User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)/Archive 9

Book name...
There seems to be some differences in the pages that I've seen between and to the point where some of the links that existed go to one, and some with the extra first comma redirect to Hugh Nibley. Can you please verify the name of the book? Note googling mentions of the book at BYU doesn't help, those are split as well!!!Naraht (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No Ma'am, That's not History
 * No, Ma'am, That's not History


 * Oh dear, I think this is why I am not a cataloger. I went and looked at our editions of the book. Some of them have the cover art depicted on the page that does not have the comma. But in both 1946 editions that we have, there is a comma after the "No" on the title page. I will try to clean this up, thank you for pointing it out! Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanx for changing where the redirect goes. At this point the *article* name has no comma, but the first sentence of the article has the comma. I'd offer to help sort this out, but frankly I don't expect I have *any* skills that would meet/exceed yours in that regard.Naraht (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * yes, I'm unable to move the page since the one with the comma is an existing redirect. So I've made an uncontroversial technical move request here. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'll keep it on my watchlist. I was actually more surprised it didn't have an article. The only other one of his books that I've heard of is "The Myth Makers", but I'm not familiar with what is is about.Naraht (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

DYK for No, Ma'am, That's Not History
BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

WP BYU Invite

 * Hi Jmjosh90 good luck reviving the project! Let me know if you need any research help--I work in the BYU library. I don't think we are currently working on any BYU-related pages, but if you look at the page histories, you can see that I and my students have worked on some of them. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikidata and FamilySearch
Hi Rachel!

Reaching out because I was wondering whether you might know any people at FamilySearch (or might know people who might know people, etc).

I'm always very impressed by how easy FamilySearch makes it to link individuals or even whole families in one go to entries at sites like Find-a-Grave or BillionGraves (similarly to how one can link whole families to census records at one go), and was wondering whether it could be possible for Wikidata to be treated similarly, as a similarly 'valued partner site', with similar linkability, if the right person at FamilySearch could be put in touch with the right person at Wikidata. It seems to me that more linking in each direction could be a real win-win, on both sides.

At the moment, while it is possible to add FS links to Wikidata, current usage falls far behind the linkage from Wikidata to other sites -- see eg these counts of links for C16 and C17 UK people; or the list at d:Wikidata:WikiProject_Genealogy showing that there are currently 19,200 links from Wikidata to FamilySeach in total, compared to eg almost 15x that number, 296,500, to the much smaller WikiTree -- despite all the vast range and depth and direct primary-source quality transcription of the entries at FamilySearch.

If FamilySearch users could be alerted when there is a potential Wikidata match, and then were encouraged to confirm or reject the match using the FamilySearch interface (as eg they are with Find-a-Grave), with automatic updating on both sides, it seems to me this could be a real win, with FamilySearch then able to display (and easy maintain) relevant links for individuals to Wikipedia articles on them, Commons categories for them, and/or any of the other databases Wikidata links to; whilst on the Wikidata site systematic linking to FamilySearch would mean much more extensive linking to really detailed and gold-standard vital record transcriptions and other genealogical data.

Do you think this is something that the right person at FamilySearch could ever be introduced to and might be persuadable to go for ? (And if so, who would be good to talk to?) Thanks, Jheald (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello Jheald, my sister-in-law works at FamilySearch! I will ask her who the right person to ask would be. How involved do you want to be in the conversation? If you email me using the "email this user" link from my user or talk page (in the right-hand sidebar) I can more easily loop you in. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a great idea! I'm an avid user of Wikidata P2949 (WikiTree person ID) and the Wikidata template on WikiTree. FamilySearch Family Tree *is* way larger, although at least as prone to error as WikiTree and Geni, and has at least 150x the number of employees of those two plus a gazillion volunteer editors. Surely some links in both directions would benefit everyone, much like the existing two-way links between Wikidata and WikiTree and the outward links to Geni, Find a Grave, and ThePeerage.
 * I'd like to think that WikiTree (where I am a volunteer leader) has comparable linking to high-quality primary sources, given that many of those links point right to FamilySearch, Ancestry, and civil record repositories around the world. There are also WikiTree apps to create two-way links between WikiTree and FamilySearch Family Tree. Still, FamilySearch has a giant global tree AND a vast repository of primary source records—it definitely belongs on Wikidata. KarenJoyce (talk) 04:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Wiknic at Salt Lake City Public Library on August 27
I couldn't resist trying to get the gang together in spite of a hectic life-altering summer, but chose a location more convenient to me this time. Wanna join?
 * In other matters, your input on Articles for deletion/WikiTree (2nd nomination) would be welcome! I feel that the "but there's bad genealogy there!" argument could be made for all of the global family trees, but it doesn't make them less notable. I'm on Team Keep, and will disclose my work there as a volunteer leader (and my talk about the site at WikiConference North America) in a vote later this weekend.

