text:
Talk:Copy of handbook for leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints obtained by Wikinews

OR notes
marked it as original so I will add some notes here:

Notes-I read the report --A101 - (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hehe, good notes. Cirt - (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Additional OR notes
As stated in the article, the document referenced came from Wikileaks. Cirt (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The publishing of this handbook

 * The publishing of this handbook is a copyright violation. See  and . Because Wikinews is part of the Wikimedia Foundation, I assume the same rules that apply at Wikipedia also apply here regarding linking to copyright violations:"However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [1]). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors." Alanraywiki - (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Whilst I appreciate the point you make, in order for us to discuss this publication we need to be able to list the leaked document as a source. Of course in most circumstances linking copyright violations is to be discourage but here it is necessaryd, in doing so it should be clear in how it is linked that it is not supposed to condone the violation. Regards. Adambro - (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted
this has been put on digg and the blog...why was it deleted? plus was published for sometime already. I restored. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Newsworthy?
Why? I don't see how this is newsworthy: is it controversial or somehow unexpected that Mormons disapprove of euthanasia? Koavf - (talk) 01:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's my issue. There's nothing newsworthy in this book, and the false implication that Mormons question whether to take donated organs is academically inappropriate.  Anything "Mormon" sells, even though most of the time it's non-relevant.--Mrcolj - (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems pretty bland stuff to me. Not newsworthy.  75.15.204.227 08:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fast food chains have handbooks of instructions that are only made available to employees, should we start writing stories about them? 210.9.137.20 02:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Picture
Why is there a picture of the scriptures of the church when the article is about the Church Handbook of Instructions? They are completely different publications. Also, there are four separate books that are bound together in this picture, not one holy book. Alanraywiki - (talk) 04:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing new here.
As far as I can see, all of this information is available in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism: Cremation: "Since the organization of the Church in 1830, Latter-day Saints have been encouraged by their leaders to avoid cremation, unless it is required by law, and, wherever possible, to consign the body to burial in the earth and leave the dissolution of the body to nature, "for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return" (Gen. 3:19)." - Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol. 1, Cremation

Organ Donation: "Because the transplanting of body parts raises some concerns regarding ethics and moral issues, the Church has issued the following statement: "Whether an individual chooses to will his own bodily organs or authorizes the transplant of organs from a deceased family member is a decision for the individual or the deceased member's family. The decision to receive a donated organ should be made with competent medical counsel and confirmation through prayer" (General Handbook of Instructions, 11-6)." - Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol. 2, Organ Donations and Transplants

Euthanasia: "A person who participates in euthanasia—deliberately putting to death a person suffering from incurable conditions or diseases—violates the commandments of God." (General Handbook of Instructions, 11-5) "When severe illness strikes, Church members should exercise faith in the Lord and seek competent medical assistance. However, when dying becomes inevitable, it should be looked upon as a blessing and a purposeful part of eternal existence. Members should not feel obligated to extend mortal life by means that are unreasonable." (General Handbook of Instructions, 11-6) - Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol. 3, Prolonging Life.

Tithes: "The collection of tithing is the responsibility of the bishop in each ward ... he forwards the tithes collected locally to Church headquarters ... these funds are used for such purposes as the building and manintenance of meetinghouses, temples and other facilities, as well as for partial support of the missionary, educational and welfare programs of the Church." - Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol. 4, Tithing.

The Encylopedia of Mormonism was published in 1992. It is available freely online (here) and is by no means a secret church document. It directly cites the General Handbook of Instructions, as does this website. This article reveals nothing that was not already known about the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter-Day Saints and for that matter it doesn't even reveal anything new about the General Handbook. 210.9.137.20 05:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation
I propose citing the book itself rather than the Wikileaks scanned copy. When any other book is cited, a link is not provided to a place where an illegal copy can be obtained. It is more than enough to say "the book is available on Wikileaks" and leave it at that, we don't have to provide a direct link to the book. Remember, this is a copyright violation. 210.9.137.20 02:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We site Reuters, CNN, FOX News and other in daily news reports. They are all copyrighted. What would make this any different? Find a kink to the book and all the documents from WL online and sure...we can use that. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Dragon, the difference is that in the case of the news agencies you cited they have published their own copyrighted material on the Internet for public consumption. In this case, however, the person posted the material without the permission of the copyright holder, thus violating copyright laws.  It is like someone taking the latest bestseller, scanning it and posting it on the Internet. An interesting article to read on Wikipedia on the matter of linking to this material is Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry.  Alanraywiki - (talk) 04:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What I am proposing is to simply cite the book in the form that is was originally published. This book was never published online, but we have access to its bibliographical information. It is probable that many readers of Wikipedia/Wikinews do not have access to the many books that are cited in articles, but that is no reason to cite an illegal copy. 210.9.137.20 06:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You've misunderstood me, I'm not saying that citing the book is a copyright violation. The scanned copy, however, is a copyright violation, and we should not be linking to it. An article posted on the official CNN website is not violating CNN's copyright, but this book has been posted on Wikileaks without the permission of the LDS. May I draw your attention, if/when you reply to this comment, to the large, bold text underneath the editing box. It reads "do not submit copyrighted work without permission." This should be enough to remind anyone of Wikipedia/Wikinews' attitude towards copyright violation. 210.9.137.20 06:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

