User talk:Mormonhobo

February 2011[edit]

Please don't remove the tags from the websites that have been added when these are being discussed. They need to remain for now until it's decided what to do. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What proof do you want that these links are valid & whom I say they are from? You ask for proof but then refuse to accept any that I will give you. It is a little frustrating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mormonhobo (talk • contribs)

I know it's frustrating, but I don't think there's a way around the guidelines in Wikipedia:External links in this case. I'll try to solicit some other opinions by making a request at WP:RFC. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look I am willing to work with you, I am not perfect, but I am trying to give you the information which otherwise I am not sure how people would have access to it. There aren't any official Branch websites, or 800 #s to call, so people have to have some way (if they are interested) to get the firsthand information they desire. Isn't that reasonable? I want the Branch to give their version, but there isn't an official Branch news release or press office to go to, so what are we supposed to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mormonhobo (talk • contribs)

I've requested another opinion; maybe they will have a suggestion. I have no doubt your intentions are good, it's just that Wikipedia does have some standards that we try to follow, so we need to figure out how this situation fits into that context. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can see removing the business website since that doesn't really have any doctrinal or historical content. But don't you think that fair usage in citation of otherwise unavailable material should come into play? I can't just walk down to the library & check out the "Branch catechism" or go find my local Branch missionary & find out what they believe. Which is really a shame for smaller churches, they need a VOICE where someone can legitimately say "Yes we believe XYZ". The internet usually is that voice for smaller churches, but many have decided to not have an official website or whatever. I want to be fair to them & give accurate statements about their current doctrinal beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mormonhobo (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure. It's an usual situation. It's rare for an article to exist about an organization on WP but then have information like this only available through a website of this type. I guess it raises the question as to the notability of the organization itself, but in this case I do think it meets that standard. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]