Talk:Harold B. Lee

Untitled

The wiki article on Harold B. Lee says that he was mayor of Salt Lake City at one time, although it does not say when. He is not on the List of mayors of Salt Lake City. Which page is correct? Alanraywiki 23:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Lee was ever the mayor. He definitely worked for the city; this suggests he was the head of the streets department, but I've never heard of him being mayor before. Perhaps he served some brief periods as acting mayor while the mayor was away? –SESmith 23:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Speculation

Under "Church Service" there is a reference to D. Michael Quinn, in which there is a speculation about the priesthood ban. Though this is cited, the source material merely speculates on the issue, and it isn't presented as fact. The article should be based on fact, what we KNOW about a certain subject, not one man's guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seansto (talk • contribs) 20:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, under "Church Service" unsubstantiated hearsay about what happened behind closed doors is treated as fact. ChristiansenMJ undid my correction by suggesting that because it notes that the speculation is offered by a 'critic' and because it is sourced, it is therefore worthy of being incorporated into the biography. It is inadequate academic scholarship, and I believe wikipedia ought to offer evidence-based facts not speculations by motivated commentators. 67.2.160.130 (talk) 06:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello ChristensenMJ: I have detected unsubstantiated scholarship on Harold B Lee's wiki page. You have eliminated whole-sale my contributions twice now, with what I feel are inadequate justifications. The small size of Lee's page makes Quinn's unsubstantiated speculation seem like a disproportionate addition. If Pope Francis' page were the size of Lee's, and a controversial historian placed behind-closed-doors speculation on the page, it would be grounds for elimination or reduction. Even though Quinn's scholarship has been questioned repeated times generally, this would not be grounds to eliminate the discussion. However, in this instance, the information is hearsay--not consistent with professional historian standards. Are you a historian and do you feel I am misdiagnosing current scholarship standards? I thought a fair compromise was to reduce the discussion (although I still feel it is inappropriate for the page). I also added a discussion concerning additional facts of his life, including his work in the Holy Land. Why you eliminated that substantiated and sourced material perplexes me. Rather than continuing to 'undo' any contribution I make, would you please engage my comments in this dialogue section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.23.246.50 (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The first thing I would note is that it appears the above user is the same editor using multiple IP addresses, so please be aware of wp:multiple in the good faith edits that take place. I reverted for the reasons noted in the edit summary. It was the right thing to do for you to add your concerns here on the talk page, allowing a consensus-driven discussion to take place. While that occurs, it's typically appropriate to have the article remain as it was while the discussion occurs. I am not a historian, nor attempting to be one. This is merely making a good-faith effort to provide opportunity for the necessary discussion. If the consensus is to make changes from the area you've expressed concern about, that is as it should be. If there are other improvements to the article that can appropriately be made, such as the good faith effort to address things accomplished in his service, including time as the church's president, that is great. They should however be separated from the particular issue related to this discussion. ChristensenMJ (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is the same user in the two comments above, but not the first comment--there are two people raising concerns. To my knowledge, you are the only one resisting our skepticism. I agree that my contribution on his presidency should be separate from Quinn's speculation: in which case, why did you eliminate them altogether? Could you please revise different sections, rather than repeatedly just undoing everything I contribute? You have also declared that my contribution cannot take place while the discussion occurs. I am not sure that eliminating or reducing largely warrantless speculation requires such a high litmus test. But assuming you are allowed to dictate the terms of who/what can be edited on Lee's page, what is your proposed deadline? When will you allow me to add my contribution? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.23.250.183 (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the first comment by the other user was noted nearly 2 1/2 years ago and got no traction then. Why, I am not sure. You have now contributed from a third IP address. I would again refer you to wp:multiple. As to the issue of me being the only one raising the issue, the other way to look at this would be that the article has stood with some form of this for a very long time (again, I don't know why) and shouldn't be changed without opportunity for discussion. That may be the actual litmus test, that it hasn't raised objection among the contributing community before. This is not me establishing a deadline, it's more inline with the typical way that WP works. Given the three IP contributions and recent additions, I presume that you are a new user and so just trying to help create understanding about how it works. I am making no claim to have ability to dictate what takes place. As to contributions, yes, perhaps it would have been better to weed out the minor edits you were trying to make, but it was easier to just revert to whole thing. So, that could have been done better. ChristensenMJ (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is getting side-tracked by tangential considerations: multiple IP addresses, democratic voting on standards of speculation. I just find implausible your claim that wikipedia entries cannot be altered without a number of additional readers taking the time to spontaneously comment and support a change. That is far too deferential to the status quo, and acts as an unrealistic de facto veto. I am happy to give it a few days and leave the unsubstantiated speculation on the site. In the mean time, rather than discredit my changes based on 'need for consensus' why do you not provide your reasoning? In the mean time, I am going to return the actual valid biographical details that I originally placed. At the same time, unless you provide strong reason for not doing so, I am going to reduce the size of the paragraph speculating about Lee. I will still leave up unsubstantiated hearsay, but it certainly does not deserve to span such a significant amount of size of a small wikipedia page. I understand wikipedia is open to all, and in that spirit, I would appreciate if you would engage in analysis of the quality of the wikipedia page, rather than simply veto anything I or anyone else does without any justification besides tenuous 'protocol' claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.23.250.183 (talk) 15:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no sidetrack in the issues here. Whether tangential or not, the issues are legitimate and since you are a new user to WP, you may not be aware of such things. Feel free to set up an account and familiarize yourself with the various pillars of WP. Please don't confuse the regular course of how things are typically done with any degree of ownership to the article. I haven't read the source that makes the claims noted to make a determination about its quality. At the same time, with a fairly significant issue that brought attention to the LDS Church, there may be merit to what's been included in the article to this point. To your point of frustration the other day, I have left the other information you have added in good faith about Lee's presidency and other relevant efforts. ChristensenMJ (talk) 15:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear ChristensenMJ: I have attempted to reduce unsubstantiated, motivated speculation by an author whose scholarship has been questioned repeatedly by historians. You have rejected my contribution because I have used multiple IP addresses and because the large paragraph on the issue includes the word 'speculates'. I find these justifications unconvincing. I have reviewed the three major content policies of wikipedia: neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research. Having read through many of the points, it is clear that claiming that this individual single-handedly reversed the entire body's vote is fairly significant and exceptional, and wikipedia suggests that these require multiple high-quality sources. Please verify the rules for yourself. It also states that red flags that should prompt extra caution include: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources. Not only does this very important claim lack multiple mainstream sources, but is offered as mere speculation and hearsay from an author whose work has been repeatedly criticized as biased and motivated by professional historians. As such, there are issues with the neutral point of view.

