Talk:William R. Walker

Possible Emeritus status in October.

اI am posting here because what I feel is relevant information for Wikipedia users to have has been twice reverted by two different users. I have the greatest respect for these users as individuals, which is why I am discussing this here first rather than simply reintroducing what I feel is relevant information. Let me lay out my line of reasoning for this particular change:

1. William R. Walker currently serves as Executive Director for the Temple Department. As such, one of his functions is to attend temple dedications. I can think of only two instances in the 7 years he's had this calling that he's not attended a temple dedication. Those exceptions are the Brigham City Utah Temple and the Fort Lauderdale Florida Temple. The reason for his lack of attendance at the former dedication was simple: 3 members of the Quorum of the Twelve were there (Boyd K. Packer, L. Tom Perry and Russell M. Nelson) and there would have been no room for him on the program. The Temple Department was represented at the latter by Kent F. Richards, currently an Assistant Executive Director of the Temple Department. The fact that Walker wasn't there signifies to me that there's a change coming. When Richards has attended a temple dedication in the past, Walker has always been with him.

2. William R. Walker turns 70 on the 25th of this month. With the exception of less than a handful of brethren whom I can think of off the top of my head, all members of the First Quorum of the Seventy have been released and granted emeritus status at or soon after their 70th birthday.

3. William R. Walker spoke in the last general conference. Given his age and the two facts above, that address was his final address as a general authority.

4. Generally the Church doesn't announce in advance who will be granted emeritus status and when. The one exception I can think of to this rule is Marlin K. Jensen. When the Church announced that Steven E. Snow would replace Jensen as Church Historian and Recorder, they also announced that the reason Jensen was being replaced was because he was being granted emeritus status the following October. So we'd be hard pressed to find a source to verify this information.

5. I clearly put a "citation needed" tag on the information, making it clear that it wasn't official. So I don't see why it cannot remain in the article.

I am, however, perfectly willing to discuss it with anyone and everyone who would care to comment. If my edit violated Wikipedia policy, please cite the policy I violated so I know not to repeat the error. If I am not in violation of any policy, why not give this paragraph a chance at life? I look forward to a lively discussion on this issue. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion topic. I actually completely agree that both Walker and Amado will almost certainly be designated as emeritus general authorities in October. It is true that the church's current First Presidency has held more closely to a guideline that is consistent with your second point above, something that was not the case with the previous First Presidency. For me, this simply amounts to pure speculation however when it comes to wp-style and guidelines, lacking verifiability. Listing something that is conjecture and basically ends up being original research can't be satisfied or sustained simply by including a cn tag to drag out the statements long enough until they may or may not become fact. It also feels like it actually weakens the article and turns the tone more to a generic blog or even beginning to border on a tabloid, newsy sort of sense. As you've noted, there is virtually never an announcement about upcoming designations or releases, so with no possibility of verification expected, it doesn't meet the necessary standard. The closest something is likely to come relates to Walker and his potential release as the executive director of the Temple Department. After August 1, with an event such as those that will be related to the Ogden Utah Temple, a source might appear to identify a new executive director, but even then, no verifiability until October's conference business. I remain opposed to trying to include information similar to the good faith edits that had been added. ChristensenMJ (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The relevant policy is at WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable .... It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses." Since what's going to happen in terms of a general authority's assignment is predictable by users, but not verifiable by reliable sources, it shouldn't be included. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Then instead of saying "We really shouldn't speuclate" when you reverted my edit, why didn't you say something like "Removing material that violates WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL." If that had been your explanation, it would have indicated to me that I was violating Wikipedia policy, and that would have resolved the situation and removed the need for me to even start this conversation. At any rate, thanks for explaining it now. ChristensenMJ, thanks for your comment. You made some very valid points also. I guess we will just have to see what happens in October. In the meantime, I will be reposting this information in the List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints talk page, since that might be a more appropriate place for it. Thanks for the discussion. Sorry I created a problem. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Just because of my personality, my initial reaction to an obvious policy violation is usually not to throw the policy terms in the editor's face. Some editors are aware of the policies, some are not. It often annoys editors who do know the policy to have other editors quote policy to them, so it's usually not an approach I adopt at first. If it becomes clear that the editor was unaware or unfamiliar with the policy, then I'm happy to cite it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense. Let me tell you a little more about me so you know where I'm coming from on this. I know quite a bit about Wikipedia policy (having been an editor for the last 7 years) but I learn more about it every time I interact with my fellow editors. If there is ever the slightest indication that I don't seem to be aware of a policy violation, I'd much rather have the policy cited than have someone pussy-foot around the issue. I prefer to know right away that I've done something wrong. Hence my statement, "My edit didn't violate any Wikipedia policy that I'm aware of." Always, with me, you can cite Wikipedia policy, because while I know some things, I certainly don't know all things, nor do I claim to be an expert on Wikipedia policy. I am not the kind of person that would get angry or offended if told I violated Wikipedia policy. To the contrary, I would thank you and rectify the mistake, because that's the kind of person that I am. The next time, I hope you will not be reticent to tell me when I've done something that violated Wikipedia policy. I thank you for your honesty in this case and thank you in advance for your future candor in interactions with me as time goes on. Thanks again! --Jgstokes (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Since general conference is less than a month away, I have been wondering if we can find a neutral way to include this possible change in status. Something like "His release as Executive Director of the Temple Department, along with the fact that he turned 70 in May, have led some to conjecture that he may be granted emeritus status in the October 2014 General Conference." I think that might be neutrally put. If it's still a question of a violation of Wikipedia policy, though, we can forget it. At the outset, we'll know in about 2 1/2 weeks just how accurate this prediction is. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess I should mention that I did start a topic on the Talk: List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints page discussing the changes that might occur in Church leadership at October general conference, so if all else fails, the prediction is there. And, as I noted above, it's only about 2 1/2 weeks until General Conference when we'll find out for sure if he will be granted emeritus status. Even so, I'd still like feedback on the more neutral wording I proposed in the comment above. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 07:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we'd hard pressed to find any wording that isn't still OR, speculative in nature or "crystal-balling" like Good Ol’factory noted previously. Your interest may be for a wider application in the future than the current example, but in this instance, when there is just a couple weeks until confirmation, as you noted, I don't see the value in trying to amend the article. If there's a desire to document the speculation as having been correct, that's been done on this page. ChristensenMJ (talk) 15:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I see your point. All right. Unless anyone comes along and has a burning desire to include these predictions somehow, I will be content to wait it out and see if I am correct. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, there's not really any suspense - it will be the case, as this is the established pattern they've been following, as noted before. ChristensenMJ (talk) 01:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I see what you mean. You're saying, we know from precedent that this is what will happen, but since we can't find a source to cite to prove it, we should leave it out of the article, even though it will happen. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)