Talk:Russell M. Nelson

Wendy Watson Nelson

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)

She doesn't have an article, unless you happened to add an incorrect link. If you click on Wendy L. Watson, there's a redirect that takes you back to this article, making the added link either misdirected or pointless. --Jgstokes (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

My point is she doesn't have an article, but she should because there is too much information about her on this page that has little to do with Russel M. Nelson. X-Kind (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with that. If you say that Nelson's second wife is deserving of her own article, you should also say every wife of every apostle who has ever served in the LDS Church merits one, and we know this is not the case. We include as much information about each apostolic wife as we have available. In Wendy Watson Nelson's case, there's a little more information available about her due to her status as a BYU professor who became the 2nd wife of an apostle. If you do try to establish a separate article for Watson Nelson, odds are it will be subject to speedy deletion due to a lack of sufficient verifiable information to warrant keeping such an article. But you're welcome to try. I just speak as someone who has had several articles I have created about prominent Church members deleted because their notability in sources independent of the Church was limited. I wouldn't want the same thing to happen to Watson Nelson's article, if you did decide to create one. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Nelson's status as Quorum President

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)

Nelson was officially set apart today as Quorum President, as reported by the Mormon Newsroom at lds.org. I have added that source to the list of sources in this article. I have also added a citation needed tag for the "fact" that Nelson is the oldest living apostle. If such a tag was needed until a reference was found for Perry, this article should carry that tag until a source is cited to verify this information. Comments? --Jgstokes (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Nelson's status as President of the Church

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)

During President Nelson's address and the press conference that followed, it was confirmed that the January 14 date was correct, and all official sources verify it. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121201061632/http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/pagegen/brochure/p7.html to http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/pagegen/brochure/p7.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901165728/http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=7102 to http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=7102

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) 23:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Order of information in lede

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)

@Jgstokes: after ruminating on this for a few weeks I think you are probably right on this point. I've changed the lead and it seems to still flow fairly well.  White Whirlwind  咨  19:40, 2 March 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)

President Nelson's administration thus far.

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)

There is no doubt that much has happened and been announced across the LDS Church since the middle of January. My thought is not only still the same, but also more long-term view. I am not attempting to compare to Monson's term, but perhaps using the Gordon B. Hinckley article as a reference point could be helpful to the point. While the health of a predecessor does have some bearing - and it could be noted that with the health of both of Hinckley's predecessor, Ezra Taft Benson and Howard W. Hunter, his presidency was a significant change from the recent years - it also stands somewhat independent. Hinckley got out and traveled very extensively, announced smaller temples and the prolific building plan, changed the transparency and media access of leaders, etc., etc. Yet for the nearly 13 years Hinkcley served as church president, that specific section in his article is already shorter than the length of the same section in Nelson's article.

I'll note a couple of specific examples in this article - I am not sure the hymnbook/songbook thing needs to be in his article. Any and everything that happens within the church during his term as president, or anyone's term as president, likely doesn't need to be recounted and ascribed to the individual article. I also don't think the recent or upcoming trips to Canada are all that "significant." I have no concerns about the April trip, due to its global nature and impact. It's clear as long as health permits, he'll continue to travel. So when I note concern about recent events that is what I am trying to say - this article could get very unwieldy quickly and has a bit of the feeling now that any and every action will be included. ChristensenMJ (talk) 17:54, 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)

semi-protection requested

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)

semi-protection has been added. thanks admins! Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2018

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)

 Not done – but it's an abbreviation that's used throughout the article, so it's good to have what it refers to when it's first used. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's Manual of Style on Latter Day Saints, which uses "LDS Church" as a standard abbreviation. The talk page there discusses volunteers' decision not to change the style guide. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Information overload?

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)

Agreed, some of the regular editors here are very overenthusiastic (but well-intentioned). A lot of the details on the article aren't WP:NOTABLE (edit: I forgot that WP:NOTABLE specifically applies only to articles' existence overall, and not to their content).  White Whirlwind  咨  03:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello. A couple of thoughts from me here relating to this matter. First of all, the highlights of Nelson's prophetic administration being covered to the extent they have been was a topic covered earlier on this talk page. Secondly, and only slightly less significant, all individuals currently serving in a prominent capacity (ie the president of a 16-17 million member Church, the pontiff of the Catholic Church, the monarch of the United Kingdom, and the President of the United States) deserve to have current coverage of the major highlights of their service in those capacities.