DMCA Take-Down Notice
I have removed the link to wikileaks per a DMCA Take-Down noticed received today. I've referred the matter to Mike Godwin. Contact me via email with questions, please. :) --Chiacomo (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1525941 for the record. Mr.Z-man - (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, Ticket#: 2008050510027181 --Brian McNeil / talk 07:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Can I ask, and excuse me being frank, what the heck does this mean? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 10:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * For the most part it means someone is asserting that we should not engage in the promotion of, or support of, the violation of copyright. The correct action has been taken in removing the link and seeking advice from Mike Godwin. I will raise the issue on the Communications Committee mailing list as I am not qualified to say if this can - or should - be challenged. It may be the case that Wikileaks should challenge the similar DMCA they will have received and the decision there would influence how Wikinews should respond.
 * So, keep your cool, mark the deletion request for this article as suspended (leave all templates) and I'll either let you know what Mike says, or persuade him to post here. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am cool, but really, this would affirm something about the manual. So as I said it before, we link to copyrighted material constanty. What WL has on their site is not our responsibility. We report on what they posted, not what we posted. Pending Godwin's advice, I will wait to get all pissed, but this is ridiculous. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 10:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikileaks, at least at firast glance, is not aware of any order against them, in this regards. But nonetheless, they will look into the issue and respond to me sometime today. As of now though I have to go to real work. Keep me posted brianmc. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 11:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, we link to (c) material, but generally not to unauthorised reproductions thereof. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have raised this with ComCom. Likely at least two or three hours away from Mike looking at it. Please confirm Wikileaks has not been served with a similar takedown notice. This, I believe, may influence how WMF reacts. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that linking is fair use,although I have no intention of ignoring this notice. User:Anonymous101
 * ComCom people have pointed out that the notice is improperly filed as email is not a valid notification method. I have responded to the OTRS ticket stressing this point, and that it is (per Mike Godwin) questionable if a URL is actually something actionable.
 * It seems somewhat ironic... This was a story destined for deletion as non-notable, but the LDS people have changed that. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Not sure what is so newsworthy about this incident to be honest. Having looked at the OTRS ticket, I'd suggest it would probably have best for you to have left any replying to our legal guys. By linking to this material we could be seen as facilitating the illegal distribution of this and I suspect we don't have much room to argue here. I suspect we'll accept their request as valid and keep the link out and that'll be the end of it. Adambro - (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not necessary to link to the material to write an article about its presence on Wikileaks. Agreed that this new wrinkle with the DMCA Take-Down Notice is interesting and noteworthy - has this ever happened to Wikinews before? Cirt - (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No it hasn't. RE: Adambro: We are facilitating nothing other than a rport from a web URL from Wikileaks, who by the way, lets not wander away from the fact that they uploaded it and they have it. Not Wikinews and not WMF. We simply report on it. So in reality we are using fair use. I am still at work, but when I get home I will see if Wikileaks e-mailed me back. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I agree with brianmc. if this book was not a big deal or newsworthy, why the fuss over it on Wikinews? I have to agree that this entire situation changes everything. The LDS essentially made this even more news than it was or wasn't before. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Should we remove all the revisions with the alleged copyright violation? User:Anonymous101  18:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. I see no reason to as there has been no course of action yet determined. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Adambro, do you really think I would respond to something as serious as this without first seeking input from Mike Godwin? You wound me. The request is improperly filed and asserts we must remove a link as opposed to infringing material. These are the most extreme limits of the DMCA legislation and I believe the response I sent to the complainant was both professional and articulate in expressing these issues. For Wikimedia projects to remain relevant we must question any such notices that are not open and shut cases. Vague and non-specific threats should be challenged to avoid a "chilling effect" on free speech. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been in contact with Wikileaks, and they tell me, as of this message, have not received any notice from the LDS. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair Use
I believe that linking was fair use under US law as Wikinews is non profit and the document was being used for informative purposes. We were liking to Wikileaks, a non profit site that posted a document online for informative purposes.This document had not previously been used to make profit. User:Anonymous101  18:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Do we even really even have to claim fair use? We aren't duplicating material, just linking to a website, which WMF has no control over, if they violate copyright thats their problem and not ours, just my 2 cents.--Ryan524 - (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, at least on Wikipedia they have a rule about not linking to copyright infringements, and I'd suggest that many of the arguments for that would apply here as well. Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 04:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Though at the moment the claimed copyright infringements are not being linked to. Cirt (talk) 04:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Article on DMCA
