Talk:Zeniff

Untitled

I tried to tell the story of Zeniff as succinctly as I could without leaving out important points. The background and aftermath sections are intentionally sparse, since the focus of this article is Zeniff, but his story only makes sense within a certain framework.

I also tried to maintain NPOV, not getting too carried away with righteousness = peace and sinfulness = destruction, which is the usual message associated with this story in (Mormon) Sunday School. Hopefully I succeeded -- if not, please revise.--andersonpd 00:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Revisions

I have been reviewing and editing the Zeniff page due to the need for additional citations and sourced material. I have worked to improve the page’s neutrality, which occasionally called for the removal or rewording of existing information in order to maintain a NPOV. I have found sources for uncited existing material and for any new material I added. The references added were created and peer reviewed by both LDS and non-LDS scholars. After consulting with other wiki editors, we agreed on the use of literary present tense for the narrative. The interpretation section reflects different commentary from non-LDS and LDS scholars, and I made sure to differentiate these scholarly interpretations from canon. I always aim to follow Wikipedia's guidelines with my edits, but I am not perfect and acknowledge I may have missed something and/or made errors myself. I am open to discussion in my talk page about any of my edits. Rae (BYU) (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Brant Gardner as a reliable source

@FyzixFighter: can you explain how the Brant Gardner book is a reliable source? Gardner appears to publish amateur (this is not his day job) apologism and pseudoscience, particularly about history and archeology... Not respected or mainstream scholarship. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not FyzixFighter, but I would like to comment on Brant Gardner's work. The commentary we cite here deals with literary interpretation of Book of Mormon characters. (Gardner did do a lot of archeological apologetics work. Whether or not it's accurate, it's important to document, because it affects the folk beliefs of members. We do our best to present apologetic research as such.) His commentary was published by Greg Kofford books. Greg Kofford is a reputable publisher of Mormon studies works. Gardner's work is foundational to later growth of Book of Mormon studies (happening now). Book of Mormon Studies: An Introduction and Guide, authored by four Book of Mormon studies scholars, writes that "Gardner's commentary should be just the beginning of a revitalized commentary tradition. Serious and substantial commentaries are a good place for sifting through previous work. They're also good venues for novel approaches and systematic readings to appear" (71). Gardner's commentaries don't have the same impressive force of academic polish that work by say, Joseph Spencer or Liz Fenton has. But he kept the tradition of Book of Mormon studies going at a time when there wasn't a lot of it being published--it would look weird if we didn't mention his work. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

If thats the case then you will be able to find more reliable sources which talk about Gardner's work/opinion. Otherwise it will look odd if we mention it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

In accord with WP:USEBYOTHERS I've seen Brant Gardner's Second Witness commentary cited favorably in other Book of Mormon studies scholarship. I agree with Rachel Helps (BYU) that the series is a reliable source for the literary interpretation of the Book of Mormon.

• A 2008 review of Second Witness, published through the Association for Mormon Letters (a scholarly organization for literary criticism of Mormon literature), stated that A new era of Book of Mormon study is breaking upon us. Gardner's work, if I can judge by the first volume, will take the lead in opening this book of scripture and noted that Gardner does not toe an institutional line of orthodoxy, as he raises issues that are often out of bounds in the Mormon canon of belief (the AML having changed its website in the intervening years, the review is no longer available online, but I have a copy of the text).
• A 2014 review essay by the Mormon Studies Review (an academic review periodical published by the University of Illinois Press) says that in the commentary produced by Brant Gardner the focus is on elucidating the text of the Book of Mormon (7).
• The Journal of Book of Mormon Studies (a peer-reviewed academic periodical for Book of Mormon studies) 2014 noted Brant Gardner has aptly commented on the literary intertextuality of the Book of Mormon with the Christian Bible (45).
• A Journal of Book of Mormon Studies essay in 2018 spoke of the excellent discussion that appears in Gardner's Second Witness (301).
• Nicholas Frederick, known for his well-received scholarship on the rhetorical function of New Testament allusions in the Book of Mormon, called Second Witness serious Book of Mormon scholarship in a 2022 review essay on contemporary Book of Mormon studies for the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies (160).
• Add to this the favorable assessment in Book of Mormon Studies: An Introduction and Guide, the book that Rachel Helps (BYU) brought up.

I am inclined to agree with Rachel Helps (BYU) and FyzixFighter that Second Witness is a reliable source for the purposes it has been cited for on this page.

P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I posted about the same time as Makoto, responding to HEB: Can you please state more clearly what you would like to happen and why? You want me to find more reliable sources about Gardner's work and then... mention them here? What constitutes a reliable source for you? I'm sure that I can find reviews of his commentaries. I'm just not sure if you will accept any scholarly publication in Book of Mormon studies or Mormon studies as reliable. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Yep, (sorry for the delay, IRL priorities) my thoughts are similar to what P-Makoto has said. Gardner's day job goes into looking at whether or not it would be a RS in this context, but it's not a black and white determining factor. Certainly academic secondary sources are preferable, but reliable non-academic sources may also be used. That Gardner in general, and this source in particular, has been cited by academic sources suggests that WP:UBO would apply. Reliable sources are also not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective - but that is where in-text attribution is appropriate and that is done in this instance. --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

So the argument is that Gardner is ok for literature but pseudoscience for archeology related to that literature? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I think your understanding of USEBYOTHERS is a bit loose... That isn't significant use, it doesn't establish the reliability of either the publisher or the author. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I have posted a summary of our discussion on the RSNB. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Paid contributor template