KarenJoyce (talk) 03:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for inviting me! I know how much effort it takes to organize things like the Wiknic, so I hope you get a few people. I've been dealing with some chronic health stuff and have been a bit less adventurous lately. It looks like enough people have weighed in on the WikiTree page, but I agree with another user who mentioned that the page has overly detailed information sourced to the site itself. Eight citations for the first sentence looks like overciting. New York Times, USA Today, and the ACM presentation are reliable sources, but the question will be if the coverage counts as "significant." Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Paid Wikipedia editors at the Y?
Someone pointed out to me the job application to be a Wikipedia editor at the Y. (https://hrms.byu.edu/psc/ps/PUBLIC/HRMS/c/HRS_HRAM.HRS_APP_SCHJOB.GBL?Page=HRS_APP_JBPST&Action=U&FOCUS=Employee&SiteId=50&JobOpeningId=126185&PostingSeq=1& ). Looks like you are interviewing for more interns. :) Naraht (talk) 01:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I need more minions! Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Good BoM people articles?
Given the changes to Zeezrom article by is there an article in Category:Book of Mormon people that you consider a model for others? Honestly, the number of entries in that category for which Template:Religious text primary is appropriate seems significantly larger than those for which it isn't.

Zeezrom seems fairly typical. The references are to the primary text, the BoM reference companion (published by Deseret Books) and a book from the Neal A. Maxwell Institute.

I think this is less on Heidi Pusey and more that the majority of people mentioned in the BoM are simply unsuitable for articles due to the lack of reliable secondary sources with multiple points of view. IMO, you aren't going to get a different point of view on Zeezrom. (As opposed to Zelph, which seems just fine) I'll be happy to move or restart the conversation to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement if you want (This may ultimately belong in the Notability_(Latter_Day_Saint_movement) )

