Talk:Paul H. Dunn

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Paul H. Dunn article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Christianity: Latter Day Saints Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Latter Day Saints portal This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (assessed as Low-importance).

Recent edits[edit]

Dunn was careful, it seems, to never stated that he "lied" about his stories. The press didn't really come out and call him a liar either. They raised questions about the truthfulness of some of the stories, and Dunn conceded that he had "not been completely accurate". Sure, that can be called a lie, but it seems like POV-pushing to straight out call him a liar in the lede. For this reason I've reverted these edits made by anonymous editors. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments, but my "olfactory" tells me that claiming he played major league baseball when he didn't - is a lie. My olfactory tells me that stating his best friend die in his arms when he didn't - is a lie. These are two of the well-documented, deliberate lies he repeated. They are not innocent white lies told to spare someones feelings. They were deliberate, calculating lies told to glorify and exalt himself. These are worse than the lies of a politician. They are lies from someone claiming to be a man of God and someone who profited tremendously by them through book and tape sales. I don't understand why you would want to spin it. If it's to protect the LDS Church, shame on you. I am an active Mormon and think the truth should be told.

It isn't the anonymous editor calling Paul Dunn a liar. Paul Dunn's actions did that. Scottyboy727 (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice rhetoric, but let's stick to WP:NPV, WP:V and WP:OR, shall we? You also may wish to WP:AGF while we're at it, and not try to "shame" users for their presumed motives. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not tryin to "shame" you into anything, so please stop trying "shame" me by claiming the alleged high road. I just want the truth printed. And the truth is that Paul Dunn's lies are well-documented and continued for years, and that is what his legacy is. Do you want me to document them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottyboy727 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may have come across before as dismissive—throwing out acronyms and the like. I didn't realize at the time that you were a newly-registered member. Let me explain in more detail.

If you're interested in the truth (and who isn't?), Wikipedia is not always the best place. Look at Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is a core Wikipedia policy that is adhered to. The opening line says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." So if you want to say outright that Dunn lied or that he is a liar in the Wikipedia article, we need a reliable source that says that he lied or that he is liar. On what is a reliable source, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If the reliable sources uses more "gentle" language, Wikipedia reflects that. From what I have seen, no reliable source comes out and uses the "liar" or "lied" words.

According to Wikipedia:No original research, we also don't publish original research on Wikipedia. So yes, anyone could gather documentation and primary sources and come to the conclusion that Dunn lied—but we don't do that. We rely on the reliable sources. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

scottboy727 - It appears that GoodOl'factory successfully used wikipedia lawyering to run you (a new comer) off. If you wish to return to wikipedia there are plenty of secondary sources at this publication which you can reference to use your preferred verbage of lied:

Mormography (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, Good Ol’factory is correct, "Dunn was careful, it seems, to never stated that he "lied" about his stories. The press didn't really come out and call him a liar either."

Is it "True" he lied, in my opinion yes, but Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. It is also not very WP:NPV call him a "liar".

As for the references supplies my Mormography, utlm.org is run by ONE person who is extremely Anti-Mormon. I would not call her a WP:Reliable Source. Second the sunstonemagazine.com page never comes out and calls him a liar, like Good Ol’factory says. The Source doesn't support calling him a "liar".--- ARTEST4ECHO ^(talk) 20:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I love how any user that tries to uphold core Wikipedia standards is considered a practitioner of "wiki-lawyering". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At least you weren't accused of being a Mormon partisan, or apologist. I always get a chuckle when people assume that of you (and/or others who have stated they are not Mormons), just because you (&/or they) regularly edit Latter Day Saints movement topics. ^—^Asterisk*^Splat^→ 23:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't win sometimes. I've been called both a zealous Mormon apologist and a hate-filled anti-Mormon bigot on Wikipedia. I suppose that might be a good sign, as "neutral" content might upset both of those types of people and appear to them to be content of the opposite type. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sunstone and other sources do indeed come out and declare he lied. Sorry it is in fact verifibilty and olfactory was pushing pov not upholding wikipefia standards. I will ar the references to the article later. utlm id also calid. Should we iniate mediation now?Mormography (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From Sunstone you have Kent Frogley "Paul Dunn lies on behalf of the Church for thirty years but they were faith-promoting lies" and Robert Sayre "As for Paul Dunn’s defense that his lies were told in the interests of truth, of teaching and inspiratiion" ... Not truth, credible are used but fabrication does appear to be more the more frequent term

The the exact summary from Desert News may be best "Elder Paul H. Dunn, one of the most popular speakers and authors in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, made up many of the stories about baseball and battle he told as personal experiences" http://www.deseretnews.com/article/147438/ARIZONA-PAPER-ALLEGES-MANY-STORIES-WERE-EXAGGERATED.html?pg=all — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mormography (talk • contribs) 05:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]