Talk:General Handbook

message: There is a link to an unofficial electronic copy of the Church Handbook of Instructions.  Because the handbook is copyrighted, and the linked site is apparently in violation of this copyright, should the link be removed? Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops I didn't even think of that when I added it, but yes, it definitely should. ... Lol—the leading case on contributory infringement of copyright in the U.S. cited here involved a case of linking to an LDS Church handbook. I'd say the case is fairly on point to this situation. :)  Snocrates 04:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was the above comment misplaced? I don't understand its relevance here ... Snocrates 21:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright Violation? 

message: Additions to the article were undone by a zealous editor because they were "uncited" etc.  Below is the actual quote that the person who undid those additions said didn't exist in Book 1.  I say this is the "impossible task" because the church does not want the contents of Book 1 distributed to even its own members except those in leadership and has actively opposed its distribution in the past through legal action.  So, eventually, one would have to provide quotes for everything one alledges is in Book 1 (essentially publishing the book) OR the church would have to publish Book 1 publicly so as to say, "See, it's not in there." What's a truth-seeker to do in the face of an entity like the church trying to keep its policies and procedures from even its own members?
Now judge if the quote below supports the text that was added to the article or not. Note that this section of the handbook includes a quote from a letter from the First Presidency. I have not authenticated whether Book 1 accurately records the text of the letter, but I assume it does.
Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 1, p. 187, Paragraph Title: Same-Gender Marriage
BEGINNING OF QUOTE FROM BOOK 1:
Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. The Church accordingly opposes same-gender marriages and any efforts to legalize such marriages. Church members are encouraged "to appeal to legislators, judges, and other government officials to preserve the purposes and sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, and to reject all efforts to give legal authorization or other offical approval or support to marriags between persons of the same gender" (First Presidency letter, Feb 1, 1994; see also "Homosexual Behavior" in the previous column).
...
The Church accordingly favors measures that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman and that do not confer legal status on any other sexual relationship.
END OF QUOTE FROM BOOK 1  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.210.117.36 (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, that is not the end of the quoted section.  You failed to include sentence that states that even though the Church opposes same-gender marriage, it reaches out with understanding and respect to individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender. That sentence is pretty important.  That's the problem with cherry-picking.  Alanraywiki (talk) 01:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

text: There's no real reason to single out this or any of the other "policies" out of the dozens that are included in the books. The article already says Book 1 covers "guidelines involving general, area, and regional administration; stake administration; ward administration; interviewing and counseling; performance of ordinances; callings and releases; church meetings and worship services; temples and marriage; missionary service; church discipline; single adults and students; the Church Educational System; Perpetual Education Fund; military relations; records and reports; church finances; physical church facilities; creating and changing church congregations and other units; and general church policies on administrative, health, and moral issues." We can't go into the nitty-gritty in each particular area. However, all the issues you highlight are adequately covered in other WP articles that focus on the particular issue. There's no reason for this article to highlight everything you may think is weird, wonderful, or controversial about Mormonism. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Au contraire. WP is very much about highlighting what is weird, wonderful, or controversial, and not just about Mormonism. The article as you edited it tells basically nothing. What good does it tell a reader to say that the book deals with moral issues without giving a relevant, modern example? Your first edit says that what I wrote does not correctly reflect what is in the book. You have now backed off that stance and are just saying that there's too much information provided. I suppose your position is consistent with that of someone who would prefer that the contents of the book not be revealed.  I am restoring my previous edits and am putting a neutrality disputed flag on this article. I urge you to not keep on undoing these changes just because you do not like the content to be revealed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.28.83.159 (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Here is a relevant WP standard from its Neutrality tutorial: "Many groups would prefer that certain facts be stated euphemistically, or only in their own terminology, or suppressed outright; such desires need not be deferred to. On the other hand, these terms should be presented, explained and examples given, perhaps with views of other groups of why the term is used as well as the group itself."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.28.83.159 (talk) 12:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

