ Nil Einne: (BLP Noticeboard, BLP Concerns related to Nelson's children) |
The previous table posted by
User:Epachamo falsely claims an editor who did not vote is part of the discussion (which they are not). Another editor said they felt the content was of low priority is listed at Neutral when there statements made it clear they don't feel that content belongs in the article at this point.
User:Epachamo also has intentionally omitted another editor who voted to oppose.
Octoberwoodland (
talk)
22:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
The discussion has closed at the BLP Noticeboard Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive319#Russell_M._Nelson. The results are 6 editors who oppose inclusion. 2 editors who are neutral, and 2 editors who favor inclusion. Consensus is to exclude the disputed content. Octoberwoodland ( talk) 06:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Comment: I am going to quote WP:BLPCRIME in its entirety. Note that for a public person like Russell M. Nelson, there is nothing in there that prohibits inclusion of the content: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other,[d] include sufficient explanatory information."
The section can and should be re-written to remove any and all reference to Nelson's children, which would make WP:BLPCRIME not applicable at all.
WP:UNDUE is being misapplied here as well. I will quote the first paragraph of that policy: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." The fact that he was accused is not a minority view! Everyone agrees that he was accused, it is the majority view. There are many views surrounding it that should not be included, for example, the SRA is real viewpoint should not be included as that is a minority view.
Note also that WP:UNDUE might mean that even if the content is not appropriate for this particular article, it does not mean that it doesn't belong on Wikipedia in a different article. For example, modern support for flat earth is not included in the article on the earth, but there is a whole article on it Modern flat Earth societies that exists on Wikipedia. So while this disputed content might not be appropriate for the biography of Russell M. Nelson, it is entirely appropriate for an article on SRA. see WP:RSUW.
WP:BLP is also being misapplied here. From subsection WP:PUBLICFIGURE, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." It just needs to be written in a way so that Nelson is not implicated by association, and that there is a presumption of innocence. Epachamo ( talk) 17:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
This person has been incorrectly categorized as a cardiologist when in fact he was a cardiothoracic surgeon. Cardiology is a subspecialty of Internal Medicine. Cardiothoracic surgery is a surgical subspecialty. They are not the same thing. Ewingdo ( talk) 04:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:22, 25 December 2022 (UTC)