Talk:Thomas S. Monson

Image2

I was able to get permission from the copyright holder to upload an image that I thought might be better then the one here. Ether the full body image File:Thomas S Monson2.jpg or the cropped face only image File:Thomas S Monson3.jpg. However, again this being a Good Artical and the image is in alot of place, I'm not Bold enough to do it on my own.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 18:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This image as a stand-alone portrait isn't spectacular, but the uncropped version is a great action shot! I've inserted it in the Temple dedications section. Also, be sure to properly document permission to use the picture via the instructions at Commons. —Eustress ^talk 13:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

How about this iamge? File:Thomassmonson.jpg. I think it's better then the one used.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 17:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please Correct the second sentence of the article. Monson is NOT the president of the naacp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.121.50 (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This was corrected on Oct 26. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Category question

Should Thomas S. Monson be placed in the category "American military personnel of World War II"? He was in the Navy reserves and in training in San Diego at the end of the war. Is this enough to place him in that category? I would say yes, but I figured it was best to let this issue be decided by arbitration because it is one on what the exact contours of that category are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Since the category explanation says "This category includes people who served in the United States military during World War II" and the Navy Reserve is part of the United States military, I will go ahead and categorize Thomas S. Monson in this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

No criticism or controversies at all? Hard to believe.andycjp (talk) 04:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Subsequent to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Thomas S. Monson/1, please provide specific issues that are covered by reliable sources elsewhere but not discussed in this article, and we can work to make sure they are integrated here. Regards —Eustress ^talk 14:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Political activism

This section looks either underdeveloped or out of place. Suggest either:

(1) expansion so it is clear why a 2008 event remains relevant--more sources on it.

(2) moving it to the bottom of the section as "awards" is longer

(3) elimination for brevity,

obviously #3 would raise POV flags, but if prop 8 won't be associated with him greatly, it is an option 76.27.41.184 (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Alzheimers

This article should include mention or refutation of these claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.252.74 (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

This is the first I've heard of any such claims. Cite where you're getting this information from, then we can discuss it. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose but have a suggestion This Alzheimer's claim has been going on for a year or more, and he's shown up at Conference-- the sources are nor credible. However, I would not oppose citing his 5-year update stating he was "subject to all manner of infirmities, both of body and mind." jj (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Immigration reform?

Here is a good summary from mormon.com, a website not affiliated with the Church, about President Uchtdorf's meeting with Obama on immigration refrom, and previous endorsements of immigration reform by the Church. [1]. Since the First Presidency acts in tandem, and some of these actions have included President Monson's signiture, I am wondering if it would be worth mentioning anything relatated to this in this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Lawsuit against President Monson

I have watched this issue be debated back and forth. I personally think this is too frivolous a matter to be included in the article. However, I am willing to discuss it and see what the consensus rules on the matter. I have copied the proposed text and am posting it here for discussion. I believe it should be discussed in depth before being readded, and hope that you will all agree with me. Here's the proposed change:

"On January 31, 2014, two summonses were issued to Monson to attend a hearing at the Westminster Magistrates' Court in London, England on March 14, 2014 to answer accusations that key tenets of the LDS faith are untrue and have been used to secure financial contributions."

Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it is premature to add it to the article at this point. If anything comes of it (e.g., Monson actually flies there to testify, etc.), then maybe it should be added. Most of the references indicate this appears to be just a frivolous lawsuit by a former member of the LDS Church. I'd wait to see if this has merit first, especially in a BLP. Bahooka (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

(after EC) I agree with Jgstokes and Bahooka. WP:RECENTISM probably applies - imo it's too soon to know whether this will pass the ten-year test. We're under no deadline here so I think it'll be more important to see what happens come March 14 and the subsequent coverage. Additionally, WP:BLPCRIME or WP:WELLKNOWN would apply (most likely the latter since Monson probably is a public figure and not exactly a relatively unknown person), but in that case we need evidence that the allegation is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented - a threshold that I don't think we've crossed yet nor can we (WP:CRYSTAL) until maybe March. Also, there is already what looks like off-wiki canvassing for meatpuppets (Keep the fraud charges on Wikipedia!). --FyzixFighter (talk) 05:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

My position is likely evident, having reverted several attempts to add this - and having also suggested the talk page be used before adding back. This appears frivolous in nature and isn't a significant event. The notion of this being a "real event" and having some newspaper articles about it doesn't in and of itself make it notable and worthy of adding. This isn't about protection or bias toward the positive nature of the article - is every single lawsuit or issue raised toward any public figure suddenly notable and worthy of inclusion in an article that captures and summarizes the life of such an individual. I would not be in favor of its inclusion in the article. ChristensenMJ (talk) 05:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Lawsuits like this happen all the time against all sorts of religions, and it's not the first time something like this has been directed against this church. From the article I read, this lawsuit doesn't even appear to be directed against Monson personally. It sounds like it's against the church and Monson is just being called in as a witness. It's unusual for the summons to be for Monson to appear himself, usually just a representative from the legal department would be sufficient, but that probably doesn't make it notable enough. These types of lawsuits are interesting, but a more appropriate place for the reference would probably be Lds church#Controversy and criticism, Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Criticism of Mormon sacred texts (this last one goes to some of the key claims of fraud in the suit, none of which if true, would have originated with Monson). I would only have it in Monson's article if he is actually found guilty of something, or a defining aspect of his presidency turns out to be responding to these types of legal complaints on behalf of the church. It will be some time before we know if that ends up being the case.Vojen (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with most everyone here. The fact is this is a something that both appears to be just a frivolous lawsuit and it is not something we normally include. I think the arguments against at they away to go. Additionally, if you see Tom Phillips interview (Tom Phillips is the one suing) it was decided that he has a Conflict of interest and is Not Reliable. Unless a judge actually rules for him, I think this is just a publicity stunt and one of thousands of frivolous lawsuit famous people get, but we don't include.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I add my voice to the consensus. jj (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that Tom Phillips is still on the books as a member of the LDS. Also, since the LDS Church is the Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it's probably not completely fair to suggest the fraud allegations are not directed toward Monson, the president. It will indeed be interesting to see how this plays out. People seem to be overlooking that Tom Phillips has some credit after revealing the secret Second Anointing that takes place in the temple for privileged chosen members.

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2014

Please add new and groundbreaking information about Thomas Monson receiving summonses for fraud. "On January 31, 2014, two summonses were issued to Monson to attend a hearing at the Westminster Magistrates' Court in London, England on March 14, 2014 to answer accusations that key tenets of the LDS faith are untrue and have been used to secure financial contributions."

This can be verified by USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/04/mormon-president-ordered-to-court/5216645/ Tyler D14 (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Tyler D14, thanks for the request. Wikipedia has very strict rules about the kinds of material that can be added to biographies of living persons, and we always try to err on the side of caution. In the case of legal proceedings, we always presume innocence unless a guilty verdict is procured, and we specifically avoid mentioning frivolous law suits. (You'll notice that our article on Barack Obama doesn't mention any of the law suits against him, even though a quick Google search shows that they exist.) Anyway, I'm going to decline this edit request, but if you feel there are compelling reasons to add the material feel free to make your case. ~Adjwilley (talk) 07:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, feel free to participate in the discussion in the section just above this one on the topic.ChristensenMJ (talk) 07:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)