Good title for article about the DMCA Take-Down Notice -- Wikinews receives 'take-down' notice from Mormon Church. I do not think that we should rename/move this article to that title, but rather that that should be a completely new article about this incident - with the previous article as a reference. Cirt - (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * However, let's wait a bit on this until we can get more info/sources. The DMCA itself must have produced a filing in a federal court, and that document should be public domain.  Cirt - (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that it would be entirely inappropriate and unprofessional to publish an article about this incident. Let's sit back and see how things pan out. Adambro - (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, they don't produce a filing in a court or produce a record of the notification User:Anonymous101  18:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are some fun/related Wikipedia articles - Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, Digital Millennium Copyright Act -- and also Chilling effect, Streisand effect, and some interesting related organizations are Chilling Effects, Electronic Frontier Foundation and Berkman Center for Internet & Society. Cirt - (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There should at least be a disclaimer on this article, stating that it has been modified due to a request by an external party. --+Deprifry+ 21:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the update notice covers that nicely, but if you think the article should also have some other sort of additional notice/clarification template, I'd be interested to hear what/how. Cirt (talk) 02:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Title
Wouldn't Wikileaks publishes a copy of handbook for leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints be a better title? If any of our editors has a "copy", I would think that what they have is a copy of the PDF file that Wikileaks put up on their site, and not a physical copy of the book. Afterall, we are relying on Wikileaks that what they put up is a faithful scan of the book. I think it would also serve to distance ourselves from the copyright infringement claims made by the church. Of course, this would also necessitate changes to the opening paragraph, which is usually problematic for archived articles, but seeing as this was just recently re-published and archived in a single edit, I think this would be OK in this case. --SVTCobra 21:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be opposed to this at this point, this long after the article has been published and then archived. Cirt (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Long after"? You published and archived on May 13. Please don't insult me like that. --SVTCobra 01:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, now, hold on, the article had been stable with zero edits since May 5. This was in no way meant as an "insult" to you. I apologize if it seemed that way. Cirt (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This is also the title the article has had since its initial publish date of April 19, the article has also since been cited in other publications with this title. Cirt (talk) 01:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you weren't trying to insult, but your response was certainly glib. The reason that the article has remained little changed is that it was nominated for deletion on April 19. Then the DR was frozen on May 5 because of what was reported as a DMCA notice. And then, because of Wikimedia Foundation receives copyright infringement claim from Mormon Church, this article suddenly goes back up and gets archived immediately. If you check the original DR, you will see that I voiced my concerns about the phrase "Wikinews has obtained a copy ..." in that discussion on April 21, which you can further see in this diff. Therefore, I feel that I have a valid case that due to the specific circumstances, there was not an opportunity to make this change, as there would have been in the normal editorial process. --SVTCobra 02:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not mean to come across as glib, I am sorry that you interpreted my statement in that fashion. Again, I apologize if that is the case.  I had meant to say in my initial comment that "Copy of handbook for leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints obtained by Wikinews" has been this article's title since its initial April 19 publish.  You do raise some cogent points but at this point I really do not think we should change the title or the article's text and content.  Cirt (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact remains that this article was either in a state of DR or frozen DR continuously from April 19 through May 13. At one point it was even deleted. When exactly was anyone supposed to fix the title? --SVTCobra 03:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't even think the title is an issue or a problem. See for example the first paragraph of the article "Church of Scientology's 'Operating Thetan' documents leaked online" -- Wikinews has obtained 'Operating Thetan' (OT) documents of the Church of Scientology which were leaked via Wikileaks. -- similar wording as used in this article, that article was initially published March 25, stayed unprotected until April 15, and was archived April 27.  I do not see a problem with the title.  Cirt (talk) 03:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Notice
Per this comment from, I added this notice to the top of this article. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