Heidi, please don't take this as a slam on you, the best way I can describe it is you went 27 MPH on a 25 MPH road and that was enough for someone to propose lowering the speed limit to 15 MPH in the future and to add speed bumps. :)Naraht (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I recently revised Aminadab, which is an example of a very minor BoM person page who previously had no references to scholarly sources who now has some references--at least sufficient for passing notability guidelines. My friend Makoto did a fantastic job with Abish (Book of Mormon). I've written a guide to sources for my students--we are trying to be careful to use scholarly sources, but I did tell them they could use the Book of Mormon Reference Companion as a source for the summary sections. Are you interested in the sourcing in particular? We have A Pentacostal Reads the Book of Mormon (obviously by a non-member), and I believe that scholarly sources, even those written by faithful members, are suitable for citing on Wikipedia. Presses like Signature Books, BCC Press, and Greg Kofford Press are independent of the church, and we have sources from them, as well as from the Maxwell Institute, which is sponsored by the church. I'm hoping that we'll be able to find other sources on Zeezrom as well as the ones she's already added. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 22:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I would personally quibble over whether the Maxwell Institute is sponsored by the church—that'd be like saying Baylor University Press is sponsored by the Baptist General Convention of Texas, and in both cases the relationship seems more distant than what "sponsorship" might imply to some editors. Maxwell Institute publications about, for example, the Book of Mormon's narrative and philosophical content seem like they can be reasonably considered as reliable as Baylor University Press publications about the Bible's narrative and philosophical content. The Maxwell Institute does have closer denominational ties than any of Signature, By Common Consent, and Greg Kofford, which are all independent presses with no denominational ties.
 * Having contributed to the majority of the Abish (Book of Mormon) article as it presently stands, my experience is that there are secondary source resources out there for documenting Book of Mormon content in a neutral, academic way similar to the many Wikipedia articles about Christian theological subjects. There are, for example, many pages dedicated to single angels. I believe the Abish (Book of Mormon) page, with its sourcing, content, and phrasing, compares favorably. And conversation at WikiProject Christianity supports the use of content written by practitioners although when cited, phrased and summarized in a manner in line with Wikipedia's neutrality. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the responses. I certainly think Aminadab & Abish probably do meet the needed criteria. The problem is that there a spectrum between (on the one end) Maxwell Institute (Which has enough arguments of independence, that I now consider it secondary) vs McConkie's Mormon Doctrine and Hugh Nibley on the other. However Aminadab & Abish, IMO do meet the criteria.I'm uncomfortable with calling the BoMRC a "Secondary source that critically analyzes" and from the phrasing, seems like Rachel Helps does as well. And at this point, most of the them are still *far* away* from the standard of "without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them. Please help improve this article by adding references to reliable secondary sources, with multiple points of view." This includes even some of the more well known people from the BoM like King Noah, Omni (Book of Mormon record keeper) and Coriantumr (which includes both people named Coriantumr and should be split). (there are 32 references in Coriantumr, 31 of which are references to the text of the BoM, the 32nd is to a pronunciation guide).
 * (Declaration of POV, I guess, I'm Jewish married to a member of the Church)Naraht (talk) 02:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes! I have noticed that most of the BoM people pages are in very poor shape. I and my students are going to be working to improve them and the pages about books of the Book of Mormon this school year in anticipation of the 2023 BoM Sunday School curriculum. Additionally, we'll be attending the Book of Mormon Association Conference in two weeks and trying to get other scholars interested in improving pages (because there is no way we'll be able to clean up and improve all those pages in 8 months, even with sustained effort). We are planning to change the "etymology" sections to conform with NPOV (which may mean removing them entirely in many cases). Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd guess that about a third are good articles, a third are larger than a stub but significiantly problematic (ex. Coriantumr) and a third should be (and probably are) counted as stubs. Not sure why 8 months is the target (end of school year?) since the BoM Sunday School curriculum starts in January, but going through this in the order of the BoM is probably a good idea. And yeah, frankly the only ones for which an Etymology section seems appropriate are Mormon and the Brother of Jared.Naraht (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Eight months is to coincide with the school year. I'm planning to prioritize on page popularity rather than chronology, and to also work on pages about books of the BoM. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that could put the Prophet Moroni in October 2023 and Sam in April 2024.Naraht (talk) 00:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Songs and Flowers of the Wasatch
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Am I wikistalking Heidi?
Could you take a look at my interactions with Heidi on her talk page and let me know if it rises to wikistalking (or for that matter Mansplaining)?Naraht (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * while I agree that some of Heidi's edit summaries use language that raise flags for seasoned editors, I think it is more important to give her feedback on the content of her edits. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm hesitant to say one way or the other. You've had a lot of interactions with her compared to my other student editors--are you singling her out, or applying the same standard across multiple BoM pages I assume you have on your watchlist? Questions to ask yourself. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a solution would be to ask task Heidi with non-LDS related edits? All of the questionable editing is around LDS topics, maybe they can contribute more constructively in other topic areas? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * uh, hello Horse Eye&#39;s Back, I don't plan to reassign Heidi to other pages. I think her edits are generally very good. Some of the "controversial" information that Heidi removed was speculation about Book of Mormon geography, which can be difficult to contextualize and present neutrally, and probably doesn't belong on a Book of Mormon person page. If you have a specific example you are thinking of, my ears are open. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I hope I am giving feedback on the contents of her edits, but that last one where I wondered about her edit summary set off some concerns. I've edited both Zeezrom and Coriantumr, and as such have seen most of her recent edits. I have been watching some of the other articles in Category:Book of Mormon people as well (I am on WP:LDS). As for HEB's suggestion, given that she was hired by the BYU Library and the focus of her job is BoM articles at this point, I'd rather step away from those articles and her for a while if I have become too invested. Note, *she* has not accused me of either, just trying to check myself.Naraht (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As an observer of Book of Mormon pages, although I understand that your interest in the Zeezrom and Coriantumr pages is to some extent coincidental, I am surprised that your interest in them goes so far as to feel a need to correct an editor about how they worded an edit summary. I am also not sure I understand your criticism of the edit summary. Wikipedia's featured article criteria, for example (a gold standard for a good Wikipedia page) does include being "well-written" such that the "prose is engaging", so an attempt to refine the lede to that end seems wholly appropriate. In any case, to borrow Rachel Helps's words, "I think it is more important to give her feedback on the content of her edits."
 * If you of yourself would "rather step away from those articles" for a season, then there may be wisdom in being cautious that way. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that Heidi had been assigned to those pages, I thought they were free to contribute where they saw fit and had chosen to edit those pages. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Book of Mormon monetary system
Whether or not you contribute. I think you should take a look, if only to help explain to Heidi what is going on.Naraht (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I've been reading it and some other pages with active discussions about the independence of sources with LDS authors (and the CoC author) publishing via BYU and from independent publishers. I think the best arguments have already been made. I am honestly a bit shocked and disappointed at the level of casual anti-Mormon asides. I can probably have a more measured response if I wait a few days. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, if you are willing to use the term "anti-Mormon", there is an entire chunk of the discussion about the use of that word as well. Honestly, I think there may be a few editors there who would think the Book of Alma no more deserving of an article than Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit (one of the chapters of The Two Towers)

