Talk:George P. Lee

Controversies category

I noticed that User Sesmith reverted my deletion of the controversies category with a comment saying that the Indian placement program and his excommunication were controversial. I'm not going to disagree; I really don't know that much about Lee. However, the idea that these issues were controversial is not clear in the present version of the article, which never uses the word "controversy." If these issues were controversial, could you please edit the article to say so (and what your sources are). The article mentions his excommunication, but doesn't say that it was controversial. It says Lee criticized Benson about the Indian placement program, but it also says the Church didn't respond to his comments (making it unclear to this reader that there was really much of a controversy). BRMo 15:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that adding that category without any sort of solid citation or reasoning is pov. --TrustTruth 17:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I was an LDS Indian Placement worker and was personally trained by Miles Jensen, the father of the Indian Student Placement program. I can answer any question you may have regarding this program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaymes2 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

At the time some people, mostly the liberal intellectual fringe of church membership, had discussions as to if his dismissal was due to his dissenting views, his ethnic background, or a combination of the two. So, there was some controversy, but it would be hard to find anythng in print these days.Isaac Crumm 06:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if people are that interested or worried about the application of an assigned category by someone who does "know that much about Lee", you would think they would refer to the information in the references and links etc. There's ample material there expanding on the controversy—why don't they themselves read it and expand the article instead of automatically chop-chop-chopping? Incidentally, I also don't think it's a requirement for the category for the article to mention the word "controversy". Isn't a religious leader being expelled from a church for attempted sexual abuse controversial anymore—or is this just accepted now? That's like saying the Roman Catholic priest sexual abuse scandals (Bernard Law et al.) were not controversial! Anyways, I've added a sentence mentioning the controversy that the accusations of Lee caused in SLC (at least) at the time, with a reference. Hopefully that will satisfy your extremely touchy categorization senses. -SESmith 09:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, let's remember to be civil. Because Wikipedia is open for anyone to edit, we can't take for granted the expertise of Wikipedia editors. Consequently, Wikipedia policies emphasize the principle of verifiability—all facts in an article should be supported by references, including the facts that support categorization. Wikipedia's guidelines are quite clear on this. For example, Wikipedia:Overcategorization says, "Of course, categories need to be verifiable, just like anything else in Wikipedia. If it cannot be verified that X is a Y, then X doesn't belong in a cat with Y. But conversely, not every verifiable fact in an article requires an associated category." Wikipedia:Categorization says, "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. A list might be a better option." Based on these guidelines, it appears to be the responsibility of the editor who categorizes an article (a) to ensure that the text of the article includes information showing that it clearly and uncontroversially belongs in the category, and (b) to provide in-line citations to verify that the information supporting the categorization is accurate. BRMo 22:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the guidelines and rules. I just found it amusing that you didn't find a high-profile church leader being convicted of attempted child molestation to be inherently "controversial". You hold them to pretty low standards .... -SESmith 12:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, let's discuss this issue without using sarcasm. I'd like to make sure we are defining and using words appropriately. According to the Yahoo dictionary, a "controversy" is "a dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views." A "scandal" is "a publicized incident that brings about disgrace or offends the moral sensibilities of society." The words are not synonyms. Surely, Lee's conviction of attempted sexual abuse of a child was a shocking crime, a scandal, and an embarrassment to Lee and to the church, but the article presents little evidence of a public dispute between sides holding opposing views. BRMo 13:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't sarcasm. I was legitimately amused. The article does present evidence of a dispute between Lee and church authorities. -SESmith 14:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Scandal Label

"Clergyman involvement in sexual assault does constitute a religious scandal"

