Talk:George P. Lee

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

text: 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. (I wrote his autobiography folks, what would you like to know, up until 1988? Jaymes 3 Feb 08 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Controversies category 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Scandal Label 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: Lol, "melee"? Snocrates 01:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't work in a melee. I'm withdrawing my bid. --TrustTruth (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Autobiography information

message: I would really like to see a page dedicated to Lee's doctrinal interpretation regarding American Indians.  Perhaps the creation of a new page, separate from his own, would be beneficial. 72.48.189.69 (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the best way to start is by putting it, with citations from published sources per WP:RS, on Lee's page.  If his doctrinal interpretation is notable and has sources, then a separate page may come from that. Alanraywiki (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lee's Doctrinal Viewpoints