Happy New year!
Sorry not to see you this weekend at the meetup; sending warm wishes. – SJ + 06:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! My family and I were sick with some sort of super-cold, I was bummed I didn't make it to the meetup either. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

CfD nomination at
A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at  on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. House Blaster  (talk · he/him) 21:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Please consider having your students edit non-Mormon articles
I have become very concerned with the editing of the students in your employ. They seem to be adding mostly devotional literature written by Mormon true believers to Wikipedia rather than high-quality academic sources that properly contextualize the creation of the Mormon scriptures in the nineteenth century. It seems to me that your library probably has many other things in its collection that students could work on that would not run into this problem. The biggest issue as I see it is that many of these students likely come from tight-knit faith communities which may not have engaged with critical scholarship or the mainstream approach to understanding the construction of Mormonism as a new religious movement and all that entails.

Could you have your students work on topics other than Mormonism, please?

jps (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I also want to alert you to this discussion that I started about whether it is appropriate for Wikipedia to host pages related to your job and the coordinated editing that is occurring surrounding topics related to the faith-basis of the institution at which you are employed. Of course, Wikipedia has no say whatsoever in what jobs BYU has with respect to Wikipedia. But given that the vast majority of people who edit this website do not get paid to do so, it is concerning to me that a group may be collaborating to try to insert material into Wikipedia in the context of an institution which demands a certain fealty to religious belief as a baseline requirement for association.