text:
Comments:Copy of handbook for leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints obtained by Wikinews

This is news exactly how?!? The Church Handbook of Instructions has been available on the internet since 1998. There was even a notable 1999 lawsuit over it; the decision on that case established case law in the US regarding deep linking and contributory infringement of copyright. Must be a slow news day, as Wikinews has seemingly succumbed to silly season style reporting. What's next, experiments with Yellow journalism? -- 63.224.135.113 16:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

So basically you guys got a copy of the handbook thinking that the Church of JC & LDS is like the Church of Scientology and were sorely disappointed to find out that it is, in fact, a non-secretive religion. But then, for some reason, you decided to post your "finding" anyway - this isn't news, it's information that's widely known (well, I knew it, and I don't know much about the LDS). 210.9.137.20 —Preceding comment was added at 04:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the others. This is not news. 75.15.204.227 08:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is supposed to be news because it sounds like the FLDS, then I have to remind you all that the Mormon Church and the Fundamentalist sect that's been all over the news lately are not affiliated. They just have similar roots. The Mormon Church really doesn't have any current scandals, has not for a while. If you want something juicy, dig into the FLDS's closet (if there's anything not already told). For the record, ingestion of caffeine is also a big no-no in the LDS. - 67.142.130.35 14:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the first three above. Of course, it's known, but CHI as released on Wikileaks is the starting point for eventual disclosure of internal documents (not public information; such internal documents include memos, financial and suppressed historical documents belonging to LDS headquarter in Salt Lake City). LDS Church is still a secretive American religion focused on the management of its membership (this include sending "home teachers to discuss faith and the scriptures [indoctrination] with the members who voluntarily agree to invite the visiting home teachers, active or inactive, to assure continuous church-going and tithing offerings), for aforementioned reasons referring to the internal documents. Two reasons for the disclosure despite its being previously known somewhere else is to propagate the information on the popular Wikileaks whereas before then it was obscure and to counter LDS Church's past attempt to suppress the unofficial release of CHI as an intellectual property. More information can be read titled "LDS CHURCH SUES MINISTRY" published in February 2001 "Salt Lake City Messenger" newsletter. Cyberdogg - (talk) 07:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Cyberdogg, if it's such a "secretive religion", how come everything in this news report is already information readily available from normal LDS sources? Where's the big secret?  What's the big story here?  Regardless of your own particular biases (which you seem keen to air), you have not at all demonstrated how this story is newsworthy.  All you have done is shown how you have an axe to grind here.  Now, if this book said something about church leadership practicing polygamy, lying about something, or acting in a hostile fashion towards the church's detractors (etc.), then we'd have a story.  As it is, we have a few boring, moderately well-known facts contained in a generally unavailable handbook.  And that doesn't really strike me as news.  75.15.204.227 07:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