As just one example, one cannot talk about the current administration of President Donald Trump without mentioning the Russia collusion issue, and the Mueller investigation and report. But the way that those pages have not allowed such coverage to become too cumbersome is through creating branched-off pages for major topics that could focus on the extensive details separately, but would be linked to the main page, with only a summary of the most significant highlights on what would then in essence become the "home page" for the main subject in question.

Something like that could work, with one or more of the more extensive and expansive sections on Russell M. Nelson segmented off into "branch-pages" that would still be linked to this page, and once that was done, the relevant sections on this page could be condensed to be more concise and focus on the items of greatest signficance. With that in mind, I would have no objection whatsoever to someone creating those "branched-off" pages and then condensing this page to the bare minimum highlights. But it would have to be someone with more Wikipedia know-how than I currently have (although I have edited Wikipedia for more than a decade now, there are some things like that which I haven't had a chance to learn how to do). These are just my own thoughts on these issues, for what they may be worth. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is Not A Newspaper Or Diary. See #4: "Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played or goal scored is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person." I find the notion that Pres. Nelson's "prominence" is comparable to the that of the President of the United States or the Pope to be preposterous, and would be blown out of the water by a simple coverage survey of reliable sources. Forking off his travels would just be a "POV fork" to circumvent the undue weight guidelines of the type described at WP:Content Forking.  White Whirlwind  咨  06:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I find it extremely ironic that, as someone who has been editing Wikipedia for more than a decade now, I am constantly facing people who think I have no idea how Wikipedia works, nor any clear inkling or understanding of what Wikipedia is and is not. I am all too well acquainted with most Wikipedia policies, especially those that relate to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In all my time editing here, I have been known and respected for working on a variety of articles, a good number of which have little to nothing to do with the Church. However, because I have also done my best to work with editors with whom I have any kind of disagreement, I am going to assume that the references to the policy above were made in {{WP:GOODFAITH|good faith]].

In the meantime, I have made what I believe is a resonable suggestion, not to mention a reasonable comparision. Is it really all that ridiculous to cite the examples of the President of the United States (who has only been a political figure for a couple of years) or the Pope (who, prior to his papal installation, may not have even been widely known outside the Catholic Church). I recognize that different standards apply to people like the President of the United States or the leader of the Catholic Church, but that leads to a reiteration of a point I have made previously in relation to numerous other Church-related articles: there does not seem to be widely-accepted standards and regulations relating to how to appropriately handle coverage relating to the Church, its' leaders, and other topics, especially since the primary sources for much of the published information comes from Church-owned or Church-sponsored resources.

But that aside, I know there have been subpages made for prominent people in the past. Would it really be such a horrible idea to have branched-off pages for this page, to deal with the immediate concerns? If the medical section and the section covering milestones of his prophetic administrations thus far are so unwieldly, simplifying most of that material in this article while allowing for whatever expansion is deemed necessary in the future in the other two articles would be a fair way to address both.

But there is also another issue at play here: The only reason that the coverage of major events thus far in this prophetic administration is so extensive is because, in the almost-17 months since his ordination as such, Nelson has had more significant things happen under his leadership than we ever saw within the first 17 or 18 months into the administration of previous Church Presidents. And it seems certain from what has been said by Nelson and others that there will be more to come. With that being the case, then these current events need to be chronicled in some manner. The Church as a whole is now in a markedly different place overall than it was at the end of 2017, just before Thomas S. Monson's passing. And I see no way to diminish the amount of that coverage without undercutting or devaluing the impact that these 17 months have had on the Church, and on those outside the faith who are aware of the significant nature of all of this. So if someone has a better suggestion than setting up separate pages with more extensive coverage on the medical achievements and the major milestones the Church has seen, I'd welcome the chance to hear it. Either way, unless I have more than a vague reference to these alleged issues that are problematic, and some idea of what other measures would be suggested to deal with the "problem", I might have a hard time getting on board.

I am not an unreasonable person who seeks to quell all efforts to implement changes about which I am not comfortable. But this is the second-oldest man to ever lead the Church, and the fact that he is doing so with such great vigor, and a clear view of the direction in which the Church needs to be steered, and because he was a prestigious surgeon who was well-known for his myriad medical accomplishments before he ever became a more prominent figure in the Church, and by extension, more fully recognized on a more global scale, and to a far more significant degree, I think a great deal of care needs to be employed in terms of how, when, to what extent, and in what manner, to best deal with the issues involved. --Jgstokes (talk) 08:52, 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)