jps (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for contacting me. Do you have particular edits that you are concerned with? I share your concern about citing devotional sources. We try to clarify when certain sources are apologetic, but it is possible we've fallen short of my in-house guidelines for sourcing Book of Mormon pages on Wikipedia. If there is consensus, we can remove certain devotional sources and only discuss them when secondary sources discuss them in detail. When I asked at Wikiproject Christianity, another editor with more experience said that citing devotional sources is okay, if done with the proper context. I believe that there is a lack of proper guidelines for editing pages about religious works and history. Because of my institutional affiliation, it would be difficult for me to solve this problem on my own, but I am happy to help where it would be appropriate. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it is actually closer to the situation where for the two students I notified it was more unusual to find edits that were not problematic. I think the guidelines you outline have one particularly glaring omission: it does not center critical scholarship which is liable to be the best starting point for getting a handle on what is or is not worthy of inclusion at Wikipedia. For example, I see one mention of Sunstone (magazine) in your write-up and it appears rather off-handed. In general, if the only sources discussing an idea are sympathetic to a faith-based interpretation, it is pretty hard for Wikipedia to include WP:NPOV discussion of it. To take an example that is separate from this topic, consider our articles on The Urantia Book, an obscure 20th century American religion which has a lot to say about a lot of topics. We have gone through a lot of "weeding of the WP:Walled garden" in the context of that religion by means of asking, "Did anyone who is not a believer in The Urantia Book notice this belief?" If the answer is "no", then it's pretty hard to argue that Wikipedia should be hosting content on the topic beyond, perhaps, short mention in the main few articles on the subject. For better or worse, writing about the Book of Mormon needs to be done from the perspective of the context in which it is important and that is 1) people believe in this owing to a long history of different types of Mormon indoctrination and 2) this is a uniquely American invention that has a nineteenth century historical context. jps (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * One of the reasons we have not been using Sunstone as much for sources is because it is a magazine which is not peer-reviewed. Dialogue, on the other hand, is peer-reviewed. We favor scholarly sources per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which does include sources that ascribe a naturalistic origin to the Book of Mormon. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What does the term naturalist mean in this context, (Golden plates exist, JS inspired to translate) or (golden plates didn't exist, etc.)?Naraht (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It means "natural" explanations for how Joseph Smith wrote the BoM without a "supernatural" one, i.e., if God didn't inspire the translation of the BoM, how did it come about. Naturalistic explanations include ideas that Joseph Smith copied text from other sources, had collaborators, etc.Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that is rather missing the point I'm trying to make. I'm saying that identifying good sources requires looking at what other sources have said about the source in question. In that sense, Sunstone and critical sources are useful in finding out what ideas have been widely noticed -- not necessarily used as a sources themselves even! What is problematic is to look to other sources which are contained within a citogenesis WP:Walled garden which a lot of the literature on the Book of Mormon necessarily is in. At Wikipedia, we are not in the position to fix this problem, but I think when we add prose to articlespace it should only be describing ideas that have been noticed by people outside of the circles who exclusively take faith-based approaches to a subject. If only devotees have noticed an idea, it's really only relevant to their own religious discourse and really does not deserve inclusion at Wikipedia. jps (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You are correct. We disagree. I believe that all scholarly sources are worthy of summarizing and citing on Wikipedia, even if their author is a devotee of the religion they are discussing. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * To be clear: the scholarship of devotees can be discussed on Wikipedia if their work is widely discussed outside the context of their faith community. I see no reason why work that has received no notice outside a devotional community deserves discussion in Wikipedia. And this doesn't just apply to devotional communities. I apply the same standards to any walled garden. Cold fusion enthusiasts, for example, who publish in their own journals that are editorially controlled by others who have very particular beliefs about the reality of cold fusion. In some cases, these journals are published by pretty impressive publishers! But we don't reference any of those papers in Wikipedia unless/until someone outside of their citogenesis community recognizes that they are doing something worthy of notice. Oftentimes, this is when sociologists or critics comment. jps (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what, in practical terms, you're suggesting. Are you saying we should only cite books on Mormonism that are published from non-LDS-affiliated presses? Are you saying we should only cite work that non-LDS scholars have cited? How is this suggestion related to Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I am saying that we should cite sources and include prose only about ideas that have been noticed by the relevant wider epistemic communities. This includes such contexts as comparative religion, American history, sociology, and the like. Looking at sources which are only noticed in a community dominated by particular ideologies (I'm thinking particularly of those works included only in non-critical Mormon Studies) will lead to promulgating many sources and ideas which have not been subject to critical review. Peer review only works when the relevant experts are consulted, and a work of Mormon Studies that, for example, engages in apologetics is essentially by definition not being reviewed with a critical lens. I'm concerned particularly with the content your students included which is skewed towards works that uncritically accept a faith-based viewpoint (for example, a conceit there is something to be learned about events that happened in pre-Columbian Americas from the text of the Book of Mormon). jps (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry it's taken me a while to respond. I've asked my students to edit in their sandboxes until the ANI discussion is resolved. I believe there is a useful discussion to be had here about what sources are reliable when it comes to religious topics. If you like, we can create guidelines about devotional sources, which I and my students occasionally use (I have counseled them to identify the author