 * That's your prerogative. Why the absence of "big secret" and "big story"? In absence of 'sensational' news, you complain about "boring, moderately well-known facts" in the particular handbook not available to the public at large, only select church officers. I find the subsection on the treatment of transsexuals interesting, among other things. The purpose of the leak is reading inside the structure of a religious organization for entertainment and analysis (it's certainly of interest to some who consider LDS a cult/sect, whichever word they use to describe the organized religion), though not as "damning" as Church of Scientology (the latter dry in thousands of pages; the same can be said for the thoroughly detailed procedures in LDS handbook). Some church officers may not be at liberty to discuss the specific topics already featured in the handbook for secrecy reason or none at all. You're right about my biases, but it's your judgment call that CHI documents aren't noteworthy as news, the detail of CHI can be read at Wikipedia, release of 1998 CHI manual considered "public information" and thus may not warrant further exposure...and you can motion a vote to delete Wikinews entry on Wikileaks' publication of CHI. And what ax do I have to grind? Nothing, because truth is a valuable commodity despite your opposing view. -- Cyberdogg - (talk) 09:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As an IP, I actually cannot motion to delete. If I made an account simply to motion to delete, it could also be rejected.  And I value truth very much, thank you very much, more than I value my own personal prejudices ('sa pity you do not feel the same?)  What in this handbook isn't readily available elsewhere?  If there's any story here, it's the story of a non-story:  A headline along the lines of "'secret' Church handbook published online: Says nothing not found elsewhere in published Church sources".  The articles on unexplained Youtube Accounts Suspensions, the Student Getting Arrested because of Wikipedia contributions, and the actions of a group of Chinese hackers are, IMO, newsworthy because they are things one generally would not already be familiar with.  But if I were to go and write a Wikinews article saying that L. Ron Hubbard died some time ago, or the Book of Mormon was published well over 150 years ago, or that Catholics believe they are truly drinking Christ's blood during the Eucharist, I wouldn't really have a news story, because there'd be nothing new about it.  75.15.204.227 07:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Fair argument. Why don't you contact Wikinews admin to check the article for judgment whether it satisfy Wikinews' policy in allowing articles based on facts and not bias & "old verified news"? Then they will decide whether deletion of Wikinews is a necessity according to your logic. -- Cyberdogg - (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I have to agree with everything thats been said, this isnt really news, but in absense of something better there is no need to delete it.--82.35.192.193 04:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Polygamy and the afterlife
I would be interested to see what it says about the afterlife and polygamy. It is rumored that these doctrines are only made clear to the elders and the enlightened. I am wondering if they laid it all out in their handbook for leaders. ~sabriel26~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.15.151 (talk) 05:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering that this is an administrative procedural manual of guidelines, you are going to be very disappointed as there is nothing in the manual instructing the bishop or stake president what meetings they should be holding in the afterlife, or the procedure for bank deposits from afterlife donors. The only entries on polygamy deal with procedures for excommunicating those who practice it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.47.225 (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The Church of the Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
What exactly are they? --Nohawkson - (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC) srry just confused i guess its cool that this site has found this. --Nohawkson - (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Mormons --Brian McNeil / talk 08:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ty --Nohawkson - (talk) 08:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What's the big deal? If you want ANY literature from the LDS church, go to thier website and get it. The LDS church isn't hiding anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.20.80.222 (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If anyone goes searching after the handbook to find out what dirty secrets the Mormon leaders are hiding will be really disappointed. Ask any church leader who has one what the handbook says about something and they'll tell you flat out, often even show you right in the manual. Think of the thousands and thousands of normal UNPAID people who have been in various positions to read and have a copy of the manual. Should there be anything unsavory or scandulous, it would've been common knowledge a long time ago.

Probably the biggest reason the church doesn't distribute the manuals widely is because they are nothing but administrative policies and guidance suggestions for the lay leaders. They are changing all the time, and should they be distributed along with the Bible or Book of Mormon, too many people would cling to these policies as some sort of pronouncement of doctrine. Simple as that.

If the juiciest details that Wikileaks or wikinews can come up with to expose the Mormon church's policies is euthanasia and cremation, is it worth dealing with a copyright infringement lawsuit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.192.244 (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Mormon repression
This is just another example of repression and censorship by the American Taliban, also known as the Mormon church -- an institution devoted to sexism, homophobia, racism and extreme right-wing looney-tunes political views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Utahstudmuffin2 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, this is simple enforcement of copyright. The Church is within its legal prerogative to determine how its copyrighted material is and is not distributed, just as any other copyright holder is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.47.225 (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I find it interesting that a site, such as wikinews would publish something COPYRIGHTED as it says, IN BOLD LETTERS below this very box that I'm typing in, "Do not submit copyrighted work without permission." Hmm, I wonder what that makes them... Anyway, the issue here is that the "Genreal Handbook of Instructions" is a copyrighted book. Wikinews and anyone else needs the express permission of the copyright holder to publish it. I don't really understand the problem here. This country was founded on people obeying the laws set by their appointed representatives. Have we lost site of that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.33.94 (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

For the Admins of this Site, The FLDS Church has nothing to do with the "Mormon" church, the info box on the right-hand side of the screen contains a link to the "401 children..." this is an FLDS news item, NOT a Mormon or LDS news item, and it should be removed, thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.117.33.94 (talk • contribs)
 * The infobox highlights recent stories having to do with the larger topic of Mormonism, of which both the LDS and FLDS Church are subtopics within the larger topic. Cirt (talk) 04:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Is WikiNews PURPOSELY misleading It's Viewers?
If I may, let us examine a trend by Wikinews.