text: I don't really care one way or the other whether the contents are "revealed" or not. Since I don't have any vested interest in the issue, it doesn't really mean anything to me. To argue that "WP is very much about highlighting what is weird, wonderful, or controversial" entirely misses the point. My point was that it's not to highlight what you personally think is controversial, which is what you have done by cherry-picking. I note, however, that the section remains unreferenced. This is basic WP:NPOV stuff: the quote you included is of little relevance as far as neutrality issues here go. And since it is unreferenced, it can be removed at any time if disputed. I also have not "backed off" my original claim that what you had written is not in Book 1, because it's not. Judging from your above comments, however, I think the distinction between what you wrote and what is actually in the book is a little too subtle for be worth raising with you. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything wrong with including a discussion of notable content. But there should be some sort of objective basis to determine what is highlighted and what isn't. Certainly something is notable and interesting if it has been discussed in news articles, books, journals, or other reliable sources. But I don't necessarily think that should be the test for inclusion, because that's the test in the WP:Notability policy for articles as a while, and the policy explicitly says that this test does not apply to the internal content of otherwise-notable articles. So it's probably okay to mention that the handbook contains policy statements regarding hot-button American political issues like abortion, homosexuality, gambling, and same sex marriage. This would give the reader a little bit of the handbook's flavor. There has to be a limit, however, to what is included, because there isn't space to mention everything in the handbook. What would be ideal is if we can find a few third party reliable sources that summarize the contents of the handbook, or discuss notable items from the handbook, and we could use that source as a guide for what to include and what to omit. For example, the Deseret News article by Carrie Moore gives a list of things like name removal, transsexual operation, surrogate motherhood, sperm donation, hypnosis, etc. (I think that list might have been highlighted by wikileaks, rather than her, but I can't verify since Wikileaks has been temporarily down for a few months.)COGDEN 03:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of trying to find some sources that we can use to highlight the content. Otherwise it's too much like original research, with an editor pulling out what he or she personally thinks is interesting or worth mentioning. The Moore article is a good start; no doubt there would be more available. I'll try to dig some up, and maybe this can guide us in what to include. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here, so long as the source doesn't serve to obscure the content. Also, I am open to suggestions about including any other topics that I have not specifically mentioned.  I was interested in the whole volume, but just chose topics that I thought would be interesting or that might serve to illustrate the various topics that were previously categorized.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.68.10.130 (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Your first sentence is a bit loaded, as it could be read to mean "so long as it doesn't exclude what I want it to." Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Has anyone found any external sources. If so, let's get that inserted.  (I don't think there will be any external sources, but I'm willing to wait for some to show up.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.254.82.183 (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Personally, I decided to just wait until later in 2010. Apparently a new handbook is coming out late in the year, and there's bound to be more media coverage at that time, so I thought waiting until then would probably be worth it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good Olfactory, I see you have continued to get your way. Revisiting this article two years later, the history shows that you continue to undo any possible reference to any source that shows text from the book. This article is the lamest, most uninformative piece of dribble on Wikipedia. And YOU have served your masters well to make sure it has remained that way. Yes, yes, keep your eyes on the prize.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.73.61.211 (talk) 02:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Safely anonymous commenter, what are you talking about?  One of the issues discussed above is that we need to avoid original research. Handbook 2 is freely available online, so it would be quite easy for anyone to write up an essay on what is included in it. That's not what WP is for—that's what your personal blog is for. WP is for reporting and collecting information about the topic that is found in reliable sources. It also includes a link to the Handbook 2, so anyone who is interested about the details of content not covered in reliable sources can read the whole thing if they choose. Not sure who you think my "masters" are (perhaps too much Manos: Hands of Fate for you last weekend?) ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now comes the "impossible task" 

message: There are several statements made about examples of content within handbook 1 that need a citation to be verified. How can you give examples of content without citing where that content came from? It’s not possible verify the accuracy of those statements. If the statements can’t be verified (do to copyrights, or for whatever reason) they don’t belong on Wikipedia. Please remove them. Thank you. 11/14/2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.106.98 (talk • contribs) 
:They can be verified without encountering a copyright problem, all one needs is a copy of the handbook, but the real problem is the examples of content are probably original research. Much of this article is. All of the information included in that section I can verify as being in Handbook 1, but can I find a source that says so? No. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations needed

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Handbook (LDS Church). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613165335/http://content.lib.utah.edu/u/?%2Fjmh%2C11342 to http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fjmh%2C11342
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified