Hi-is it possible that an article about John Lyman Smith (1828–1898) could be written? John Lyman Smith served in the Utah Territorial Legislature in 1852 and 1853 and would be notable. I am not familiar with the Latter Day Saints Church and I am not sure I could start the article without making any mistakes. John Lyman Smith was a member of thw Latter Day Saints Church and was very active. Thank you-RFD (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RFD: Sorry to reply so late. Is this the John Lyman Smith you're referring to? It looks like we have his missionary diaries digitized, so there's a connection to my library. However, I'm not completely sure that his page would pass notability criteria. What context did you come across him? If a non-church source refers to him it would help with notability. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the article; I added categories concerning John Lyman Smith being from Potsdam, New York and serving in the Utah Territorial Legislature. he should be listed in the notable people section of the Potsdam, New York article and in the disambiguation section on John Smith. I am not familiar with the the hierarchy structure of the Latter Day Saints to make the edits. Many hanks again-RFD (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I rechecked the John Smith disambiguation page and John Lyman Smith is listed in the Politics section under the United States who had served in the Utah Territorial Legislator. I added his name to the Potsdam, New York article with the same description. Please feel free to ad information about his involved with the Latter Day Saints. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 07:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know you're about to start. Reiterating my offer that if I can be of virtual help to please let me know. Good luck, have fun, and Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your help. I was so busy during the event that I didn't have time to ping you with any questions, although one new user wasn't able to create a new account right away (maybe she stumbled upon a username someone else had used in the past?). We're still cleaning up from the event and we should be creating a few more new pages from some of our participants' drafts. Over at DYK, there's a need for more hooks related to African-American history for Black history month, so if you create any book pages related to Black History Month, I'd encourage you to nominate them. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On 28 February 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hildebrando de Melo, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that because of the difficulty of transporting art from Angola, Hildebrando de Melo created multiple paintings in the United States so they could be exhibited there? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hildebrando de Melo. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Hildebrando de Melo), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
On 9 March 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Merrill Bradshaw, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Mormon composer Merrill Bradshaw wrote an oratorio in 1974 that used elements of jazz and popular hymns? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Merrill Bradshaw. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Merrill Bradshaw), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hello, Rachel Helps (BYU). Thank you for your continued work on articles about the Church here on Wikipedia. I especially appreciated your recent edits to Wilford Woodruff, but had some questions on them. Under the section that talks about him becoming President of the Church, you wrote the following sentence: "Woodruff wanted to change the councilors in the first presidency, and wanted George Q. Cannon to be his first counselor." I assume that you inadvertently mispelled "counselors" and left "first presidency" and "first counselor" in the lower case unintentionally, since titled positions are usually capitalized. But I am not sure what you meant by "Woodruff wanted to change" them. In this article, you can see that George Q. Cannon and Joseph F. Smith served as First and Second Counselors respectively to John Taylor before doing likewise for Woodruff. The two would continue serving in those capacities when Lorenzo Snow became Church President, and it wasn't until Cannon's passing in 1901 (which occurred just 6 months prior to that of Snow). I have left the wording in the article as is for now, but just wanted to mention these points to you. Keep up the great work. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Previously, when Brigham Young and Joseph Smith died, the counselors in the first presidency became part of the Quorum of the Twelve and there was some time between presidents. The Alexander biography says that Woodruff wanted to "reorganize the First Presidency immediately." I reworded "reorganize" to "change" to avoid close plagiarism, but it looks like the controversy when Woodruff wanted to organize the First Presidency right away gave the Twelve to opportunity to raise their concerns about Cannon (so the word "reorganize" didn't mean "change the counselors" like I thought it did). Thank you for your comment--I didn't realize that Cannon had been the First Counselor under John Taylor as well. My academic background isn't in Mormon history, so I'm still learning as I go! Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you can help me with something I didn't understand about Woodruff's history. About his 70th birthday, the Alexander bio states "Preparing to celebrate his birthday in temple service, Woodruff collected names of 130 women who had previously been sealed to him vicariously." Women in St. George then performed temple ordinances vicariously for these and other women. I assume the sealings were through the Law of Adoption, but the book doesn't actually say why or how the deceased women were sealed to him. Any ideas? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. Sorry for my delayed response. I was, of course, aware that apostolic interregnums after the presidencies of Joseph Smith through Wilford Woodruff were somewhat standard, and that Woodruff counseled Snow to reorganize the First Presidency immediately following his (Woodruff's) death. That said, I was not aware of an attempt by Woodruff to reorganize immediately. If that was the case, and if concerns were raised about Cannon at that time, I have no objection to the adjusted wording you mentioned above. I don't have an academic background in the history of the Church either, but I do have a passion for the subject of Church history in general, and particularly as it relates to the histories of the First Presidencies and Quorums of the Twelve Apostles, so I do have a bit of knowledge there that helps in situations like this. Not a problem. As to your question on the sealings in question, it was not uncommon for Church leaders in the mid-to-late 1800s through the early-to-mid 1900s to seal indviduals and families through the law of adoption to then-currently-serving or recently-deceased apostles. That practice doesn't make much sense to me, but it has been clearly documented, not just in the sources mentioned in the subsection below, but also in other resources. I don't know of any particular ones that would address this question, but would recommend the seven-volume "History of the Church" as edited by B. H. Roberts, the Church manual "Church History in the Fulness of times", and some volumes of the Joseph Smith Papers, which are available for perusal for free from the Church History subpage on lds.org. Hope that helps, sorry again for the delayed response, and thanks for dialouging with me on these issues. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After further research, I'm inclined to agree that the women sealed vicariously to Woodruff were likely friends and/or relatives. In 1847, Brigham Young said that marriages not sealed in the temple were non-binding, and that relatives had to be sealed to a priesthood holder (I think--he just said "the priesthood"). At this time a lot of people sealed relatives and friends to themselves or other priesthood holders, but it wasn't common after settling in Utah territory. This is a little different from one priesthood holder being sealed to another in the typical law of adoption situation. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Lane swerve
The mention of the Law of adoption reminded me of something. The first paragraphs of the Law of adoption says that it was done with two men, but later in the article it talks about couples being sealed to Brigham Young that way. Any ideas on when it was used with women?Naraht (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since the law of adoption seems to mostly have been practiced by apostles, I doubt there were many, if any, adoptions of women to just one other woman, but I'm happy to be proven wrong. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The mention there seems to be more like... Standard = Apostle joined to younger man: Different = Apostle joined to couple.Naraht (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On 27 November 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Charity bazaar, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that women vendors at Victorian charity bazaars were criticized for using the events to flirt with men? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Charity bazaar. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Charity bazaar), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
I have the Esperanto BoM on my Kindle. I seem to recall it being complete. I don't think it was done officially. (A part translation was, this wasn't). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.68.9.217 (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
wow, who translated it? I've only seen the selections online. Could you e-mail it to me? You can use the "email this user" link on the left sidebar while viewing my talkpage. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Orson Scott Card you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Barkeep49 -- Barkeep49 (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have access to the Women of Faith in the Latter Days vol. 3, which I will replace the blog article with. Would this site help? Looks like an article about her in Japanese from a member-made site about church history in Japan. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you mention that you work in archives, and wanted to take the (admittedly flimsy) excuse to introduce myself. I work mainly on our Shakespeare-related articles, as well as over on English Wikisource, and would be happy to help in either area. I think Wikipedia (and its sister projects) and archives and other GLAM institutions have a lot of common causes and mutual benefits that are yet to be realised. So I'm happy whenever I run across GLAM people onwiki, and am always happy to help in my areas.
And if I am too forward in intruding like this, I can only plead overcompensation after the Folger approached us about a collaboration while I was on wikibreak and the opportunity slipped away. :) --Xover (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for dropping me a note! Admittedly I don't know much about the status of Shakespeare articles on Wikipedia. If there are relevant collections in our archives or local connections, that is a good excuse for me to work on a page. For example, if a local or LDS playwright wrote an adaptation of a Shakespeare play, I could help with a page on the playwright (assuming notability).
I've played around with WikiSource a little in the past--I think I uploaded an issue of the Relief Society magazine to test out the transcription. I'm not sure if WikiSource is the best home for such transcriptions though. In the library we have an in-house transcription software we use for transcription projects that student employees work on during their downtime. If I do start doing stuff with it though, I will definitely ask you for help! Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for August 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lloyd Alexander, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Märchen.
For great NPOV work in a very difficult and contentious Black people and Mormonism article and for many, many other useful edits and articles. The invisible barnstar because although it might have gone unnoticed, it was important work that made a lasting and indelible mark on Wikipedia. Epachamo (talk) 03:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rachel, please make no more COI/PAID edits until this issue has been resolved. I'm concerned that you continue to edit Orson Scott Card and take part in the GAN as though the COIN discussion is not taking place.
That article is a good example of the problem. The subject has exceptionally contentious views, but only some of them are dealt with in the article. For example, about Obama he wrote: "Having been anointed from the start of his career because he was that magical combination—a black man who talks like a white man (that's what they mean by calling him 'articulate' and a 'great speaker')—he has never had to work for a living, and he has never had to struggle to accomplish goals."