Just thought I would add my point of view to the conversation. Our goal in writing this article would be to provide a balanced view of the individual. I personally prefer to look at other examples of quality articles when I examine details. In this case, I've been looking at Spencer W. Kimball, and Thomas S. Monson, two Good Articles about recent Presidents of the LDS Church. I agree that these articles are not perfect, but they bring up some points. Some thoughts:

1. First, when I looked at the two GAs, both of them go into substantial detail on the careers and life of the respective individuals outside of church service. In Pres. Nelson's case, that includes the "Early Life and Education" and "Medical Career" sections. Some of the details may seem to be trivial, but if we want this article to be a balanced portrayal of the individual, the bulk of them should stay. For example, in the case of Spencer W. Kimball, his surgery by (then) Dr. Nelson takes up 3 paragraphs in his article. It should deserve a mention here, as well as most of the medical section.

2. Second, I do want to point out that the 17 months of Pres. Nelson's leadership of the Church have brought many significant changes to the church. I won't go into details here, but the nickname I've heard of "Hustle" M. Nelson seems to fit, given the fast pace of his presidency.

3. At the same time though, I agree that some things do need to be cut back from the article as a whole. I will point out that some items could be transcribed to Mormonism in the 21st century, which has not been updated since the first of the year. If we consider the Good articles as examples, the sections on their tenure as President of the Church is only up to a quarter of the article. The balance of the article is the most important factor.

In short, if we want to balance the article properly, many of the details should stay, but many can be moved or removed. I'd be happy to lead out on getting that done. Rollidan (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it should be properly balanced, but we must also remember why Pres. Dr. Nelson is notable in the first place: because of his status as the leader of a major worldwide faith group. Yes, his medical career and education deserve mention, but we shouldn't put undue weight on that, either. Mostly, though, I think we can just trim some specific actions/events that more or less just add fluff to the article. I think it's great the Nelson is physically engaged, and that can be mentioned; but it can be explicitly mentioned and shored up with just a couple brief examples, simply by saying he's engaged, as compared to some previous holders of his office, as evidenced by his robust traveling and engagement schedule so soon after his confirmation (e.g., "engaged in several overseas visits to church members worldwide within the first 6 months of his confirmation, including...").

As for you handling the edits, I say go for it, as long as the consensus is there. Again, I just didn't want to make edits of this nature without getting a consensus, especially without getting input from other major contributors (user:jgstokes). I may have my opinions on how an article should flow, but I'm not egotistical enough to demand my way, and I'm a relative newcomer to the editing side of wikipedia. Trumblej1986 (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

A short comment about User:Rollidan's mention of the Kimball article: I wrote that article and got it to GA status, but as time has passed I've begun feeling that I included a few too many details in the article and that it should probably be trimmed down.  White Whirlwind  咨  21:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good on both of your comments. I'll work through the article, editing it as needed. I'd appreciate any feedback which you have. Regarding Kimball's article, it doesn't matter to me. Rollidan (talk) 00:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Rollidan: Sorry, I never responded to this. My point with the Kimball article was that, as its primary author, I would advise you not to use it as a guide for how detailed to make this article. I'd pare it back quite a bit.  White Whirlwind  咨  08:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@White whirlwind: Sounds good. I'll keep that in mind. Rollidan (talk) 16:40, 1 August 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)

Article Rewrite

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)

I think that's a great idea, and where I was thinking things should go even if I wasn't articulating that well. Organizing events via topic vice chronologically makes logical sense, and allows for brevity while providing the same info. As a non-LDS example that I think showcases what the intent is, the current Presiding Bishop of TEC Michael Curry (Bishop) breaks his ministry down via topic, too. Thank you for spearheading the edit on this! Trumblej1986 (talk) 02:06, 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)

Anything that isn't from the Church website: they filed a claim for DMCA earlier this year for Pres. Nelson's official photo from the website. Trumblej1986 (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Rollidan: WP photos need to be either CC-BY-SA (only limited by a requirement to attribute and to not use them in anything copyrighted) or else public domain. Fair use photos are also an option, but that's quite an involved hassle and ought to be avoided if possible. It's very difficult to find usable photos of LDS leaders, unfortunately. If only more members were photographers who liked to release their photos as a public service!  White Whirlwind  咨  08:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Devil Worship and other WP:UNDUE content

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. 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. In 2020, the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice. 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.

