Talk:Mormon Church warns Wikileaks over documents

OR
referes to content from Wikileaks and a statement I recieved by email (on a different incident) from Wikileaks. For obvious reasns I am not linking to the Wikileaks document I am referring to. I have also used content from Wikimedia Foundation receives copyright infringement claim from Mormon Church which is Original reporting, but I have not used any content that was leaked from OTRS Anonymous101 (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarification? Article really needs to say something about what sort of documents we're talking about, if only so readers can make an assessment of the importance or otherwise of the issue. This need not involve quoting contents, or breaching any copyright. - Notmyopinion (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A few weeks back I made the mistake of linking to a LDS document on Wikileaks, they then contacted the WMF and it was removed from the article. See Wikimedia Foundation receives copyright infringement claim from Mormon Church for more information. That is why I am unwilling to link to the documents or give enough information to make them identifiable. Anonymous101 (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I still think the documents should be characterised in general terms though, even without quoting the titles or anything. After all, the nature of the disputed documents is a fundamental part of the story, even if the content or title is a detail that can be omitted without damaging a reader's understanding of what's happening. Perhaps something like "confidential instructions for leaders on issues like discipline and teaching", or something similarly general. It's important to know that it's not, for instance, revelations of people's personal lives on one hand, or style and layout guides for their in house magazine, on the other.
 * At the very least, the first paragraph should say "...regarding a link to *a* Wikileaks document" - Notmyopinion (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Is the bit about being prepared to remove documents from wikileaks a statement of a general principle, rather than a reference to these specific LDS documents? As in "would remove documents" rather than "would remove the [LDS, in this context] documents". That paragraph is a little confusing for me. Not trying to be all grammar nazi, honestly :-) - Notmyopinion (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Links
Will list below. Cirt (talk) 01:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Mister-Info

Capitalization
"Mormon Church" needs to be capitalized in this, if any admin sees it and will fix it. I came across it on a Google search, and missing such capitalization makes it look unprofessional. User:JohnChrysostom on English Wikipedia. 71.72.119.150 (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Pi zero (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)