Talk:8: The Mormon Proposition

Adding EL (Link to "Documentation for 8 the Mormon Proposition")

I've looked at the addition of this link [1] with respect to WP:EL, and I beleive it qualifies as "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." under WP:ELMAYBE.

Allow me to anticipate some possible objections and answer them:

1. Yes, the link/article is POV. As near as I can tell, this isn't required by policy in this context. The best way to resolve POV here would be a reliable secondary source providing a run-down of the documentation behind the movie (or self-published by the movie director, whcih would fall into another reasoning), but those options do not appear to be open to us. The second way to resolve POV here would be to include a similar resource with an oppoosing POV, I have looked and have been unable to find one, but I welcome the addition of one if one can be found. In the end, POV is, as near as I can tell, never an excuse for deleting material just because an opposing source cannot be found or does not exist.
2. Yes, the link is not to a reliable source, but that's not required here, again, read the text of ELMAYBE part 4.. However, it does provide a network of links to other scans of materials, etc., primary sources which I haven't seen other documentation for. Again, alternative resources that present this way. In particular, the inclusion of non-reliable sources in ELMAYBE 4 is more specific than (and thus, I claim, overrides) WP:ELNO 11, roughly speaking, ELMAYBE 4 is rendered completely empty if ELNO 11 were allowed to take precedence, so I think it's clear that that's not the intended reading.
3. With respect to WP:ELNO 1 ('unique resource"), I don't see another serious attempt to fact-check and provide links to primary documents discussed in the documentary, thus this is a unique resource. It would argue more strongly for inclusion if the makers of the movie had provided copies of these resources themselves, but I think the linkage of this source with the movie is strong enough.
4. With respect to WP:ELNO 2, I was unable to find factual errors, but serious errors with an intent to mislead would be an absolute reason to remove the link.

I have no doubt this will be disputed, I actually think the policy questions are complex and arguable--so, have at! Have a great weekend! --j⚛e decker^talk 17:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not approve of these links; they are biased and they should be removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viramag (talk • contribs) 22:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

See WP:ELPOV concerning this issue; the pair of links provide appropriate WP:BALANCE. AV3000 (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

See also

The problem with including "anti-mormonism" in the see also is parallel to the complaints that were raised about putting see also links to Homophobia at organzations such as Family Research Council, etc. The catch in each case is that without further explanation (and sources), the naked (e.g., no other text, no cites) link appears to the reader as an objective judgment of the documentary (or organization). To the extent that reliable sources on the subject discuss the movie in the context of anti-mormon movements as described in the linked article, it's entirely right to include it, but it's best to do it in the text, with sources, and connecting the opinion with the specific people who make that connection. And of course, NPOV requires balancing that out with sourced folks who think there isn't a connection if they're available as well. (As an aside, category inclusion has the same problem.) --j⚛e decker^talk 15:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Reaction from Mormon Apologetic groups

Since this movie is about Mormonism, it would seem logical to be able to include the reaction from Mormon apologetics. Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR) has done a thorough analysis of the film and it should be included in the article. There was a thought that this was a self-published source. WP:SPS lists these sources as self-published sources:

For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.

FAIR does not fall into any of these categories. It is an organization, not an individual source. It is quoted in several mainstream newspapers. It does not fit the definition for self-published source. The page in question is here. Please review WP:SPS Peculiar Light (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)