References

If the lawsuit went down in flames, then that should be noted in the article. Just because it is embarrassing is not a good reason to not include it. There has been sustained, independent reporting from reliable sources on this subject for decades. It needs to be in here in some way, shape or form. The article does say that it was dismissed and insinuates heavily that there was no merit to the lawsuit. This paragraph has been in the article for a long time, evidencing that there is consensus that it should be included. As such, I'm going to add it back in, and it should not be removed again unless a different consensus is reached.Epachamo (talk) 11:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I would not call a couple of months "a long time". It was added 13 Aug 2020. If it is determined that this does not violate WP:BLP, this needs to be resolved and consensus reached on the talk page before it is reinserted. That's the process defined in WP:BLP. --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@FyzixFighter: I stand corrected. I guess 2020 just feels like a long time :/ In my mind it had been much longer. I still think that the content is well sourced, notable and thus does not violate WP:BLP. The only thing that could be argued is that it is presented in a POV way, which I just don't see. Epachamo (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The article is reliable, verifiable, independent and should be included. --Devokewater (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Russell Nelson was not named as a party to the lawsuit, he was simply mentioned in some of its pleadings. Given the fact he was not named as a defendant, it is entirely inappropriate to mention the suit in his article. If one of his children was named, and they were notable enough to merit an article, then it should be mentioned in their article and not his. Lewd, lascivious, and defamatory content making wild claims he is a "devil worshiper" and that he was involved in child sexual abuse violate WP:BLP and are certainly WP:UNDUE. This is contentious material and according to WP:BLP this kind of contentious and unsubstantiated claims don't belong in that article. If he were a defendant in the matter then it might meet the bar for inclusion. At present, we have a nebulous lawsuit directed against one of his children that does not implicate him in any way with any meaningful evidence. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Epachamo: No problem, I always like to do history dives when appeals to long-standing history come up (usually WP:ERA-related). I think there are two relevant parts of BLP with respect to this paragraph: WP:BLPPUBLIC and WP:BLPCRIME. The first requires multiple, reliable sources and also touches on the aspect of WP:UNDUE. There are three reliable sources used, so that aspect of BLP is satisfied IMO. The latter, specifically "For individuals who are not 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." I think this is relevant to the first sentence. Nelson's daughter and son-in-law are not public figures, although Nelson is. I think the sentence should be reworked to focus on the allegations that Nelson used his position in the Church to influence and cover up the abuse ring, which allegedly included some of his family members, in 1984. --FyzixFighter (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

• Oppose inclusion of the content pertaining to the devil worship and child sexual abuse lawsuit as per WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. Russell Nelson was not named as a party to the lawsuit, he was simply mentioned in some of its pleadings. Given the fact he was not named as a defendant, it is entirely inappropriate to mention the suit in his article. This is contentious material and according to WP:BLP this kind of contentious and unsubstantiated claims don't belong in that article. If he were a defendant in the matter then it might meet the bar for inclusion. At present, we have a nebulous lawsuit directed against one of his children that does not implicate him in any way with any meaningful evidence. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Octoberwoodland: Whether the lawsuit was nebulous, whether he was a party to the lawsuit, whether he was a defendant or not are all irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not his involvement in the ordeal no matter how minor is notable or not. Notability is not determined by you or by me. It is determined by significant reliable, independent sources, several examples of which found it notable to write articles with Nelson as the subject. As far as undue weight, the Bountiful SRA scandal is a significant event in Utah culture, and part of a much larger phenomenon that is still unfolding. That it would involve Nelson's family is notable and should be included in this article. Epachamo (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Epachamo: People file lawsuits all day long in this country and make all sorts of allegations. Accusing Nelson of child sexual abuse with no evidence is a serious matter -- especially since the pleadings failed to aver any facts that Nelson was even aware of the claims made in the suit (I have read the suit pleadings). You are talking about a dismissed lawsuit that was dismissed by the court due to it having no factual basis whatsoever. What makes this event marginally notable is the fact that the Plaintiff's in the suit tried to drag Nelson's name into it and claim Nelson is associated with it. His children are not public figures and are not notable therefore the lawsuit is not notable. WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME are clear and adding that contentious content violates the subject of the bio's right to a balanced, neutral, well written and well sourced article. We don't post material and allegations to a bio that are later shown to be absolutely false unless they are about the subject of the bio. That's not the case here. Nelson had nothing to do with any of these matters, and a small number of irrelevant news stories (which exonerate him BTW) do not change these facts. The disputed content is clearly libelous and violate his children's right to privacy as well as his. As such, it's my opinion that this material fails to adhere to the spirit of WP:BLP and is WP:UNDUE. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Octoberwoodland:If the content is libelous, it would not be reported in the church owned Deseret News, or in the Salt Lake Tribune or KUTV. These are not tabloids. These are not irrelevant news sources. Just because it is irrelevant to you personally, does not mean that it is not notable. In the Wikipedia article, it should be phrased in a way to protect the privacy of non-private individuals. "His children are not public figures and are not notable therefore the lawsuit is not notable." Tell that to Hunter Biden. Epachamo (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The lawsuit was dismissed without issuing any findings of fact pertaining to the subject matter of the suit, other than facts related to procedural matters of the dismissal. This has the effect of nullifying all of the claims and asserted facts in the original complaint. That means that all of the smut it contains has not been substantiated and it's simply hot air and hearsay. Although normally quoting from a lawsuit which has issued factual findings is typically protected free speech, quoting alleged facts from a dismissed lawsuit which failed to issue any findings of fact can be both libelous and defamatory if the statements are not true. As it stands, asserting that Nelson is a devil worshiper and covered up child sexual abuse are unsubstantiated claims, and are potentially libelous, and are certainly contentious. That makes then WP:UNDUE and fails WP:BLP. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I understand the arguments offered above for including this information would, as a singular issue, likely warrant inclusion. At the same time, the matter in question was barely a blip in the long-term aspects of matters in which Nelson has been involved this year. If the matter was still actively being pursued in the courts, I could see it being included. But given that the matter has seemingly died, and that the alleged involvement of Nelson's daugther and son-in-law was never verified, nor wsas there any documented proof that Nelson had any role in the alleged cn. oncealment of those actions, in my view, there is not sufficient grounds at this time to include it. It has often been the case that someone serving as church president has been the target of legal action. Back in 2014 (and again in 2017), a lawsuuit had been filed in a British court alleging fraud on theof Thomas S. Monson. That lawsuit never went anywshere either, and the resounding consensus on that matter at that time was that it wAs not worthy of inclusion by Wikipedia standards. You can find that thread and the rationales offered on that matter here, and I fully believe that the same editors who made the comments against inclusion of the material in relation to Monson would likely offer similar or identical policy-based arguments that are sound in relation to this issue as well.