When you look at the following webpage (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Copy_of_handbook_for_leaders_of_the_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints_obtained_by_Wikinews)you can see Wikinews 'Related Stories' section yet if you clearly examine these items you can see that the link about the '401 children...' are NOT in fact members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints but members of the FUNDAMENTAL Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Different church following different beliefs.

I have searched other pages on Wikinews which point out this very fact but does Wikinews correct such errors?

What is Wikinews intent?

I have two other posts regarding the 'LDS' General Handbook of Instructions. Psoting by bashers or 'con' viewpoints are many and easy to spot but I have to wonder the validity of a web-based 'news' organization when it such things occur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.59.236 (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The infobox highlights recent stories having to do with the larger topic of Mormonism, of which both the LDS and FLDS Church are subtopics within the larger topic. Cirt (talk) 04:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this article meets a level of public interest to be revealing, except of course for the publicity you are recieving for publishing their copyrighted material. I thought your articles are to specifically reveal information unknown to the general public and are somehow related to corruption or secrecy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.197.56 (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Laughing Out Loud
I am so sorry to have to tell you this, but wikinews is apparently the most gullible news agency I've ever seen. The "secret" (LOL!) handbook for leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, "leaked" (LOL again!) by wikileak has been available to anyone I might care to show it to since I've been a member (going on 35 years now). Any man OR WOMAN who has any type of leadership calling whatsoever (we have a lay ministry) is given all or parts of the handbook pertaining to the specific calling. I am a woman and I've had dozens of callings, like almost all the men and women who are active members. My husband has had the entire handbook many times and I could read anything in it I'd want to, and I have.

There is nothing in there that the majority of the members don't already know! And I don't care if the world knows it, too. The sample pieces of "leaked information" you provided in your article are nothing spectacular - what's the big deal?

I suppose that those who know nothing about us might misunderstand some things, but it's easy to explain if anyone bothers to just ask. And as for the groups/people that provided the handbook to wikileak, they have an axe to grind, for whatever reasons are beyond me. The rest of us are happy to tell anyone and everyone ALL about our church. We'd like them to know what we REALLY believe and how we REALLY do things, and not the half-truths these groups spread around. Did you even talk to any faithful members of the Church? You certainly didn't quote any, if you did. What kind of news reporting is that?

I'll be watching to see if you dare print this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.27.105 (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

FLDS Church and LDS Church ARE NOT THE SAME
Why are there references to the FLDS church in the same area as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saint's (LDS Church) information? The two churches are not related in any way and are not the same faith. You should do more study so you know what you are referring to on your web site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.8.229.171 (talk) 02:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "What guided the selection of i..."
What guided the selection of items from the handbook? Was it an attempt to shock the readers? This represents less than 0.3% of the entire handbook, but if this is the most controversial items you could find, I don't see the point in quoting them. They are not the most important matters in this handbook, by far. What about quoting sections that discuss how leaders should always serve others and love them? Why weren't these quoted as well?

Definitely not a neutral point of view, and very poor journalism. —220.253.161.238 (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Zimbabwe bound Chinese arms ship heads for Angola

April 19, 2008 The Chinese arms ship An Yue Jiang, bound for Zimbabwe, which was expelled from Durban Port in South Africa yesterday evening by the city's high court, is now said to be heading for Angola.

Paulo Zucula, Mozambique's Transport and Communications Minister, who has been following the ship's controversial journey, believes that the An Yue Jiang is now heading for Luanda, capital city of Angola. "We know that it registered its next destination as Luanda because here we wouldn't allow it into Mozambican waters without prior arrangements", he told Reuters earlier today.


text:
Zimbabwe begins vote recount

April 19, 2008 Zimbabwe election officials have today begun to recount 23 out of 210 constituencies' ballots after president Robert Mugabe's Zanu-PF party accused the opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), of bribing election officials. Several arrests have since been made in relation to the recount.

The ballots are from the parliamentary elections held on March 29. The opposing MDC made an appeal to Harare's High Court for the recount to be stopped. However it was rejected, Justice Antonia Guvava saying "I find no merit in the application... Accordingly, the application is dismissed with costs." Despite this MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai, who is currently staying in South Africa for his own safety, claims to have won both parliamentary and presidential elections outright.

Opponents of Mugabe's regime have accused him of being biased and are certain that he will cheat. "Clearly these guys have tampered with the boxes. They can't deny that," the MDC's spokesman Nelson Chamisa said. "How do you expect us to have confidence in the process?".

British prime minister Gordon Brown also criticised Mugabe, claiming before the United Nations Security Council in New York on Wednesday that "no one thinks" he won the election. Mr. Mugabe needs 9 of the 23 recounted ballots to be in his party's favour to retain a parliamentary majority.

"The vote recounting process has started, and it's going to be a thorough exercise. We expect it to take about three days," a Zimbabwe Electoral Commission official told Reuters earlier today. A team from the international Southern African Development Community as well as various diplomats are observing the recounts.

This recount comes after a chain of controversies in Zimbabwe including arms deals with China, suspected violent intimidation of opposition and denunciation of international opponents.

title: Zimbabwe begins vote recount


text:
Talk:Zimbabwe bound Chinese arms ship heads for Angola

Error in marked location of Zimbabwe
On the map on the left, a line points to the location of Botswana but is labelled 'Zimbabwe'
 * Thanks for the tip. It's updated now. Harris Morgan - (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC).


text:
Talk:Zimbabwe begins vote recount

TheCustomOfLife, I do not wish to get into an argument over the spelling of this word. But I ask if you would like it if I went over your writings, changing the spellings to British English? For example is there any Wikinews policy saying I can't spell a word how I want? I would have thought the author should have first choice.

And just to let you know (if you didn't already), this word is derived from Latin connexio (stem connexion-). It therefore seems to make more sense with this spelling. Also the Oxford English Dictionary says it is an acceptable spelling.

As I said: I am not looking for an argument and I hope we can get on with each other, I would just like my spellings customs to be respected. Harris Morgan - (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC).
 * I asked someone from the UK in our chat room if "connexion" is an acceptable spelling for journalistic practices. They agreed that it wasn't. So please let's not pull the "across the pond" difference. TheCustomOfLife - (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Connexion is a severely depreciated spelling. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Then I ask you why do The Concise Oxford English Dictionary, The DK Illustrated Oxford Dictionary, The New Oxford American Dictionary and The Oxford Dictionary of English (2nd edition revised) recognise it as an alternative, usable British spelling (from "across the pond") and why do the Pocket Oxford Dictionary, The New Zealand Oxford Dictionary and the The Australian Oxford Dictionary give it as alternatives?

I believe that connexion from the evidence above (not from "in our chat room") can be a perfectly legitimate commonwealth English spelling. Harris Morgan - (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC).
 * Please cite where respected journalism outlets currently use the word "connexion." TheCustomOfLife - (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I just did a search for "connexion BBC" on Google, and pulled up three news articles in the Top 10. Surprise surprise, they all spell it "connection." TheCustomOfLife - (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes but there is no journalistic English dictionary (not as far as I am aware). I am not willing to do original research as you have done above and I have given a lengthy list of respected dictionaries which give connexion as a legitimate British alternative. Is there a Wikinews rule about spelling? Following the Wikipedia rule, the author's choice prevails and, being the one who wrote the text, I think it is for me to decide the spelling. Harris Morgan - (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC).
 * Why go for "the alternative" when there's a #1 use? It's an alternative spelling because it's fallen out of use. This is not the place to try to "bring it back." TheCustomOfLife - (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't be a dick. If you're a professional author you consider what your audience will understand most readily. Most differences in US-UK English aren't as extreme as the depreciated spelling you're using to dig a hole. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Brian: I have acted neither abrasively nor inconsiderately in this discussion. I suggest that you revise your statements. As the Meta page says "Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is something of a dick-move in itself, so don't bandy the criticism about lightly." I suggest that it was rather inconsiderate of you to call me a dick considering I am using an Oxford-recognised alternative spelling. I am in no way digging a hole.
 * TheCustomOfLife: In the dictionaries, it has two options: connection and connexion. The dictionary itself defines alternative (n.) when used in a context of having two choices as meaning "(of two things) mutually exclusive." So I suggest that you also revise what you said.
 * Gentlemen, I am really not here to just cause conflict. As I have said many times above, I would just like my spelling habits to be appreciated here. Harris Morgan - (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC).
 * ahh come one Harris, so by your ideas, i could write an article in ye olde english?!?! connection is the most common and appropriate, and our articles would read like thesauruses if we were to write all our articles using "alternative" spellings. i think you need to accept that connection is the most appropriate spelling...
 * ahh come one Harris, so by your ideas, i could write an article in ye olde english?!?! connection is the most common and appropriate, and our articles would read like thesauruses if we were to write all our articles using "alternative" spellings. i think you need to accept that connection is the most appropriate spelling...

 * Actually, there *are* journalistic spelling dictionaries. They're called style guides. Most such guides will denote a single spelling authority for issues of conflict. Archaisms are spellings which are not in common use in the past 35 years, and obsolete are spellings which are not in common use in the past 75 years. Please note that the OED uses similar guidelines in its listings. -  Amgine | sw 22:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * None of the dictionaries above denote connexion as an archaism or as obsolete... does this give it an all-clear? Harris Morgan - (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC).
 * Why are you so gung-ho about this spelling? TheCustomOfLife - (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you were slightly too gung-ho in removing it without discussion or prior consent. Harris Morgan - (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC).
 * Sorry, if there's a stylistic error, I'll change it. I don't think I need to discuss obvious stylistic errors. TheCustomOfLife - (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * stylistic?? its a spelling mistake, if you want us to discuss things like this, we would have to work 300hrs/day! --Mark Talk to me 22:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As Amgine said, Actually, there *are* journalistic spelling dictionaries. They're called style guides. TheCustomOfLife - (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Excuse me, but the style guide specifically allows for multiple common spellings, with specific support for the cultural group which is the article subject, followed by the original author's choice.
 * That said, I've examined books.google.com to find recent common publications which use this spelling, and with the exception of a Regency romance novel (1979) I have found none in the first 150 listings other than academic, reprints of 1800s editions, and a couple of economics essays (circa 1950s). This would suggest it's almost unheard of in common use in the past 75 years. -  Amgine | sw 22:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See . This is not over. Harris Morgan - (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC).
 * Oh, isn't it? The consensus is against you. It is over. TheCustomOfLife - (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Give me Wikinews policy stating that community beats author's spelling rules. Which are legitimate, sourced rules at that. Harris Morgan - (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC).
 * give me the policy that says old/latin english can be used..--Mark Talk to me 23:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is my final post. I consider the whole thing over now. It is not Old/Latin English. It is used in modern literature at and is permissed as an alternative, usable form in all of those Oxford dictionaries above. Let's leave it at that. Harris Morgan - (talk) 23:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC).

 * For the sake of completeness, I examined the first 100 text of your b.g.c link. 2 were not academic or reprints of historical - both were biographies. -  Amgine | sw 23:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

D-U-N
Glad it's sorted. Harris Morgan - (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC).

title: Talk:Zimbabwe begins vote recount


text:
Chinese hackers call off attack on CNN website

April 19, 2008

A group of Chinese nationalist hackers calling themselves "Revenge of the Flame" has temporarily called off a planned attack on the website of news channel CNN. The group had organized the attack in protest of the network's coverage of unrest in Tibet, which they believed was overly critical of China and biased in favor of the Tibetans.

The group planned to take the CNN website offline by flooding its servers with internet traffic, in what is known as a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack. The attack was scheduled for April 19, but was canceled because too many others had become aware of their plan.

"Our original plan for 19 April has been canceled because too many people are aware of it and the situation is chaotic," the group said in a statement released April 17. However, they repeatedly stated that the attack would commence on another day. "The attack hasn’t been cancelled; it will be carried out on an unspecified day in the near future," the statement read.

Despite the attack being called off, some had apparently decided to proceed earlier than expected. On Thursday, CNN reported attempts to disrupt its website, prompting countermeasures that affected the site's availability for some users in Asia. "CNN took preventative measures to filter traffic in response to attempts to disrupt our Web site," the network said in a statement. "A small percentage of CNN.com users in Asia are impacted."

CNN and other Western media outlets have come under criticism from Chinese viewers in the past weeks for their coverage of China and Tibet. The movement against CNN has spawned the website anti-cnn.com, which aims to "expose the lies and distortions in the western media". The site generates over five million hits a day, according to its founder, Rao Jin. The movement also spawned the slogan "Don't be too CNN", which is the basis for two songs that have become increasingly popular among Internet users in China.

In a statement, CNN responded to the criticism of their reporting. "CNN's reputation is based on reporting global news accurately and impartially," the network stated, "while our coverage through the use of words, images or video always reflects a wide range of opinions and points of view on every story."