Talk:Russell M. Nelson

message: There is a mini-bio for Wendy Watson Nelson (Wendy L. Watson) under the Family section.  This should be shortened to one sentence, and the other information can be put in her own article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by X-Kind (talk • contribs) 10:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: She doesn't have an article, unless you happened to add an incorrect link. If you click on Wendy L. Watson, there's a redirect that takes you back to this article, making the added link either misdirected or pointless. --Jgstokes (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is she doesn't have an article, but she should because there is too much information about her on this page that has little to do with Russel M. Nelson. X-Kind (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

text: I disagree with that. If you say that Nelson's second wife is deserving of her own article, you should also say every wife of every apostle who has ever served in the LDS Church merits one, and we know this is not the case. We include as much information about each apostolic wife as we have available. In Wendy Watson Nelson's case, there's a little more information available about her due to her status as a BYU professor who became the 2nd wife of an apostle. If you do try to establish a separate article for Watson Nelson, odds are it will be subject to speedy deletion due to a lack of sufficient verifiable information to warrant keeping such an article. But you're welcome to try. I just speak as someone who has had several articles I have created about prominent Church members deleted because their notability in sources independent of the Church was limited. I wouldn't want the same thing to happen to Watson Nelson's article, if you did decide to create one. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Wendy Watson Nelson

message: There has been somewhat of an edit war going on on this page, with some insisting that no citation is needed for the "fact" that Nelson is now President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Those of us with a sound understanding of the way succession works in the Church, particularly as it relates to the apostleship, agree that Nelson is now the Quorum President. However, there has been no source indicating that he has been set apart or sustained in that capacity, either by the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles or by the Church at large. Until that happens, and until we have a source to cite that states it has happened, we can only say that with Packer's death, Nelson becomes the de facto Quorum President and attach a citation needed tag on it. Not only is this necessary, it's also Wikipedia policy. So I would respectfully ask that Nelson only be referred to as the de facto Quorum President unless and until we have a source stating that he has been so sustained and set apart. When we do have a source, the current wording can be adjusted accordingly. Until that time, please do not revert the information as it now stands until a consensus is reached on this matter or a source is provided. Thank you. --Jgstokes (talk) 10:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Nelson was officially set apart today as Quorum President, as reported by the Mormon Newsroom at lds.org. I have added that source to the list of sources in this article. I have also added a citation needed tag for the "fact" that Nelson is the oldest living apostle. If such a tag was needed until a reference was found for Perry, this article should carry that tag until a source is cited to verify this information. Comments? --Jgstokes (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nelson's status as Quorum President 

message: An anonymous editor has pre-emptively changed President Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve to President of the Church, prior to his announcement of leadership on 16 January.  While this may appear to be a foregone conclusion, the Church's official newsroom and newspaper have not yet announced such change, but only the Pres Nelson (of the Q12) will make an announcement to the Church at 9AM MST.  Let's please allow the actual facts to drive the article - thanks. ShaziDaoren (talk) 12:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: During President Nelson's address and the press conference that followed, it was confirmed that the January 14 date was correct, and all official sources verify it. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nelson's status as President of the Church 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Russell M. Nelson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121201061632/http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/pagegen/brochure/p7.html to http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/pagegen/brochure/p7.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901165728/http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=7102 to http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=7102
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello again, everyone! While I appreciate the efforts of editors that have reverted my recent edits on this page (and have the utmost respect for the general work done by such editors and their efforts to utilize the correct policies for the improvement of such articles, I have a slight quibble with the revert of my changes to the order of information in the lede. I went to the section of the article to which I was referred for the precedent of the prevailing policies in this case, and one paragraph in particular from that section stuck out to me. Here's what it says:
"In general, present a biography in chronological order, from birth to death, except where there is good reason to do otherwise. Within a single section, events should almost always be in chronological order. Exceptions to this rule may be apply to lists of works, such as publications or other media productions, where the most recent may be listed first, as well as for distinctions such as orders, decorations, and medals." 
My interpretation of that would be to say that, according to those guidelines, since there is a distinction in terms of why and how Nelson came to his current position as Church president (which could, in the terms of Church doctrine, be comparable to how Wikipedia would in this case define "orders", then how and why he has now become the Church president is more vital to substantiate and take precedence in this article's lede than would his career and prestige as a surgeon or any other biographical details. The fact of the matter is, if anyone else who had been ordained an apostle after Monson but before Nelson were still alive, they would be the Church president, not him. An outline explaining why he is the senior apostle and thus the current president of the Church is therefore very relevant to detail at the beginning of the lede.
That said, I recognize the need to give those who disagree on this point the benefit of the doubt and also the chance to tell me why they might disagree, and what makes them think I might be in error on this point. When in doubt, I always try to assume good faith, except when I can categorically prove that is not warranted. So, having posted these thoughts, I will not take steps to revert the revert of my changes unless and until the consensus concurs with this assessment. Thanks for wading through this explanation, and I hope it shows where I am coming from. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: after ruminating on this for a few weeks I think you are probably right on this point.  I've changed the lead and it seems to still flow fairly well.  White Whirlwind  咨  19:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of information in lede 