I feel these are strong reasons to bring this wikipedia page up to proper standards. You have repeatedly merely undone rather than modify my comments. You have also altered the one entirely factual and substantiated contribution I made so that it read verbatim rather than as inferred by me. Moreover, you have not meaningfully engaged with my reasons and instead have repeatedly merely 'undone' my contribution. I am not averse to "giving time" for others to weigh in on this issue. But you have not given any indication of how long this will require before you cease undoing any contribution I make. This seems unfair because, based on my analysis of the previous contributions you make, editing wikipedia pages is something you appear to do daily for hours. There is certainly nothing wrong with this, but it gives you the added advantage of dominating pages simply out of attrition: others have additional occupations that make "battling" with you impractical. I do not wish to battle. I have added contributions, rather than merely undoing, as you have done. I have repeatedly stated multiple reasons for my contributions. As such, given your lack of genuinely engaging on the merits of the contribution, your apparent intransigence at modifying or compromising on the issue, encourages me to seek arbitration. I wanted to communicate with you. If you are willing to set a limited amount of time when you will be willing to allow my contribution, are willing to modify or compromise your position on defending unsubstantiated hearsay, I will welcome this. Otherwise, I feel I have no other choice than to submit this discussion to arbitration on the part of wikipedia. I look forward to discussing this further with you.174.23.250.183 (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Simply having an IP address has nothing to do with "rejecting" the editing that has been done. It's a sidebar note for you to understand concerns or issues that can from editing from multiple locations and typically there is more credibility and transparency that comes with creating an account and going forward in that regard. I changed what was "inferred" by your addition because it was incorrect - there weren't "various" international conferences, there was one. Seemed better to be specific, rather than infer there was more to the activities than actually transpired. This shouldn't be taken as a personal affront to your efforts. There has even been mention in an edit summary of the good-faith efforts you have made. I have no idea what a reasonable time frame is for discussion, certainly a few days at a minimum would seem natural - since people have lives and jobs, as will be noted in a moment. I have actually noted this on the LDS project page in case there are interested editors who desire to share a view. This doesn't constitute canvassing as I am only trying to broaden the discussion, or at least provide opportunity for it. That is the issue that seems to have been missing from the beginning. There ought to be chance for discussion and see where the consensus lands. There's been no attempt or intent to dominate or battle. In a balanced view, it is clearly noted that the source is from an excommunicated member of the LDS Church, but also that his scholarship is called into question largely by those "within" the LDS Church. There is going to be a natural rub there. It doesn't make those in the church or those out of the church automatically right or wrong due to their affiliation. Finally, on the topic of speculation, it's probably better not to try and travel down a road you nothing about. You have no idea whether I edit for hours on end, which I don't, while other people have to work for a living, best to leave that alone. Any implication of dominating as a result and that I am interested in battling with anyone isn't on target. I am no different than you, or any other good faith editor, just interested in balanced, well-written articles. I am not in need of any threat toward arbitration, because I don't care that much about it. If consensus is to leave this, great. If consensus is to change it, great. ChristensenMJ (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I feel that this process of discussion has been less than ideal. It originally appeared to me, and was further corroborated upon closer inspection, that someone had included a substantial amount of information (apparently nearly 1/5 of the leader's "Church Service") that was speculative (and potentially motivated to malign.) The comments refer to speculative hearsay by one individual. As I have mentioned previously, it appears that wiki rules discourage significant claims (and this would be significant and generally viewed as damaging to his reputation). Yet, the only source is one individual who speculates about what happened behind closed doors and over a process that has never been made public. It gives this particular author, who has been accused of bias and poor scholarship by numerous professional historians, an unfair position of prognostication. Worse, it is admittedly speculative. I would be more obliged to include said content if this leader were particularly 'controversial' or indeed had a balanced section involving 'controversies', but this is placed along other 'facts.' Indeed, given the size of the leader's "Church Service" section, this suggests that one of the most significant events of his decades of service was a speculative move that a motivated author conjectures.