The fact of the matter is that if every frivolous legal action taken against any leader of the church was mentioned, for some leaders, there would not be sufficient room in the article for anything but those accusations. The legal actions against Monson in 2014 and 2017 were determined to not merit inclusion as they were not sufficiently notable. And there was far less coverage on the accuasations against Nelson's daugther and son-in-law and the allegation that Nelson may have helped cover it up than there was on the legal matters against Monson. The fact that the extensive coverage on the Monson matter did not merit inclusion should make it clear that the second-hand passing allegations of something Nelson might have done (despite his denials to the contrary) do not merit inclusion here, and largely for the very same reasons as laid out in that previous discussion. And even if this were to resurface as an issue having more direct bearing on Nelson personally, the fact that the Monson matter did not merit mention should be the precedent indicating that the nothingness of the Nelson matter does not warrant mention here either. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to try and establish a Wikipedia-wide precedent that every legal maatter relatin to every LDS leader, especially prophets of the Church, should merit inclusion, but I wish them luck with that process. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

This is different from the Monson lawsuit. This was not thrown out as frivolous, it was thrown out because it exceeded the statute of limitations. Calling it frivolous is a judgement we cannot make. The Monson lawsuit was thrown out specifically as frivolous. The Bountiful SRA episode has been in the news on and off for decades. That there are so many frivolous lawsuits flying around that it would clog up Wikipedia is a stretch to say the least. Please tell me any single other lawsuit against Nelson that has made it into the news. Epachamo (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is different, it was dismissed without any findings of facts related to the original subject matter of the complaint. As such, it is nothing more than a collection of unsubstantiated facts and brain farts. The Monson suits at least ruled on the factual issues unlike the Nelson suit, which lacks any factual basis whatsoever and it certainly is not a reliable source we should be using in an article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Octoberwoodland: There are at least four different news sources (including the Church owned Deseret News) that have reported on the Bountiful SRA scandal for decades, and specifically on the Russell M. Nelson connection continuously over the last two years. It is quite significant. The Salem Witch Trials are considered discredited as well, but we still have an extensive Wikipedia article on the Salem Witch Trials. Imagine if Russell M. Nelson were accused of being a witch at the Salem witch trials, wouldn't you consider that notable? If the court found SRA dubious then it should be stated in the Wikipedia article. I would point out though, that only the defense attorneys called it a collection of unsubstantiated facts and brain farts. IMHO, there probably wasn't much to the lawsuit, but at the same time I seriously doubt that the people who brought it forward weren't sincere. Most reporting felt that there wasn't much to the claims, but yet reported it as significant anyway. Ask yourself why? SRA in Utah is still an ongoing notable cultural phenomenon and that the LDS Church President's family is caught up in it is notable, and also, although the case never made it to trial it still set a notable precedent for how a new Utah State Constitutional law was to be interpreted. I would be fine if the paragraph were phrased to note that there was probably nothing to it, because this is the scientific consensus towards SRA. Something like, "Nelson's children were accused of being involved in a debunked SRA scheme ...".