message: Hi, due to the persistent vandalism that increased after the last semi-protection expired, I've asked that the page receive semi-protection indefinitely over on Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: semi-protection has been added. thanks admins! Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  semi-protection requested 

message: Please change "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church).[4] Nelson was a member of the LDS Church's Quorum of the Twelve Apostles" to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.[4] Nelson was a member of the Restored Church of Jesus Christ's Quorum of the Twelve Apostles" because "LDS" is no longer a name propagated by the church. Thank you! Tatestaker (talk) 02:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: – but it's an abbreviation that's used throughout the article, so it's good to have what it refers to when it's first used.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

text: Please see Wikipedia's Manual of Style on Latter Day Saints, which uses "LDS Church" as a standard abbreviation. The talk page there discusses volunteers' decision not to change the style guide. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2018 

message: Hi all! Per prior concensus (see above), it was generally agreed that the article on President Nelson needs rewriting and reorganization. As a first thought, the section on his presidency is quite cluttered with a variety of different events announcements. If no one objects, I'm going to reorganize this section into four subsections: the header, "Worldwide Ministry", "Policy Changes and Announcements", and "Temples", all of which have been major themes of his first 18 months as president. Note that this would not substantially remove any content, but would allow for it to be organized more properly. Thoughts? Rollidan (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a great idea, and where I was thinking things should go even if I wasn't articulating that well. Organizing events via topic vice chronologically makes logical sense, and allows for brevity while providing the same info. As a non-LDS example that I think showcases what the intent is, the current Presiding Bishop of TEC Michael Curry (Bishop) breaks his ministry down via topic, too. Thank you for spearheading the edit on this! Trumblej1986 (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

text: Anything that isn't from the Church website: they filed a claim for DMCA earlier this year for Pres. Nelson's official photo from the website. Trumblej1986 (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP photos need to be either CC-BY-SA (only limited by a requirement to attribute and to not use them in anything copyrighted) or else public domain. Fair use photos are also an option, but that's quite an involved hassle and ought to be avoided if possible. It's very difficult to find usable photos of LDS leaders, unfortunately. If only more members were photographers who liked to release their photos as a public service!  White Whirlwind  咨  08:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Rewrite 

message: I have opened a discussion at the BLP Noticeboard at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Russell_M._Nelson Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I should clarify my stance, since it seems like it's being argued over by Epachamo and OctoberWoodland. I think I'm something like Weak Oppose at the moment. But that's at the moment: before I make up my mind, I want to see some surveys of how often the major sources on Nelson bring this up, and also hear the analysis of editors who are more experienced in BLP stuff. I'll look at the BLP discussion.  White Whirlwind  00:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't find any Wikipedia policy that talks about how information is determined by "major sources". Can you further clarify, or point me to a Wikipedia policy that discusses this? Why wouldn't the Salt Lake Tribune count as a major source, or even a "good enough" source? It sounds like you are implying that it need be an a biography of Nelson to be included. What do you do in a case like this where those "major sources" aren't written yet due to the recency of the data? Epachamo (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If there was an SRA operating out of Bountiful, Utah then by all means write an article about it if you have reliable sources that back it up.  If you want to mention the lawsuit (omitting Nelson since he was clearly not a defendant in the lawsuit) and list the defendants of the lawsuit (subject to the requirements of WP:BLP), then be my guest.  What we are discussing here is a biography and that content clearly does not belong in it for a whole host of reasons.  You can write all you want about the Bountiful SRA cult and it's history in a standalone article.  Stop trying to drag Nelson into the fray in order to ride the coattails of his notability to prop up your assertions about the Bountiful SRA ring.  If the Bountiful SRA would be notable (which I think it may be if what you say is true about sources related to it) then by all means write about it.  Just stay clear of dragging Nelson into it.  Bio's have very strict standards regarding content.  Libel and undue material don't belong. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "Stop trying to drag Nelson into the fray in order to ride the coattails of his notability to prop up your assertions about the Bountiful SRA ring." Really, , please assume good faith. I don't think 's intent is what you are suggesting. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  My apologies.  As you pointed out in a statement in your talk page, passionate editors tend to let the fur fly in heated debates.  It's clear to me that Epachamo is a bold and passionate editor.  I will attempt to assume good faith and remove any contentious statements.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: And I think that you're saying what you're saying in good faith, too. I can understand your viewpoint. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I am now neutral. --Devokewater (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

text: No consensus was noted by whoever it was that archived it on the noticeboard. Epachamo (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP Discussion 

message: This person has been incorrectly categorized as a cardiologist when in fact he was a cardiothoracic surgeon. Cardiology is a subspecialty of Internal Medicine. Cardiothoracic surgery is a surgical subspecialty. They are not the same thing.Ewingdo (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying! Epachamo (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a cardiologist 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:22, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion