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

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Cirt in topic Notice
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion.

Please see prior discussion(s) before considering re-nomination:

OR notes


Cirt (talk · contribs) marked it as original so I will add some notes here:

Notes-I read the report --A101 - (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hehe, good notes. Cirt - (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Additional OR notes


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

The publishing of this handbook

The publishing of this handbook is a copyright violation. See [1] and [2]. 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.[3]

Alanraywiki - (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply



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)Reply



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)Reply

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)Reply
Seems pretty bland stuff to me. Not newsworthy. 08:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Fast food chains have handbooks of instructions that are only made available to employees, should we start writing stories about them? 02:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply



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)Reply

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. 05:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Reply



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. 02:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
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. 06:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
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. 06:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

otrs:1525941 for the record. Mr.Z-man - (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yup, Ticket#: 2008050510027181 --Brian McNeil / talk 07:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Yes, we link to (c) material, but generally not to unauthorised reproductions thereof. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

Should we remove all the revisions with the alleged copyright violation? User:Anonymous101 :) 18:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
Though at the moment the claimed copyright infringements are not being linked to. Cirt (talk) 04:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

I agree. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

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)Reply



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)Reply

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)Reply
"Long after"? You published and archived on May 13. Please don't insult me like that. --SVTCobra 01:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply



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