Talk:M. Russell Ballard

Elder Ballard speaks to young LDS around the world

Here is a brief synopsis from a world broadcast this evening that gives insights to M. Russell Ballard. . . . Music: “Where Can I Turn For Peace?” and “If the Savior Stood Beside Me” Introduction: Served as an Apostle since October 6, 1985. . . . ELDER BALLARD: The Lord needs righteous young men and young women to declare the Gospel—to help gather the righteous before His second coming. [As Apostles] our callings take us around the world. The Lord blesses us to move His Work forward in amazing ways: (1) technology; (2) combatting pornography; and (3) the doctrine of marriage. [1] PS: Added to help in future editing, and also augment the Article. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the informative synopsis, but, as a general rule, Wikipedia articles do not take note of every sermon given by every Church leader on every occaision. I personally do not see how this information would be relevant to the article about Ballard, other than to note one more assignment that he fulfilled. But, as I said, as a general rule, Wikipedia doesn't list every speaking assignment every Church leader has ever filled. If that were the case, the article about President Monson would be larger than Wikipedia could hold. I mean no disrespect, but I fail to see how this is relevant to the article's subject. I am open to discussing its relevancy, however, if you would care to comment on it. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I added, "Much of his ministry has been focused on missionary work." Which was part of the introduction. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

While that may be true, it is not clear how the cited citation proves the fact that "much of his ministry has been focused on missionary work." So I removed what seemed to be an irrelevant reference and replaced it with a citation needed tag. I believe sufficient proof of this claim would be referencing some of his conference talks that have addressed the subject of missionary work. But I will let you decide which of the many talks he has given to use, since you're the one that wants this sentence in the article. I would also like to see you address the concerns I raised in my previous comment, which is why a summary of this talk or citing this talk has relevance to an article about him. I hope I'm not coming across as unreasonable. I just want to make sure that if certain material is to be included in a Wikipedia article that it meets Wikipedia standards, and from what you've said so far, I honestly can't tell whether Ballard's address meets this criteria. And yes, before you ask, I did watch the address myself. But I would still like to see a comment from you about why this particular address has relevance to the article about Ballard, and why the fact you added, along with the citation you added, proves that much of Ballard's ministry has been focused on missionary work. Happy searching! --Jgstokes (talk) 02:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The following sentence is better and points out his prominence in an important area:
Prominent in his conference talks is a focus on members sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Titles of the conference talks are

• The Greatest Generation of Missionaries (2003)
• Creating a Gospel Sharing Home (2006)
• Put Your Trust In The Lord (2013) "We can all be more consistently involved in missionary work by replacing our fear with real faith."
• Follow up (2014) -- [Meaning, follow up to the 2013 conference talk.]

Thanks also to M.J.Christensen for noting the prior sentence was lacking and unsupported.

I've had some additional thoughts and we can discuss this thoroughly before changing the article.Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Regarding the statement that "much of his ministry has focused on missionary work." To properly reference this, we would not "referenc[e] some of his conference talks that have addressed the subject of missionary work", as has been suggested. The proper way to reference this would be to find a reliable, secondary source that states that much of his ministry has been focused on missionary work. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

A secondary source such as what? At any rate, it's probably a moot point anyways. This issue appears to have been settled outside of this article's talk page. As was observed by another user, it would be difficult if not next to impossible to pin down one focus of an apostle's ministry. It's even difficult to pin down a prophet's ministerial focus until after their tenure is complete and their ministry as a whole can be analyzed. As I said, I believe this has been settled to the satisfaction of all concerned outside of this talk page, so unless someone feels an absolute need to rekindle this conversation, the matter can likely be closed with honor. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Secondary sources such as those discussed in this guideline: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. I'm not saying there is necessarily a secondary source that mentions or discusses this. I'm saying that if the information is to be included, it should come from a reliable secondary source. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done -- Thanks to participants. Other improvements are under consideration. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Reviving this discussion about a year and a half later. Ballard's official biography on mormonnewsroom.org states: "Much of his ministry has been focused on missionary work." This statement appears in the third paragraph up from the bottom. Since it's in his official biography, which has been endorsed by Church leaders, would it be fair to include it herein? What do you think? --Jgstokes (talk) 08:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Official biography

The identification of his grandfathers is part of his constantly,ubiquitously reprinted official biography.A citation-whine was in the article,and I provided a citation vague enough not to be biased.A more specific one was demanded,and I provided plenty.And then the citation-whiner reverted to insisting that a citation was needed.