and the author's institutional affiliation in-text, and sometimes even where the material is published; this information has been trimmed by other editors, and I since gave them the advice to name and give a brief summary of that person's credentials). Or if you prefer that I not be involved, that is also fine with me. I would just like to have some guidelines on what sources are acceptable. I would like this to be consistent to other religious pages across Wikipedia. Book of Mormon studies in particular is a young field and we are only just now getting books by non-Mormons that look at the text of the Book of Mormon itself rather than the circumstances of its creation. There is also a grey divide between devotional and scholarly sources. This is one reason why I have been trying to consult with more topic experts in Book of Mormon studies. There are many books published by the Religious Studies Center in the 1990s and early 2000s where some 90% of the articles I would classify as devotional. I and my students have had to use our judgement on individual pieces to figure out if a certain article is scholarly or devotional (one easy way is to look at the sources: if most of the sources are scripture verses, it is probably devotional). In my initial literature review of Book of Mormon scholarship, I emphasized to my students our need to cite non-LDS scholars. We have also been careful to avoid original research in our plot summaries by summarizing and citing other scholars' summaries. If a student cites an article from FARMs, I ask them to use extra care, stating in-text that it comes from FARMs or is apologetic.
 * I initially wanted my students to stay away from any of the BoM archeology stuff. However, one of my students was especially interested in archeology and I let her work on the Mormon archeology page. We've had several discussions about sources. She's come back from finding books saying "this is a self-published manuscript, I can't use this." Yes! My students are learning to really scrutinize their sources. There is a lot of noise in the complaints against me, and I am not really sure where or if it is appropriate for me to respond. But I think I'm seeing from you that you are most concerned about editing about the Book of Mormon's origins.
 * I would be happy to agree to avoid editing in the topic areas about BoM archeology and speculation about its ancient origin (this would include "proposed etymology" sections that we have been updating the "etymology" sections on BoM pages). I believe that the scholarship from BoM scholars recently published by the Maxwell Institute is of high scholarly quality, and I think we should continue to cite it. I think that if you would like us to make changes to the kinds of sources we cite, we should seek consensus. Recently I posted to the RSNB about sourcing. I don't think we came to a consensus. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * All this is good and I applaud you for going to sandboxes as the Google Juice does not flow there. But this goes well beyond just "origins of the Book of Mormon". This goes to something rather more dramatic at the heart of pages that have to deal with your faith, church, and history that I'm not sure has been adequately explored. For example, how would your students handle discussion of the Mountain Meadows massacre? Would they be comfortable including sources that show that Brigham Young was likely involved in that affair? What about pages about blood atonement? What about pages that explored the folkmagic origins of Joseph Smith's claims of the seer stones? How about pages that talked about how the Mormon Temple ceremonies are closely aligned with many secret society ceremonies such as those of the freemasons? You see the problem here. The Book of Mormon issues are just an alarm bell of a bigger problem and I was not being snide when I said that my main concern are the policies of BYU about this.
 * The sourcing principles of Wikipedia are pretty well established. I would point to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:GNG and perhaps one you have overlooked: WP:FRINGE which deals with situations where the epistemic community has been or has become so closed that outside commentary hasn't noticed. More or less by definition most Mormon commentary on the Book of Mormon is fringe understanding. The mainstream dismisses it out of hand as being goofy, self-interested, or deceitful. We can't fix that situation, but that means we need to have extra care in working on these sorts of things.There is a lot that we can document about Mormons, LDS, etc. at this website. If what your group was doing was just providing novel sources that we didn't have access to, offering images for the archives, or relevant quotes on talkpages, I don't think I would have had any issues. But I looked in on what was going on and I saw the typical issues we have with college students and haphazard writing combined with an ideological skew that is apparently hard for y'all to detect. (I just went through a point-by-point breakdown of some of the issues at Talk:Book of Omni). This would have been one thing, but this combined with the fact that the students are paid by BYU makes me realize that one of two things is going to happen: 1) they are going to push back against attempts to contextualize the Book of Mormon to its eighteenth century second-great-awakening roots along with all the stuff that goes into to the new-religious-group formation that is the story of the origin of the Mormons or 2) they are going to have to come to terms with stuff like the fact that there is no archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon's preColumbian stories. Full stop. Simple fact. Something that can be WP:ASSERTed in Wikipedia's voice. You indicate that they may have the academic freedom to do that. If so, great. But it would be nice if BYU changed their policy statements on their website then, right?
 * To be clear, my commitment is to this top-ten website presenting the best information to the world when possible. Sometimes it is not possible. Sometimes the information is so siloed that we just can't handle it because the alternative is absolute chaos. Over the two decades this site has been active, we've done a lot to come to terms with how certain rules can work together to get us to a point where we can figure out which things can be included, which can't, and how we talk about them. It was not easy and it is far from perfect, but I've been going through a whole lot of material over the last few days that has been, in part, curated by your group and I am not exaggerating when I say what I'm seeing is absolutely alarming. I don't think it was your intention, but basically what is being set up is a Sunday School class in articlespace, as far as I'm concerned. And that is frankly not what Wikipedia is for.