Current consensus appears to be to not include the material, and as a previous editor pointed out, other insignificant lawsuits were deemed WP:UNDUE related to previous LDS leaders. This article is a biography and the standards for content is much higher than articles on other topics. The dismissed lawsuit is not a reliable source. It does not matter how many articles were written, none of them factually implicate Nelson in any of the alleged claims in that dismissed lawsuit. If you are determined that we should post libelous, false, salacious, and scandalous content to Nelson's article, then we may need to ask for dispute resolution if we cannot come to consensus here. Based on my count of editors chiming in on this topic, it appears the consensus is not to include. The material remains challenged. To broaden the discussion, we should post a request for closure to the BLP noticeboard if you feel we need more eyes into this discussion. Octoberwoodland (talk) 07:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

You are the only person in this entire thread who has explicitly voted Oppose. There are several useful comments who bring up issues with putting it there, but consensus is far from reached at this point. Also, you keep saying things like, "The dismissed lawsuit is not a reliable source". I'm not sure I understand where you are going with this. The lawsuit itself is not the source at all. The Salt Lake Tribune, KUTV, and Deseret News and other news outlets are the reliable sources in question. I have no doubt that this episode in Russell M. Nelson's life will be included in future scholarly works on SRA in Utah. Epachamo (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

No not true, I am not the only person who has suggested that content is WP:UNDUE. Has a court ruled that nelson is a devil worshiper? -- NO. Has a court ruled Nelson covered up child sexual abuse? -- NO. Tabloid press coverage to the contrary also fails to substantiate these facts. False statements which damage someone's reputation are libel per se. What does WP:BLP say about libelous statements in an article? It says defacto libel should be removed immediately. Sensationalist claims in a handful of newspapers are undue given these facts here. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I 100% agree with you that it should not be written in a tabloid fashion or sensationally. It should not accuse Nelson or insinuate that he was a devil worshiper or assaulted someone sexually. It should reflect the spirit and tone of the reliable sources that reported on it. If it is libel, the the Deseret News, the LDS Church owned newspaper, which is a reliable source(WP:RSP), which is clearly not the case. Epachamo (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Please respect the consensus of all the editors here. Consensus is not to include for a variety of reasons, WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP in particular. Now please drop it and move on. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Notability and noteworthiness are not directly relevant to an article's content, they're relevant to its existence. Content is dictated by WP:DUE and other content policies (see WP:NOTEWORTHY), augmented by WP:BLP concerns because he is a living person. And so, the question here is whether this story appears in major reliable sources on Nelson, and, if so, what proportion of the coverage in those sources' discussion of his life it occupies. I personally suspect it is very low. But we'll know more after he dies and obituaries and biographies of him are written.  White Whirlwind  20:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: It should have been abundantly clear to anyone who read my above comment that I am clearly oppposed to including the information about this matter in this article. And the substance and tone of many of the other comments here should have left no doubt about the positions those who made other comments above were taking. With all of us having laid out reasons to avoid the inclusion of this information, it should be apparent to anyone actually paying attention to what was said, rather than taking isssue with how it was said, that the consensus is overwhelmingly opposed to including this information. That much is clearly obvious to everyone except the only person fighting for the inclusion of this information. The proverbial horse is long since dead. Could we kindly stop flogging it? It's not doing any good to continue this discussion, IMHO. 'Nuff said. Anyone is free to disagree with me if they choose, but that is what I'm getting from the substance of the comments. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• To say that consensus is "overwhelmingly opposed" is just not accurate. At best you could say that there is no consensus. Reviewing the above comments, this is how I read consensus. If I have misrepresented anyone (like I did with Jgstokes apparently, sorry), then feel free to call me out and I will gladly change it.