Offering any specific citation for information that is ubiquitous is the opposite of scholarship,and any Wikipedia policy that demands it deserves only condemnation,never compliance. To point to anywhere in particular as where information that is all over the place comes from is pure bias. 12.144.5.2 (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

First of all, your hostile attitude shows a lack of understanding for the Wikipedia principles of assuming good faith, no personal attacks, and providing reliable and specific sources, just to name a few off the top of my head. Secondly, if you had cited a specific Church Almanac for the information you wanted to add, then my objection would not have been necessary. Third, you were repeatedly reverted, not just by me, which signifies that your conduct may be more questionable and less compliant with Wikipedia policies than mine was in reverting such changes and reiterating that you needed to discuss things here. I don't know how long you have been editing Wikipedia, but by flying off the handle, you only damage your credibility as an editor.

Next, if a single specific source had been cited, and if it was in accord with the reliable sourcing policy, that would also have nipped this in the bud. And your continued reverts after being told (not just by me) that the way you were attempting to include the information was not in accordance with Wikipedia policy means you have also violated the 3-revert rule, which, had you not taken your concerns here, might have led to your editing privileges being blocked, either temporarily or permanently. So that is another issue I have with the way you tried to introduce this content

Depending on how new you are to Wikipedia, you may not have been aware of the existence of such policies, and since I am (having edited Wikipedia for most of the last decade), I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. That said, there is no problem with including the content if it is verified by at least one reliable source. There is also a special format for inputting such sources, which I would be happy to walk you through as well. And in case you weren't aware of this, Wikipedia is not so much concerned about what is true, but rather what is verifiable. Ubiquitous as you think the information you desire to add might be, unless it can be verified by a reliable source (which sometimes means looking outside works published by the Church or with its' approval), it does not matter to Wikipedia whether or not the information is true.

It has sometimes been hard for me as a Wikipedia editor to strike the right balance between the two, but I have managed for the last decade, and I pride myself on being able to work with a wide variety of editors in a cooperative spirit, both those who are members of the Church like me, and those who are not, but who are just as dedicated to ensuring that articles related to the Church adhere to all such policies. With all of that said, I hope you understand more about how Wikipedia works, and how things like this should be handled going forward. It is not enough to just throw in a source that is so vague it leaves the verification of the content ambiguous. If a specific source can be found that meets the appropriate guidelines, that will put this issue to rest. Thank you for taking time to discuss your concerns here, and I hope you are satisfied with this explanation of the problem I and the one or two other editors who reverted your changes (which should be allowed to remain, if sourced properly according to the guidelines, since it is relevant and significant information) had with the way the information was added and with your responses to those reverts. I hope you will decide you want to contribute more here on Wikipedia and will be determined to ensure any such efforts do not further cause problems for you or any of us with whom you interact here. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I wanted to comment again and note that I have found a source that meets Wikipedia guidelines, and that source will be added in the next few minutes. Problem solved, so your aggressive anger and thus your argument are rendered completely unnecessary. Word to the wise: next time, don't assume that those reverting your changes have a personal vendetta against you, or that the reasons for those reverts are pointless and grounds for angrily lashing out. That may not be the best way to lend credibility to either the content you want to contribute or to your reputation as a positive contributor. Thanks again. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

If you had checked for my oldest user contributions,you'd know I've been on here at varying levels of activity almost four years longer than you have.I only added this information to this article twice,so I don't know where you got the claim I violated a three-revert rule from.I regret your enthusiasm for Wikipedia policies that deserve only complaint rather than compliance.(Yes,I have butted heads with disciplinarians before).12.144.5.2 (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Political activity

The following text was recently added:

Ballard is a life-long republican and supported Mitt Romney's presidential campaign in 2008 and 2012.