In our discussion, I have attempted to offer various rules cited by wikipedia, including neutral point of view and verifiability, and offered quite a few reasons why this entry should be revised. In response, ChristensenMJ has not offered substantive reasons against the change, only that it should go to consensus or vote. I am more than happy for this to happen, but it seems peculiar that a simple vote should win the day, rather than adherence to good scholarly and wikipedia practices. I fear that because I do not edit things on wikipedia on a consistent basis nor have feeds that inform me when others do, and ChristensenMJ does, it places individuals without a long-standing relationship with editing at a disadvantage due to mere attrition. I think this is unfair to everyone. In the end, I seek discussion and consensus based on principles, rather than saying others have to back me up. Who knows if anyone will care, and I wish that instead of simply 'undoing' my contribution multiple times, ChristensenMJ had engaged with me on the speculative hearsay on the merits.174.23.250.183 (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The consensus discussion typically brings opportunity for other options, alternative wording, compromise where needed, etc. That is the nature of the collaborative efforts that drive wp. This isn't simply an up or down vote to keep all as it is or not. That is what consensus means in the wp world. I haven't said the scholarly efforts are as they should be or are not as they should be. Your initial removal of the whole content was "undone" because of the large removal of content that has existed for a lengthy period of time. Though it may be faulty, it brings somewhat of an assumption that editors may have been OK with the article as it was, therefore such a significant change, particularly full removal, would benefit from a consensus driven discussion. I don't have feeds either, although I think that is an option for people, but registered users can employ a watchlist of articles that are of interest. Changes made are identified there for all to see. Another part of the suggestion to get an account and move ahead. There is nothing to put anyone at a disadvantage. Most of this involves what has also been suggested before, gain more experience and understanding within the community and know that good-faith edits are welcomed and encouraged. When noting there may not be participation on a consistent basis, from appearances of the 3 IP addresses used, that means just a mere matter of two days. This shouldn't continue to be cast as me somehow hampering new user efforts to make changes, unless or until there is opportunity for the community that was accepting of the article to perhaps acknowledge that a change would be in order - and then to help determine how that changes should be incorporated into the article. ChristensenMJ (talk) 02:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) I removed this from the third opinion noticeboard because it appears to be a dispute between more than two editors...unless the IP who started this thread is the same person using the IP in subsequent comments; to which case I would suggest creating an account to avoid further confusion. If so, I will reinstate the request; if not, I suggest you all try the dispute resolution noticeboard (also, given the length of the responses, I would also suggest you all read WP:TLDR). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 06:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...}, all three IP addresses shown above are the same editor. ChristensenMJ (talk) 12:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

3O Response: Reading the statement in dispute, it appears neutrally worded and not overly weighted. It is clearly specified as a speculation by a critic of the subject, and would be read accordingly. In fact, it is practically the only sourced statement in the entire article; the only other sourced statement is from an LDS source. Whether the author's credentials have been called into question belongs on Quinn's page, if appropriate. This article is practically single sourced and is mostly written from LDS publications. It needs a lot of work, but that one bit under dispute appears acceptable as written. ScrapIronIV (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. To clarify, as I understand wikipedia regulations, and I quote them, wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. Although Quinn succeeded in including his speculation in a published work, it remains unverifiable speculation. Neither have I been able to find any substantiation of his speculation anywhere in other published works, nor would someone today be able to search documents for a process that has not been made public. I also quote wikipedia regulations: Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content. Wikipedia also stipulates that questionable sources, such as those relying on unsubstantiated opinion, should only be used as sources of material on themselves. And here wikipedia is very specific: They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others. Given current views about race, it is certain that Quinn's speculation would constitute a contentious claim about Lee. It would certainly be an exceptional claim. In such cases, wikipedia stipulates that Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources, in particular, surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources; challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest. ChristensenMJ, as two individuals (myself being one) have voiced concerns about this particular entry, and you are the only one who has opposed it since it the complaint was first made in 2012, I seek your willingness to reason with me, provide reasons, and find a compromise that conforms to good wikipedia practices. What I hope you will not do is simply undo what others (myself included) contribute. Please do not merely edit war. 97.126.230.117 (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The portion deleted was the portions of assertion, and you left the "speculation" behind. This does not appear