Talk:Good Neighbor policy (LDS Church)

Category

This does not belong in the category "Violence and Mormonism" or whatever, because it is not about violence.--Blue Tie (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It can be included in the category because part of the Good Neighbor policy was the removal of the "oath of vengeance". That's the rationale for its inclusion, I believe. To be included in the category, I don't think the article itself has to be solely about violence and Mormonism, but it should have had an effect on the topic, which it has. Snocrates 03:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Oath Taken in Secret

Sorry, but just because it may hurt the image of the LDS church or because the video was taken without the consent of the church does not mean that the content within it is not a relevant facts. 116.121.45.234 (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Video proof is really not good enough? I don't understand how its not better then random hearsay. In fact its pretty much definitive proof. Did you even watch the video before vandalizing the page and removing it? I think you should recuse yourself from the discussion considering you are a member of the church and have a clear bias. 211.211.83.239 (talk) 04:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

An anonymous, unverifiable YouTube video doesn't come anywhere near meeting wp:reliable sources requirements for Wikipedia. Adding a link to this video actually appears to be an effort to publicize a wp:hoax. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually it has been verified by atleast 20+ ex-mormons. So I doubt you watched the video or did much research on it before removing it. Probably another LDS member who is offended by their secret rituals being exposed. 116.121.45.234 (talk) 03:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

"However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources." Since 20+ ex-mormons in the comments verify the video and the reason for anonymity is obvious I think we can consider this source reliable. Are you suggesting that the video was not inside the church and they made a fake church? Do you also believe the moon landing was faked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.121.45.234 (talk) 03:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't Dino72 recuse them self considering they are Mormon? They have vested interest in making sure the video and the oath are not public knowledge. 116.121.45.234 (talk) 03:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Once again, a YouTube video with added written commentary unsupported by a reliable source does not meet the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy of Wikipedia. 72Dino (talk) 03:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

As a third party to this discussion, I read through the reliable source page and I don't see how this does not meet policy (Perhaps you should read your own link". A video being posted and archived on youtube does not necessarily invalidate it and no where in the policy does it say that. You cannot simply deny video evidence and the many ex-mormons who support the claims made within the video. Have you taken the time to watch the video before calling it a hoax? What I do see, is a member of the LDS church is vandalizing an article over and over to prevent something he disagrees with from being shown to the public. If you feel this article is still wrong - pass it off to another moderator who does not have a clear bias as you do. 14.43.44.246 (talk) 05:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

A third party with a Korean IP address like the others IPs? Read WP:SOCKPUPPET. 72Dino (talk) 05:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Why not answer the questions asked in the previous message? Now you are accusing me of being a sock puppet without any evidence. If I wanted to pretend to be someone else I would just use a VPN with a different country. What is happening here is another ex-pat who studies history asked me to look at this article. I have nothing to hide, but clearly you and your church do. 14.43.44.246 (talk) 05:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Editing it because "Youtube is not a reliable source" is absurd because youtube is not the source. Youtube is the host, the source is the user who posted it. The host has no bearing on the facts within the video. Nice try trying to hide facts though, vile effort indeed. 14.43.44.246 (talk) 05:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Could somebody please give their opinion about whether the information in this section of the article should stay? There seems to be a lack of consensus when it comes to whether it is reliably sourced. –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The page was semi-protected , so I think we will be OK now. –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

It's Original Research. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)