Talk:George P. Lee

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Controversies category

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)[reply]

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

I was an LDS Indian Placement worker and was personally trained by Miles Jensen, the father of the Indian Student Placement program. I can answer any question you may have regarding this program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaymes2 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the time some people, mostly the liberal intellectual fringe of church membership, had discussions as to if his dismissal was due to his dissenting views, his ethnic background, or a combination of the two. So, there was some controversy, but it would be hard to find anythng in print these days.Isaac Crumm 06:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The letter that he sent to the church leadership was read to me first while sitting in his church van. He asked me what I thought of it. Not knowing, of course, any other of the reasons, which eventually caused his excommunication, I thought it was to the point and did capture the general air of opinion among USA "Lamanites", American Indians and those of that descent. Jaymes 3 Feb 08

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)[reply]
Please, let's remember to be
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)[reply
]
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)[reply]
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)[reply
]
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)[reply]

It is unfortunate that Lee's later actions soiled his correct stance regarding the Mormon Church and American Indians. Jaymes 3 Feb 08

Scandal Label

"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

As is the case here with your discussion, there is a lot of focus on what Lee afterwards did that detracts from the accuracy of his doctrinal aim toward the church leadership. Although he was convicted for what he did, this does not retrospectively muddy his earlier, insider observations.

Autobiography information

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)[reply
]

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.
talk) 19:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Mr. Socrates, I would include some of the portions of the book which Deseret edited out, but the case of my certain authorship will be successfully taken to court. After that, I will definitely add more here. If you have questions about the veracity of my account, call Lee where he sits or, better, write him--he has nothing better to do now than to answer a letter or two. Jaymes 3 Feb 08[reply
]
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)[reply
]

Well, it has a whole lot to do with the article. Our lives are not defined by formalized guidelines of what others think are valuable. Our live are defined by everything we do and say. I am the author of Lee's book, Silent Courage. Why was my name not included in the credits? Think awhile and you will see that this intrigue does lend well to this article. There are parts of this original manuscript that reveal much more than the book itself does. If you were to think clearly, the book defines everything about George P. Lee up to the tragic event of his life. All of this is course verifiable. I can supply the witnesses, about 22 of them and you will need to do the legwork since the burden of proof upon you editorial prosecutors lies with you. By the way, are you editors LDS? If you are, it certainly explains your myopic stances.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.187.246 (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issues here are a) does it meet Wikipedia's
talk) 16:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
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)[reply
]

I'll bid $1.50 for the manuscript. --TrustTruth (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

It doesn't matter if my name is on it or not. I DO have the proof and the witnesses to verify it. Although the asking price is 50,000.00 with one person already discussing this amount with me, it may be better served in a "plagiarism" lawsuit against the publishers (Mo' money). What, will you mask truth with a-don't-touch-religion constraint! Ha, you have been molded politically correct, which I surmise will prevent you from ever developing a truthful eye. I may attack you religiously if your religion's idea places you at odds with known truth, i.e. evolution, etc. Whole truth defended will attack any religion holding partial a skewed viewpoint, lukewarm mixtures needing to be spat out. I will add, and this is a blatant religious attack, Joe Smith said that the Book of Mormon was the most perfectly translated book ever, that its text of Isaiah passages were so perfectly translated that all he had to do was open the KJV Bible and copy verbatim. Well, you must know that I am a Hebrew scholar and the text of Isaiah as in the KJV is quite off base in numerous ways. As you may know, but probably not, the Jewish scholars today only accept the Pentateuch, which excludes Isaiah this reason.

By the way, it does meet Wikipedia's verification criteria, the proof does exist. I earlier placed my authorship statement,which you deleted, though it had a perfectly sound reference to the Lehi Sympostim Newsletter, March 1984. Now, please do not be pantywaist scholars; just because my footnote was to a rare, collector's piece not readily available to the less thorough scholars, it need not be removed. You two are typical cynics, rather than critics, who only want the article short enough to focus on Lee's infamous criteria, which by the way is bulky compared to the other entries. You apparently, as news journalists have a habit of doing today in order to attract the decadent attention of their audiences, have devised and composed this page to reek with the fetid and negative. Unfortunate. You must present a truthful and well balanced characterization. Yes, including the sordid, unfortunate tragedy that betook this man who had been deluded from youth into blind obedience to nuance rather than substance. In order to say it must meet Wikipedia's verification criteria merely reveals that your scholarship ability is quite lethargic and unwilling to enter into a more probable and truthful arena. Additionally, when I wrote the book, I placed esoterica and hidden allegories in the book, realizing that silly people like you two, would surface in the future to try to dispute my authenticity as the author.

You, the loud mouth with the copy of Silent Courage. Come up with all the allegories in the book. Give me the purpose and reason that the chapters were subtitled so, if you have the ability. Don't you know that the Navajo Code Talkers had a higher standard of English than most college professors of the same? Do not think for one minute that Lee would have asked another writer with less skill than he, himself, to write his life story. If you can read, come up with just one in the chapter, A brush with Death. Post what you find here as proof that you can read. If you can't, then stay out of the melee.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.187.151 (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, "melee"?
Snocrates 01:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I can't work in a melee. I'm withdrawing my bid. --TrustTruth (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that if you two have any futuristic vision, to start buy up available copies of the book while you can and while you can at the present low rate they are going for. When this news breaks, the books, as you know, will be hoarded. Just as a sidline, I am an ancient Hebrew scholar--I taught English of late at the Arab American University at Jenin, West Bank. Wise it is to withdraw from the melee. Look it up. No pun intended on Lee by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.189.9 (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lee's Doctrinal Viewpoints

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)[reply]

Perhaps the best way to start is by putting it, with citations from published sources per
talk) 19:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


http://www.lapahie.com/George_Patrick_Lee.cfm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.56.135.1 (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_P._Lee&oldid=1215833659"