@P-Makoto: I don't think "and the paid editors lack direct WP:COI with the topic." is true... All paid edits have a direct financial COI. There is no such thing as a paid edit without a direct COI. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

My sense was that WP:COI states that There are forms of paid editing that the Wikimedia community regards as acceptable. These include Wikipedians in residence (WiRs)—Wikipedians who may be paid to collaborate with mission-aligned organizations, such as galleries, libraries, archives, and museums. The COI that paid editing on its own introduces is generally the concern that being paid to edit places the paid editor in a conflict between their employer's goals and Wikipedia's goals. However, Wikipedians-in-residence like Rachel Helps (BYU) are considered mission-aligned. Editors certainly still want to know about paid edits, hence the disclosure requirements remaining (on the talk page, in the edit summary, or on one's userpage), but that's why I wrote that about direct COI with the topic in my review comment. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The direct COI is that they were paid to make the edit. I would also note that these editors have not complied with the disclosure requirement on this talk page, as you well know I added the template not them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

As we have previously discussed, policy states that [t]here are three venues for disclosing that one is paid to edit Wikipedia, and the userpage is one of those accepted ways for disclosing a COI (You may do this on your user page), as valid as a talk page banner is. Please remember that you have been previously informed by community members that your interpretation of COI is way too expansive (emphasis original to quotation), and I am concerned the implication that the userpage disclosure is insufficient (even though policy states that it is) is re-approaching that too expansive[ness]. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Its not an "or" situation its an "and" situation, COI says "you should make the disclosure on your user page, on affected talk pages, and whenever you discuss the topic;" (emphasis in original). Each time you edit a new page or discuss the topic you should make the disclosure again. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Its not an "or" situation its an "and" situation—This talk thread (permanent link) at WP:COI indicates otherwise. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 06:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I must be missing something, how does that discussion in which you are a primary participant indicate otherwise? "you should make the disclosure on your user page, on affected talk pages, and whenever you discuss the topic;" is not my opinion, it is literally what COI says. It doesn't say "or," it clearly says "and" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The OP of the thread, who was not me, wrote about considering proposing that we require the use of {{connected contributor (paid)}} and {{connected contributor}} on the articles talk pages. Why would the OP propose requiring this if it's already required?

Another user who was not me wrote, our existing guideline allows disclosure in any of three ways.

Multiple editors agree that current policy provides three options, any of which is a legitimate way to disclose that one is paid to edit or has a COI. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the requirement is currently a suggestion if that makes sense. The OP was proposing to formalize it, as in change "you should make the disclosure on your user page, on affected talk pages, and whenever you discuss the topic;" to "you must make the disclosure on your user page, on affected talk pages, and whenever you discuss the topic;" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've been going off of the terms of service outlined on Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, which allows disclosure in one of those three ways. WP:COI's language appears to be different. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The difference is that one is "must" and one is "should." You are doing what you must, but not what you should. Its the same difference as prohibited vs strongly discouraged, you appear to avoid what is prohibited but do all of the things which are strongly discouraged. For example Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure says "Paid editing is further regulated by a community guideline, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. This advises that those with a conflict of interest, including paid editors, are strongly discouraged from directly editing affected articles, but should post content proposals on the talk pages of existing articles, and should put new articles through the articles for creation process, so they can be reviewed prior to being published." Yet you and your student editors (and fellow AML editors) edit affected articles directly, do not post content proposals, and create articles directly rather than through the articles for creation process unless I'm missing something. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, if we agree that the language in WP:COI is a suggestion, then I think we agree the involved users haven't violated a requirement.

I've been satisfied with Rachel Helps (BYU)'s fairly obvious disclosure (it's there in the username) for a long time, and she's earned the trust community members place in her. She and her students generally post to talk pages that they're going to be editing, and whenever I've undone edits and explain why, they accept and send thanks. The openness to civil, policy-grounded feedback I've seen has been much easier to work with than the confrontational behavior I've seen from editors on other pages to which I've contributed. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

That seems like an odd position for someone with a COI in regards to the BYU library to take, you appear to be pretending to be a neutral party. What would you call not doing what you should? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I would say that not doing what you should is hounding an editor for almost years at this point. You've been given a clear warning to "drop the stick", and you've been advised to moderate your tone in discussions, Yet still you are following around the same user, continuing to stump an interpretation of COI [that] is way too expansive (italics in original).

If I'm pretending to be a neutral party as you claim, then what are you doing? When your behavior toward Rachel Helps (BYU) has been reported to ANI twice, and both times you've been given advice to be less aggressive, and yet your behavior hasn't substantively changed, I'm not so convinced that you're the ideal of neutrality.

Rachel Helps (BYU) on the other hand has done what she should. She should disclose her COI, and she does so in her username and on her userpage. She should be responsive on talk pages, and she is. She should be mindful of civil, policy-grounded feedback from the community, and when I've had feedback or made changes to edits they make, she and her editors react graciously. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I have no COI here. I would appreciate it if you didn't derail this discussion just when it was going somewhere. Let Rachel Helps (BYU) respond please. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

If you have a question you would like me to respond to, please ask me. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

If you've "been going off of the terms of service outlined on Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure" why do the vast majority of edits by you and your student editors fall into one of the "strongly discouraged" categories enumerated there? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Because unlike most paid editors, our goal is to make accurate information more accessible. We're not trying to make a certain page look good. We are honestly trying to improve Wikipedia. Also, if something is "strongly discouraged," it sounds like it's actually still allowed. A rule that can't be enforced is not really a rule. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)