References

I have a few concerns about the text-

1. I don't see where in the cited sources it supports the "life-long" qualifier.
2. I would also question whether the Times & Seasons blog post qualifies as a reliable source, especially for a BLP.
3. I think it's a bit of a stretch from the Deseret News and the Oklahoman support the statement that he supported Romney's campaign. In the DN article, Ballard is described as responding in 2007 to an AP article about the difference between "the theological split between Mormons and Christian conservatives that has followed church member Mitt Romney's Republican presidential campaign" but notes that "Ballard did not discuss Romney specifically or comment on his campaign". IMO, this doesn't match the claim that he supported Romney's campaign. In the Oklahoman article, Ballard is described as having dinner with Al Sharpton after the latter was criticized for comments made about Romney also during 2007. Again, this doesn't match the claim. There is no indication that Ballard supported Romney's campaign.
4. Beyond the concern over sources matching claim, we also couldn't say anything about support or not for the Romney's 2012 campaign from two sources published in 2007.

Maybe I missed something, though. Thoughts? --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, @FyzixFighter (and sorry for my revert, I was little confused by your edit summary). Here's a source that I think better verifies that the subject supported Romney's 2008 presidential campaign:

• "Romney's run good for LDS Church" Salt Lake Tribune. April 23, 2008

In the meantime I'll continue searching for sources that verify that he was a life long republican and that he supported Romney's 2012 presidential campaign as well. It's looking like there may not be any, so if that is the case, I'm fine with removing that portion of the text. I believe right now there is still enough to label the subject as a republican and a supporter of Romney's 2008 presidential campaign. ––FormalDude talk 23:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I was erring on the side of caution, per WP:BLPREMOVE (which says "immediately") and WP:BLPPRIVACY, when I removed the text while I was still creating the talk page post. I do also wonder if political affiliation might fall under "personal information", which, according to BLPPRIVACY, needs more than just verification in a reliable source but needs to be important enough, usually determined by wide coverage in multiple sources, for inclusion.

I'm still not seeing where in the source you provided above that shows he supported Romeny's 2008 campaign. How are you defining support? I think without some clarification, "support" could be too easily interpreted as "endorsed". From the source provided, it seems like Ballard is in favor of the impact of Romney's campaign ("I'd much rather have people talking about us than ignoring us") and church members getting involved in politics, but I still don't think that rises to supporting/endorsing Romney's campaign. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I found this comment in a source that discussed the subject's political opinions: "proof of blatant support of any candidate puts the church at risk of losing its tax-exempt status with the Internal Revenue Service and could damage Romney’s prospects of getting the GOP nomination."

For this reason I do not believe we're going to find any sources that show the subject explicitly supporting Romney. So our options are either to ommit that completely, or come up with some other verbiage that can be used from the existing sources. Political affiliation is not something that would be considered personal information because voter registration records are essentially public in the state of Utah, as is the case in many states. I still support the inclusion of text labeling Ballard a republican. ––FormalDude talk 00:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Based on the DN, Oklahoman, and SLTrib articles, we could speak to how Ballard played key roles in speaking to the impact and responding to some of the attention the Church received due to Romney's 2008 campaign, including meeting with Sharpton.

With regard the political affiliation, imo availability via public records doesn't change the fact that it is personal information. Verifiability is not the threshold for inclusion of personal information in BLPs. Unless it's necessary to the narrative of the BLP, personal information should be minimal. I don't see how the political affiliation is necessary for the narrative in his biography. If he had been more politically active, it might be relevant. Do we include party affiliation for other religious leaders who are not known for political activity? It might be worth raising the issue at WP:BLPN. --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

If the question is whether political affiliation is suitable for inclusion in a biography of a living person, I think the answer is an easy yes (you can bring it up at WP:BLPN if you want to). It advances the narrative and provides additional insight for the reader. I could understand if this was a less notable person, but due to their notability, politics is certainly an aspect of their biography, and their affiliation should be mentioned. ––FormalDude talk 04:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

There appears to be a need to explain the difference between "a republican" and "a Republican". The proper noun Republican is very much more specific than the noun republican. For instance, most (USA) Democrats are republicans, just like most Republicans. The two words have DIFFERENT meaning and should not be used interchangeably.98.17.181.251 (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)