Where consensus currently stands as I (Epachamo) see it

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)

The concerns brought up are centered around whether the content fulfills WP:NOTEWORTHY, WP:DUE, and WP:BLP. As White_whirlwind wrote, "Notability and noteworthiness are not directly relevant to an article's content, they're relevant to its existence. Content is dictated by WP:DUE and other content policies (see WP:NOTEWORTHY), augmented by WP:BLP". Without a doubt, that Nelson was accused is properly sourced and verifiable. Per WP:BLPREMOVE, this is not libel, nor should it be removed for that reason. This content should be written per WP:BLPCRIME, but there is nothing in the policy WP:BLPCRIME that says the content should not be included if presented properly.

The big question I think, is whether this satisfies WP:DUE. WP:DUE is a sub-section in the wikipedia policy WP:NPOVHOW. The very first paragraph of WP:ACHIEVE NPOV says, "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage.". WP:DUE does NOT deal with whether the content should be their in the first place, but which viewpoints surrounding the issue should be represented. There is a minority view that Satanic Ritualistic Abuse is real, but because of the WP:DUE policy, that viewpoint would not be given space in this article (see the analogy to the flat earth used in the policy). Epachamo (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I am posting this to the BLP noticeboard since you continue to refuse the accept editor consensus. Let's get more eyes into this. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, I'm trying to make this article as solid as it can be. Also, please do not edit MY previous comments again per WP:TPO. Posting to the BLP noticeboard is a good idea. Epachamo (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• the law suit is in no way "embrassing" at least not for Russell M. Nelson. The law suit was an egregious example of using the courts to harrass someone (in this case Nelson's daughter and son-in-law). It was built on a set of claims that were discredited around 1990, there is no way such false claims should have been allowed to see the light of day in the 21st-century. The whole case is one of using the courts to try and falsely accuse and smear someone else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• The law suit should not be included in this article. Nelson was not at all a party. It is not in any way a relevant biographical detail related to Nelson. Trying to make it otherwise is a clear case of negative animus and trying to use Wikipedia to smear someone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• the lawsuit was malicious and evil as are all lawsuits built on the total lies of the recovered memory scam. To treat it as somehow just dismuissed because of state of limitations concerns in to give these type of lawfare attacks on people built on maligning their good name through total lies some standing. This should not be done.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

BLP Discussion

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)

Currently Consensus Is

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)

Maybe I should clarify my stance, since it seems like it's being argued over by Epachamo and OctoberWoodland. I think I'm something like Weak Oppose at the moment. But that's at the moment: before I make up my mind, I want to see some surveys of how often the major sources on Nelson bring this up, and also hear the analysis of editors who are more experienced in BLP stuff. I'll look at the BLP discussion.  White Whirlwind  00:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@White whirlwind: I can't find any Wikipedia policy that talks about how information is determined by "major sources". Can you further clarify, or point me to a Wikipedia policy that discusses this? Why wouldn't the Salt Lake Tribune count as a major source, or even a "good enough" source? It sounds like you are implying that it need be an a biography of Nelson to be included. What do you do in a case like this where those "major sources" aren't written yet due to the recency of the data? Epachamo (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Neutral. I initially added the material to the article. I can see why some users would want to exclude it, but I'm just not familiar enough with the BLP practices of Wikipedia to make a final judgment at this stage. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• For the record no sources deemed it covetable before the law suit was filed. Nor does it seem anyone has seen it worth including in an article since the lawsuit was dismissed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  • It's difficult to include information in the article about a lawsuit before it is filed. :) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  • For the record, this was in the news all the time in Utah, with dozens of articles, documentaries and books about the Bountiful SRA ring spanning from the 1980s, 90's into the 2000s. The Bountiful SRA thing was part of a string of related rings and prosecutions that took Utah by storm in the 1980s. Two people were even found guilty and spent time in jail. In the same sex ring that Nelson's family was accused of being caught up in, in Bountiful Utah, a poor guy named Arden Bullock was even convicted by a jury and spent over a decade in jail you can read about it here. It was only in 2018 did it become public that two of those accused were related to Nelson, along with allegations against Nelson. Epachamo (talk) 03:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

If there was an SRA operating out of Bountiful, Utah then by all means write an article about it if you have reliable sources that back it up. If you want to mention the lawsuit (omitting Nelson since he was clearly not a defendant in the lawsuit) and list the defendants of the lawsuit (subject to the requirements of WP:BLP), then be my guest. What we are discussing here is a biography and that content clearly does not belong in it for a whole host of reasons. You can write all you want about the Bountiful SRA cult and it's history in a standalone article. Stop trying to drag Nelson into the fray in order to ride the coattails of his notability to prop up your assertions about the Bountiful SRA ring. If the Bountiful SRA would be notable (which I think it may be if what you say is true about sources related to it) then by all means write about it. Just stay clear of dragging Nelson into it. Bio's have very strict standards regarding content. Libel and undue material don't belong. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