Clergyman involvement in sexual assault with the church doing nothing about it would be a religious scandal. However, the church acted on it and excommunicated him. They may have even reported him to the authorities, for all we know. As far as I can tell, there was no cover-up by the church. A bad thing — out of the ordinary — does not constitute a scandal. --TrustTruth 22:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why certain actions do not constitute a "scandal" just because there are repercussions that result. I agree that the church not acting would be scandalous, but might not the behavior alone by a clergyman also be scandalous? I would argue that just because a person is dealt with by legal authorities or religious authorities in a punitive way does not reduce the scandalous nature of the behavior, especially if the person is holding themselves out as a "religious" leader and it is widely portrayed as a scandal in contemporary media sources. In my opinion, any clergy committing serious criminal offences is scandalous, whether or not the church in question deals with the issue. As a not-quite-on-target example: Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives (a punitive measure). Does that mean the Monica Lewinsky affair is no longer a "scandal"? -SESmith 22:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'll defer to whatever definition Wikipedia editors in general give to "scandal". This one is not as tough a call as Lyman because Lee actually assaulted someone while in a position of trust, but I will concede based both on our discussion at the Lyman article and on the way the term is applied to other articles within this category that the Lee incident could be labeled a scandal. I only wish there were a more precise term to use. "Scandal" gives the appearance that church leaders took Lee's side, even though they appear to have taken the side of the girl. Moreover, the scandal word implicates the religion as a whole, when it was an individual's actions that were scandalous. Maybe a better categorization would be "shamed religious figures". . . --TrustTruth 22:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is generally a problematic category, or at least has the potential to be so based on our discussions and on what you've written. Activity on the category page in refining it or defining it would be helpful. In this case, I think the application of the word "scandal" to just an article about the person (as opposed to an article entitled "George P. Lee and the LDS Church Scandal", for example) helps to shield the religion itself from the taint of the word, but the potential for misunderstanding is there. I guess we need to trust that readers actually read the content of the article. -SESmith 22:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Autobiography information

An editor keeps adding a large amount of material on Lee's autobiography. I don't know what the value or reliability of this information is, but clearly it's not needed in this article. It sounds like the type of material that would be added to an article about the book itself, which article doesn't exist. Snocrates 01:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition, the person is selling the manuscript and has an e-mail address in the text for those interested in bidding on the item. Alanraywiki (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol; I need to start reading some of these things more carefully .... That's entertaining, if nothing else. Snocrates 21:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it has a whole lot to do with the article. Our lives are not defined by formalized guidelines of what others think are valuable. Our live are defined by everything we do and say. I am the author of Lee's book, Silent Courage. Why was my name not inluded in the credits? Think awhile and you will see that this intrigue does lend well to this article. There are parts of this orgininal manuscript that reveal much more than the book itself does. If you were to think clearly, the book defines everything about George P. Lee up to the tragic event of his life. All of this is course verifiable. I can supply the witnesses, about 22 of them and you will need to do the legwork since the burden of proof upon you editorial prosecutors lies with you. By the way, are you editors LDS? If you are, it certainly explains your myopic stances.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.187.246 (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The issues here are a) does it meet Wikipedia's verifiability requirements, and b) the editor is trying to sell something on Wikipedia. eBay would be a more appropriate site for that type of activity. Alanraywiki (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a copy of Lee's book and it doesn't have any other author's name on it but his. I'm not LDS, and I suggest you keep religious-based personal attacks off these pages. Snocrates 20:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll bid $1.50 for the manuscript. --TrustTruth (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol; please, don't encourage him ! ... Snocrates 20:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if my name is on it or not. I DO have the proof and the witnesses to verify it. Although the asking price is 50,000.00 with one person already discussing this amount with me, it may be better served in a "plagerism" lawsuit against the publishers (Mo' money). I may attack you religiously if your religion's idea places you at odds with known truth, i.e. evolution, etc. I will add, and this is a blatant religious attack, Joe Smith said that the Book of Mormon was the most perfectly translated book ever, that its text of Isaiah passages were so perfectly translated that all he had to do was open the KJV Bible and copy verbatim. Well, you must know that I am a Hebrew scholar and the text of Isaiah as in the KJV is quite off base in numerous ways. As you may know, but probably not, the Jewish scholars today only accept the pentatuch, which excludes Isaiah,for this reason. By the way, it does meet Wikipedia's verification criteria, the proof does exist. You two are typical cynics who only want the article short enough to focus on Lee's infamous criteria, which by the way is bulky compared to the other entries. In order to say it must meet Wikipedia's verification criteria merely reveals that your scholarship ability is quite lethargic and unwilling to enter into a probable truthful arena. Additionally, when I wrote the book, I placed esoterica and hidden allegories in the book, realizing that silly people like you two, would surface in the future to try to dispute my authenticity as the author.