This article is related to the Harold B. Lee Library holdings. Learn more about this collaborative project to improve coverage related to the BYU library's holdings, and how you can help here.Harold B. Lee LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/Harold B. Lee LibraryTemplate:WikiProject Harold B. Lee LibraryHarold B. Lee Library-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement 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.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature 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.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
Often, BoM verses are used inappropriately as sources because the user includes additional interpretation. I believe that here they are used descriptively and appropriately. The information that cites them is summarizing them. This is allowed on Wikipedia. See Ten Commandments in Catholic theology, an FA-level article which cites Biblical verses as sources. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The question isn't reliability its weight, if no secondary source talks about it then there is no reason to include it in the article. Ten Commandments in Catholic theology is early FA (2009), it would likely not remain one if challenged as it doesn't meet contemporary standards. Would you like to do so? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be the apparent lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, WP:GNG. Understanding the Book of Mormon is the best source, but its coverage of this topic appears to be passing not significant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JBMH isn't a strong enough source to count towards notability, the Maxwell Institute is not independent of the Church. The poetry itself isn't coverage of the topic. Greg Kofford books appears to be something closer to LDS self publishing than a mainstream academic publisher, at best we can treat it as the opinion of Brant Gardner. You need sources from outside the walled garden. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth noting that this is not an original article, but a significant revision of a stub that has been active for fourteen years with far fewer critical sources and support. In revising the stub, I used critical articles from peer reviewed sources, including a book from Oxford University Press. Greg Kofford Books is not an LDS self-publisher but an independent press that has won multiple awards from institutions not affiliated with the LDS Church. The fact that it is located in Utah does not make it an "LDS Self-publisher." Its books are regularly cited in peer-reviewed articles in both LDS and non-LDS academic circles,
The claim that the coverage in Understanding the Book of Mormon is "passing but not significant" contradicts the evidence quoted, in which the author argues that Nephi's tendency to flatten characters in order to emphasize his own story causes him to unfairly minimize his older brothers, including Sam. The entire point of this section of Hardy's Oxford University Press book is that Sam deserves more analysis as a significant character despite Nephi's self-serving attempts to minimize him and make him seem unimportant. This should be clear in the passages that I quoted, but a quick glance at the original text would make the point clearly.
The coverage in this article is more substantial, and from more reliable sources, than many of the minor characters in the Bible, including most of the sons of Jacob, other than Judah and Joseph. These are the closest parallels to Sam in the biblical narrative. Indeed, minor characters from Buffy the Vampire Slayer have been ruled notable with sources that do not stray from the fan fiction and gossip magazines of the Buffyverse. The argument against notability appears to be against the notability of the Book of Mormon itself rather than this specific character in the Book of Mormon BoyNamedTzu (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"in which the author argues that Nephi's tendency to flatten characters in order to emphasize his own story causes him to unfairly minimize his older brothers, including Sam" sounds like significant coverage of Nephi... Not Sam. We don't have a special reliability standard for figures in religious literature, they all have to meet GNG. Pointing out flaws in coverage of one religion on wikipedia is a bad way to address issues with the coverage of another. Two wrongs don't make a right. Do you have any previous experience with notability on wikipedia or is this your first time encountering the concept? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite familiar with the concept, and I am also quite confident that this article easily meets the standard. The quoted passage in Understanding the Book of Mormon is a significant discussion from the most important academic press in the world. The discussion from Gardner's book is another significant discussion from a press and an author that anybody involved with Book of Mormon studies will recognize and respect. And the full article from the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies--the major peer-reviewed journal for publishing work on the Book of Mormon--demonstrates that Sam is a figure that has been discussed by both scholars and lay readers in the academic field most associated with this article. I have experienced close calls with the notability standards. This is not one of them. BoyNamedTzu (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Journal of Book of Mormon Studies isn't independent of the Church, its reliable so it can be used as a source but its not independent so it doesn't count toward notability. When have you experienced a close call with the notability standards? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want the article to be deleted... I do want there to be significant independent coverage in reliable sources, it is the duty of those arguing for notability to provide those sources and establish the significance and independent of that coverage. Do you really fundamentally disagree that The Journal of Book of Mormon Studies isn't independent of the Church? If so the appropriate venue is RSN if the talk page discussion doesn't result in consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