to correlate to your statement of purpose. The portion that was removed actually reduces the weight of the statement of speculation. You increased the weight of it with that edit, which is not appropriate.ScrapIronIV (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Actually, I believe the entire speculation violates good wikipedia policy. I was leaving at least some of the speculation as an effort at compromise with ChristensenMJ who tends to undo edits wholesale to it. The portion I reduced was not just speculation, but speculation written as fact. Those sentences do not 'reduce' the speculation; they merely are written as fact without the qualification added to the previous sentence. They are all unsubstantiated speculation. As I have mentioned before, the unsubstantiated speculation violates wikipedia regulations. If substantiated sources can verify that Lee and the others actually did these things, I am happy to include. As it stands, it constitutes a red flag violating multiple wikipedia policies. 97.126.230.117 (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism by Gregory A. Prince and William Robert Wright, University of Utah Press, 2005, p. 100-101
• Lengthen Your Stride: The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball by Edward L. Kimball and Spencer W. Kimball, Deseret Book, 1 Jan 2005, p.204

The above sources mention that Lee tried to keep the priesthood ban in place. Given that the IP address locates to Salt Lake City, I think we can assume that their actions fall under WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:NOTCENSORED, just as we would when dealing with an IP address dealing in Japan trying to censor Nanking Massacre, or an IP address in Vatican city censoring the Catholic Church sexual abuse cases article. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocking the “LDS Church” does not make sense (unfamiliar with Church hierarchy structure). Perhaps “blocking” president and other apostles. I don’t find much evidence for it. But it appears that multiple apostles, particularly Dyer and Smith, supported status quo. Couldn’t find the “others within church leadership that thought doctrinal basis was shaky” besides Brown. Couldn’t find evidence of any vote to rescind the policy in 1969, and this contradicts testimony by/about Dyer, Petersen, and others who did not support the change. Made changes consistent with Wright and Prince’s exhaustive biography.Vermilioncliffs (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello ChristensenMJ. I spent a good deal of time looking at the Kimball biography, Quinn, and McKay biography sources that were there. I included those in the latest version--none of the sources are missing and you did not restore any new ones. Also, there were errors in the previous version. Also, the text claimed things that the sources did not support. There was no indicating in the sources of a unanimous vote in 1969, particularly since all three sources say that McKay and Smith were entirely against until a revelation came, and so were numerous apostles at the time. The sources also do not support the claim that Lee "blocked" the LDS Church. He couldn't "block" the LDS Church. He, Dyer, Petersen and others played a prominent role in suggesting a revelation versus mere administrative change which, according to the sources, was only really propounded by Brown. Check the sources yourself. Don't revert because it 'read well before'; it was inaccurate, and read poorly. Most important the sources did not support the claims. Vermilioncliffs (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Quinn isn't a reputable source.70.34.2.50 (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Have inserted additional information per the sources included in good faith by other users. Also have removed wording such as claim. I had previously made edits to address the concerns that Lee couldn't "block" the church, but those were apparently not seen or noted in the above concerns expressed. As Lee is noted in a source cited "as one of the most outspoken opponents of civil rights among McKay's advisors" - the information should take care to be balanced and not either note the blocking efforts, nor should it imply undue benevolence in taking what was seen as a presumptuous and unprecedented step to issue the statement about civil rights. It's perhaps hard to determine at least some of the motivation behind Lee's overall efforts. Whether he felt so strongly about the approach as being strongly doctrinal and unable to be changed at all, or whether he was just trying to stand up and say that it could only be changed by a revelation. ChristensenMJ (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Some of the changes made the page worse, neutral point of view, relevance. First, be careful adding language about someone often having the strongest feelings among others. It somewhat distorts what the biography said, and is almost impossible to ascertain. The actions are enough without commentating about patterns of internal mental states vis a vis others. The detail about wanting to pre-empt anticipated publication is a really minor detail not important enough for mention. Vermilioncliffs (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. There is certainly an issue with describing or attributing things such as strong feelings to an individual. It was straight from the Prince/Wright book that was recently included and referenced several times, as was the note to pre-empt the statements' publication. It may be minor and that is fine, but the prior edit was not as straight forward and appeared to read as if it was a great, benevolent act that Lee had initiated a statement solely to show support for the necessary civil rights of others, when this may not have been the case, again as per the source. That source even noted the "unprecedented, and in some respects, presumptuous action" to start the letter, initially released with partial signatures of the First Presidency. So keeping a npov does need to work both ways when wading through challenging issues. ChristensenMJ (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)