 * jps (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I responded to some of your concerns about students responding to difficult topics below on the subject of academic freedom. I noticed your discussion on the talk page for Ammonihah. Our entire approach to editing Book of Mormon pages is similar to the one you criticize there, where we present the Book of Mormon as a creative work. I see that you've started a discussion at Wikiproject Latter Day Saint movement (five months ago I started a section there to try to develop consensus on the Style of pages about BoM people and BoM Books). I will respond there. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I look forward to your comment there, but suffice to say that I do not think the "present the Book of Mormon as a creative work" is a good primary approach. The Book of Mormon was not written to be and is not treated by most people who encounter it as a creative work. One can treat it as such, but doing so is a profound misjudging of the genre. The Book of Mormon was written to be devotional and foundational religious literature much the same as Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures or Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health (well, it is actually possible that Dianetics may not have originally been intended to have been the foundational religious text, but that's what happened). jps (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * jps (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I responded to some of your concerns about students responding to difficult topics below on the subject of academic freedom. I noticed your discussion on the talk page for Ammonihah. Our entire approach to editing Book of Mormon pages is similar to the one you criticize there, where we present the Book of Mormon as a creative work. I see that you've started a discussion at Wikiproject Latter Day Saint movement (five months ago I started a section there to try to develop consensus on the Style of pages about BoM people and BoM Books). I will respond there. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I look forward to your comment there, but suffice to say that I do not think the "present the Book of Mormon as a creative work" is a good primary approach. The Book of Mormon was not written to be and is not treated by most people who encounter it as a creative work. One can treat it as such, but doing so is a profound misjudging of the genre. The Book of Mormon was written to be devotional and foundational religious literature much the same as Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures or Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health (well, it is actually possible that Dianetics may not have originally been intended to have been the foundational religious text, but that's what happened). jps (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § A personal analysis and proposal
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § A personal analysis and proposal. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Further to the above, what are the "personal and professional capacities" you "have helped Michael Austin learn how to edit Wikipedia" in? Can I take it as a given that his account page will have disclosures of COI with the pages he has a personal and professional connection with? If not, I would recommend that you add the relevant templates on his behalf without further delay. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Per WP:USERTALKSTOP I don't believe that I should edit another user's userpage. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I see you have also addressed the aim of my comments with your recent edits, so thanks for that. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Is there any other information you would like from me? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What is your definition of the separation between your personal and professional accounts, bearing in mind that you develop a relationship with each article you edit?
 * A few days ago, User:Thmazing made a reference to a Discord server where he'd heard of . Would it be correct to surmise that this is the Discord server created and run by you, now publicly acknowledged on your userpage?
 * You have now stated that you created a page for Mr. Austin using your personal account so that you would avoid a paid editing COI. Do you believe your personal connection does not count as a COI? Were you paid for this later edit to his page using your professional account?
 * You have added a disclosure for your relationship with James Goldberg. The article's photo was added to Commons by a user named GoldbergJ on 23:28, 21 April 2022. Your personal account added the photo to the article five minutes later. That was not a question.
 * Thanks for your cooperation. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My personal account is for edits that I make off-the-clock. I must have run the dashes script on Michael Austin's page while I was at work during that diff. I'm not really sure what a COI is at this point, honestly. Yes, it looks like I added James's photo to his page from my personal account. I was too lazy to clock in for the minute it took, so I did not switch my account. Of course, I could have emailed myself a reminder to do this the next time I was at work, but I figured that the time it took to remind myself and then do it later would take longer than just doing it at that moment. I don't know for certain if Thmazing was talking about the AML Discord. I did mention that I noticed some of his recent editing activity. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * yes I have noticed this. Could you please specify what exactly about WP:COI/its application in the above discussions you find confusing? From my point of view, it looks as if you believe that as long as WP:PE is disclosed, any conflict of interest as defined in WP:COI is sort of not-noteworthy? &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm confused about what external relationships trigger a COI. I have external relationships to everything I've ever written about. This seems like a nebulous measure that is not possible to observe consistently on-wiki. It would be much better to simply judge editors based on the quality of their editing work, which is something we can observe on Wikipedia. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So I have a clearer head this morning and I'm reading the "What is a conflict of interest" section. The examples it gives for "external roles and relationships" are external relationships like marriage or being someone's supervisor. Then it says to use "common sense" when knowing how close a relationship needs to be before disclosing that COI. I know a lot of us on Wikipedia have various degrees of neurospiciness. My OCD sometimes flares up when it comes to rules. When I see "use common sense," I feel extremely frustrated because I don't have this common sense. That's why when others asked me to disclose my other COIs on my userpage, I have been listing every external relationship I could possibly think of. I know there is probably some middle ground that sane people can just intuit but I don't know what that is. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Just as a note
By a strict interpretation of WP:OUTING, you should not be posting connections between editors and their real-life identity until they have made such disclosures themselves. I have removed that section of your COI disclosure on your user page as a result. Should the individual in question sign off on the disclosure I will of course reverse my action. Please let me know if you have any questions about this matter (either here, at my talk, or via email). Primefac (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Academic freedom
You write:

