Talk:George Albert Smith

Recent addition on illness
A section on Smith's health has recently been added by a good faith editor. I made a few modest edits to parts of the added section, but also removed a portion that, at least to me, has elements of original research, or perhaps more that of synthesis - to where the edit seems to be trying "serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." The issue is not whether it is a fact or not that in the manual referred to that the illness is mentioned or not - the whole concept again is that it's seems to be done in a way that is trying to reach or imply a conclusion, one is really opinion-based. That could be a variety of opinions on either side of the issue of inclusion or not. The IP user is not only new, but has done no other editing at this point, other than stating I have acted in a way of that I believe I own the article, reference potential reports of edit warring or other actions that may be taken, such as a third party opinion, with the note that I would lose in all such cases. Whether I am an apologist as the user suggests - I don't know if I am or if I am not - matters little to me. While I obviously have an opinion on whether the information in question should be included, I am far more interested in having the WP community comment and retain the age-old WP principle of consensus, along with all users acting in good faith. ChristensenMJ (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The inclusion was made in good faith. And while the second removal doesn't seem to have been so, due to the inconsistent nature of the reasons for its  removal, I do not wish to publicly malign ChristensenMJ--I'm sure and believe that from his point of view, his edits were also made in good faith.  However, while, as ChristensenMJ suggests, the original paragraph certainly could have fallen under the category of wp:synthesis, the second version of the paragraph citing only the "Teachings of the Presidents" manual narrowed the scope of the information presented considerably. The editing that Smith's mental and emotional illness doesn't appear in his teaching manual is not an observation. It's a flat fact. Anyone can go ahead and do a five-second word search of the .pdf manual included in the citation link. Stating that "the sun appears yellow to the naked eye" also doesn't run afoul of wp:or. While technically an observation (on some level), it's also an undeniable fact, which doesn't require an academic article to cite to. Otherwise, we'd have to cite to articles like, "Was George Albert Smith Male?: a study of his apparent gender," in order to use the pronoun "he." To anyone without a religious agenda, this section is simply a fact, personally verifiable by anyone by clicking on the link, and therefore not worthy of academic study, and shouldn't be objectionable or a violation of wp:or.


 * The section is relevant to the article to showcase that the information is not widely disseminated, but is nonetheless factual, important, and true. What assumptions users can draw from this information is up to them.    65.130.200.180 (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, it would be wrong to "malign" my efforts in anyway, because both efforts were done in good faith. There is no justification to say that one was, while the other wasn't, since the edit summaries are essentially the same. It also can't be cast as it was only right to do from my point of view.  That's no different than it was somehow OK to include it from another's point of view. ChristensenMJ (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, that belongs on the record. I'm sure your edits were absolutely made in good faith.65.130.200.180 (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that a civil discussion is prevailing on a matter that seems to some to be controversial. My own opinion is that, as with all edits that change an article's content, meaning, or future, this edit should be be thoroughly discussed on the article's talk page and a consensus decision made about whether or not to include such a change BEFORE it is implemented into the article. I have therefore reverted the change and will continue to do so without trying to edit war unless and until a consensus decision is reached regarding this matter. IMHO, this material should not be included because the source citing this information is hardly adhering to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policies. If we can find a source that is not so connected to the Church, such as a biography, that states the same information, that's where it should be cited from if it is indeed to be included at all. Even with a more neutral source, I'm not sure I would want it in the article. Some have contended that the Ezra Taft Benson article should include, in some form, Steve Benson's claims that his grandfather was suffering from dementia and should have been resultantly removed as Church president. I don't believe that belongs in an article either because Steve Benson is now recognized as a devout anti-Mormon due to his claims not being taken seriously. I am not, of course, of the opinion that only sources that cast Church presidents or other leaders in a positive light should be included in any given article. That would violate NPOV as well. What we have to do in this case is to find a more neutral source, such as a biography, that would be more in keeping with Wikipedia's policies, to make certain that all sources available are in agreement on this matter. At least, that's my opinion, for what it's worth. And I would again ask that this material not be included in ANY form in this article unless and until a consensus is reached on this matter. --Jgstokes (talk) 07:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)