"Stop trying to drag Nelson into the fray in order to ride the coattails of his notability to prop up your assertions about the Bountiful SRA ring." Really, Octoberwoodland, please assume good faith. I don't think Epachamo's intent is what you are suggesting. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. My apologies. As you pointed out in a statement in your talk page, passionate editors tend to let the fur fly in heated debates. It's clear to me that Epachamo is a bold and passionate editor. I will attempt to assume good faith and remove any contentious statements. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

And I think that you're saying what you're saying in good faith, too. I can understand your viewpoint. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I am now neutral. --Devokewater (talk) 20:47, 11 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)

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.

No consensus was noted by whoever it was that archived it on the noticeboard. Epachamo (talk) 17:03, 13 December 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)

Not a cardiologist

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)

Thanks for clarifying! Epachamo (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Russell nelson official portrait 2018.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:22, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Death

His death is recorded in public records, however someone has reverted the news of his death and also the source. --Agnellino (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Yep, that is because he is not dead....you must have him confused with somebody else in your source, or something else is going on....it's OK as shown.... ChristensenMJ (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@ChristensenMJ in the Source I provided (from official Census informations), the date of birth was the same, and the name of his wife (who died some years ago) was mentioned: it is not a case of homonymy.

Is it possible that the members of his Church do not want to make known his death? --Agnellino (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, not sure of the source's facts or what is happening there, but no, there wouldn't be a case of members of his church not wanting to make known his death..... ChristensenMJ (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The source you provided is not an "official census". It's a bot site, meaning it simply poaches information from elsewhere. As is the case with most bot sources, they frequently get information wrong i.e. if there is an obituary out there online for another Russell Nelson (likely), it will copy information from it. As is always the case with the LDS Church, they announce the death of their leader as soon as it happens, just like the Catholic Church. I'm not even sure why we're discussing this. He's alive and this is just silly and your edit to the page was a violation of WP:BLP. --Jkaharper (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jkaharper I specialize in discovering the deaths of forgotten personalities (may be this isn't one of those cases, ok). I've discovered many of these ones and I'm in good faith. --Agnellino (talk) 08:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The fact remains that he is still alive, so your sources are wrong. This is a Churchwide-broadcast honoring Nelson for turning 100. Why hasn't the broadcast been cancelled if he is indeed dead? And the Church has always publicized the death of its' presidents whenever they happen, so your argument about members or leaders "not wanting to make it known" has no basis in fact. There's only one way to settle this: Provide one reliable source, any source from anywhere else, that verifies he has died. If you can't or won't do that, then it's time to drop the stick and quit flogging the dead horse. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 23:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Looked very lively for a dead man at his 100th birthday the other day @Agnellino:... maybe it's time you "specialized" in something else as I'm not sure this niche is working out for you. --Jkaharper (talk) 00:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jkaharper OK, my source was wrong. --Agnellino (talk) 05:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The LDS Church has now cited his obituary on their official family search website. Someone ought to notify them of the error:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:6YLD-QJWM?cid=fs_copy 2601:602:C080:B150:7906:D5E8:24DF:FCC3 (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

If you need to resort to ad hominin (e.g. debasing a person's expertise, based on the nothing you know about them), rather than be content with strong sources alone (e.g. the broadcast, which was damn easy to share, with a professional please & thank you), then perhaps you should not specialize in policing the worlds go-to info repository. There's no place for that here, and I worry that allowing such to go unchecked in this space, endangers having an unbiased and balanced atmosphere of public moderation. A person who specializes in something highly relevant ought to be thanked and respected for bringing relevant information to attention, either to be investigated or debunked before it spreads further. Not intimidated away with insults. It's also a danger to the social trustworthiness of information in the realm of influence of an institution that many people already have a distrust of. I will not stand for it in this space! - @admin, please advise

Thank you to all parties that have helped in making the info known and in addressing the matter. I personally would not have known about the obituary+bot problem had the full conversation not taken place. May I add how LUCKY we are to have an expert volunteer information, even if it was resolved to be misinformation. Wikipedia would not be the same without such people.

Let's please keep this place professional - @admin, please support or take action if necessary, should my concern be erased or attacked. I think this in-context conversation has high value. Thanks. 2601:602:C080:B150:7906:D5E8:24DF:FCC3 (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)