March 14, 2024 addition: there has been some question about if I and my students have the intellectual freedom to summarize information that is critical of the LDS Church. This is something I've worried about in the past and have consulted with my supervisors about. We are free to, and often do, summarize reliable sources that are critical or unflattering of the LDS Church and its leaders.

Are your students free to write prose such as "The anachronisms in the Book of Mormon have proved a major stumbling block for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, causing many of them to leave the Church. " How about an entire article on the subject? How about an entire series on the subject?

jps (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC) jps (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Just going with the example you used, yes, my students would be free to write that. If you would like an example, you could see the subsection of the polygamy scandal with Orson Pratt, which I and one of my students rewrote. For a while one of my students worked on the Black people and Mormonism page and I also worked on it later--although I have not kept up with edits to the page. Of course, I try to use some common sense and talk to my students about what kind of subjects they're comfortable about writing about. I'm not going to assign a freshman to edit Blood Atonement. But if I had a student who was really interested in it, I might assign it to them! My student who is interested in archeology fact-checked the organizational statements regarding the Book of Mormon sub-section on Archeology and the Book of Mormon. She also edited the Mesoamerican parallels section of the Tree of Life vision page. She told me that after her research, she agrees with Soustelle that there isn't a real parallel here. I would be interested to know if you think the inclusion of this on the Tree of Life Vision page is UNDUE--maybe it should be one paragraph instead of three. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Since each student has to maintain their own Ecclesiastical Endorsement, what would you do if a student came to you and said that their bishop was alerted to their activities on this website which were, let's say, in line with the kinds of editing about the topics we're discussing (perhaps going a little bit more critical since some of the "this and that" phrasing is problematic--but we'll deal with that later) and was going to discipline them? It seems pretty clear to me that BYU is not going to protect them, right? jps (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * A bishop would not discipline a student for summarizing someone else's words. I have heard a lot of horror stories about bishop roulette, and I am fairly credulous of terrible injustices happening regarding honor code violation accusations, but I have never heard of a student receiving discipline for creating what is in essence a literature review on a Mormon studies topic. A bishop typically would not know about a student's employment unless that student spoke to them about it. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

If a student wrote "It is likely that the Book of Mormon was not the inspired word of God", would they risk discipline? I'm trying to see where (if anywhere) the line is that cannot be crossed. Incidentally, you may check out the NPOVing I did at Tree of life vision which I don't think should be held up as particularly good evidence that students have been doing a good job at critically evaluating sources. They seem caught up in the idea that there are "many ways to interpret" instead of the basic facts that these artifacts have nothing at all to do with the Book of Mormon, right? jps (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify what the Clark 1999 source is? I'm confused about what source you cited on the Tree of Life vision page.
 * Whether or not the Book of Mormon is the inspired word of God is not the subject of Wikipedia, but bishops are not responsible for everything their ward members write. A loss of personal testimony could lead to a student losing their ecclesiastical endorsement, if they were honest with their bishop about their loss of faith. However, I am very comfortable with my students writing "Dan Vogel believes that Joseph Smith was not inspired by God when he wrote the Book of Mormon" or something similar.
 * I agree that I don't think the Izapa Stela has anything to do with the Book of Mormon. I think it's useful to mention that people had ideas about it being connected, especially if they were popular, if there is documentation in RS (so, for example, I think we should mention it on the Wikipedia page where it currently is). Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I understand now where the boundaries of lie for ecclesiastical endorsement. I still question whether this is compatible with an open website like ours. Here's my problem: let's say a student came to you who was excited about research and confided in you that they had been researching the Book of Mormon and lost their faith, but wanted to add that research to Wikipedia to help other Mormons stop being Mormon. Would you be willing to hire that student?
 * By the way, Clark, John, (1999) " A New Artistic Rendering of Izapa Stela 5: A Step toward Improved Interpretation", Maxwell Institute, 1999. Pp. 22–33. I am fine with mentioning connections, but the irony is that this was already covered much better at the linked Izapa Stela 5 page than what had ended up on the Book of Mormon page. That's where I got the text and it was super easy. I probably should, for licensing purposes, annotate this somehow, but for short snippets like this I think that wikilinking works fine (CC-BY can be a pain).
 * jps (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, are you saying that you copied the text from the Izapa Stela 5 page and you haven't actually checked the original source? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I checked the source. I just copied the citation. Why? jps (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Just making sure that someone has actually read the source! Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Ping me if you need me - students working on non-LDS subjects
Hi, for my own sanity, I am not participating in the ANI discussion further unless specifically asked something. Please ping me if you have a question for me.

My students are currently all working on non-LDS pages. I have some off-wiki work I will be focusing on today and next week. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)