Watson's bigotry was not a key feature of his legacy. It was confined to some comments that would hardly directly impact anyone. And he resigned after it. Cont

Watson's bigotry was not a key feature of his legacy. It was confined to some comments that would hardly directly impact anyone. And he resigned after it. Contrasted with his discoveries that will benefit all humanity forever. To a reasonable person, this is obviously more defining than his ineffectual coarse statements at the end of his career. Conversely, Monson was the leader of a relatively small religious group which he worked to benefit in roughly the standard manner. But he also used his considerable power to directly lobby and negatively affect thousands of people far outside his own religion. He certainly did not resign over this but worked continuously and unapologetic. So as you say, it'd be pretty ridiculous to portray Watson's core legacy was bigotry. But clearly reasonable people can disagree about Monson's legacy. Especially those who were directly affected. Rather than a scientist, I think a better comparison would be other religious or maybe political leaders. Elsewhere I point out complaints about Jefferson Davis' historic portrayal. Another might be Saint Louis of France. Or Pope Gregory VII, reformer and which hunter. (For that matter even the city of Salem Mass is still defined by its lunacy 300 years ago.) Trump's obituary will either list the impeachment first or not, either at length or not. Either way someone will _call_ it biased but that doesn't mean it is.