You don't mention that. You mention some of his other negative views about Obama in a section called "American politics". But that racism doesn't have anything to do with American politics. The word "racism" isn't in the article. There's a New York magazine article about his views that isn't used as a source. You've added BYU to the lead. You've made his views of gay marriage slightly less prominent in the lead than before. Deciding how to write about a BLP with contentious views is difficult—how much weight, which views to include, which other views might drown out the negative ones, where to place it all—and it has to be done by editors with no dog in the fight.
All requirements for COI and PAID have been met, though. She's had a COI statement on her user page since January 2016, and a PAID notice since April 2016. She even solicits feedback on her userpage from anyone who questions any edit she's made, at the same time acknowledging that she may have some biases that she can't see. SlimVirgin added a notice to the Card article on November 30. Unless you can point to one or more edits that are actually problematic, why should she stop making them? She's working with Barkeep49, a respected editor who apparently has no problems with what she's doing in the GAN. Noone at the COIN discussion has provided a diff showing even one problematic edit. Unless you can provide evidence she's making bad edits, there's no reason for her to stop editing (especially since Barkeep49 is doing a great job of overseeing that process). As far as I can tell, she hasn't violated any of our policies and guidelines, and has made every effort to act above the board and completely within policy and guidelines here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's depressing to read this. She shouldn't be editing articles directly. I've given examples above of the POV problems at the article (and that's based only on a glance). And the reason I had to add the PAID template to talk is that she wouldn't do it.In addition to that, why does BYU want to pay someone to write about Card? The terms of use say: "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation" (see WP:PAID). BYU is the employer. Who is the client; is it Card, is there an intermediary PR firm, or did BYU direct her to Card? The paid editor is expected to explain all these affiliations. SarahSV(talk)21:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
She works for BYU directly, which she's already disclosed. She's paid to work on articles that have any connection to Mormon history (which is a really, really broad subject area) and work to improve them using the vast resources she has available to her at the Harold B. Lee Library. Which she has already disclosed. Card is not her client. I doubt he even knows she's working on the article. I don't know if she's ever met him, either, but I doubt there's any affiliation beyond them both attending and working at BYU at some point in their lives. However, even if she's met him on one or more occasions, so what? As far as I'm concerned, she's made the appropriate disclosures and has made every effort to work strictly within the policies and guidelines on the site. She's hosted edit-a-thons in the past, and she works to teach others to edit within the policies and guidelines here. She's the kind of editor we should want working on the site. She's the kind of editor we need working on articles here. She's done nothing but improve and expand Wikipedia. If anything, we should be thanking her instead of trying to rules-lawyer her to death. Barring anything negative someone finds (and I really doubt they will find anything, because there's nothing there to find), I think this is simply making a mountain out of a molehill. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, how do you know all this? Where has she disclosed this? Second, if the BLP subject really doesn't know this is happening, that is very unfortunate, given the negative attention, and given that newspapers often pick up on these disputes. Nihonjoe, do you not think that his alleging that Obama was "that magical combination—a black man who talks like a white man (that's what they mean by calling him 'articulate' and a 'great speaker')" should be in the article? That is very shocking racism. But then it has to be carefully considered because you don't want to turn the Card article into an attack page. This is why I'm puzzled that BYU would have chosen to proceed with this. These editorial decisions have to be made by people with no dog in the fight. COI has serious effects on people's neutrality, even when you try hard not to let that happen. SarahSV(talk)22:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SlimVirgin except our COI page, which houses NOPAY as you noted at COIN, we have Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Wikipedians_in_residence,_reward_board which notes, as I did in my original post in the thread at COIN that WiR at mission aligned organizations (I'm proud I even got the mission aligned nomenclature right without having looking it up) is regarded as acceptable and that they need to operate with in certain defined bounds. I see every evidence that Rachel has operaqted with-in those guidelines. If you have specific conerns about how we can improve Card, I would encourage you to post them on the talk page or the review. I have found Rachel open to every thought I've had, which has certainly included some ways we can bring better NPOV to the article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) This is exactly what shouldn't happen. Unpaid editors now have to work to fix an article because a paid editor won't do it properly? Note WP:COI: "WiRs must not engage in on-Wikipedia public relations". I feel as though I've entered a time machine and travelled back to Wikipedia 2010 or earlier. I thought this had all been settled. Pinging Smallbones: not expecting you to comment, but please note this and WP:COIN#Brigham Young University. SarahSV(talk)22:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's an active GAN going on, and the whole point of that is to address any and all concerns that would prevent the article from being promoted to Good status. If you think your concerns are such that they should prevent it from being promoted, bring them up there. Rachel is working with Barkeep49 to address ALL of the concerns being brought up there. Barkeep49 seems very happy with the progress being made. Why are you finding it so hard to go there and bring up your concerns there? It seems like that would be the best place, rather than here or COIN. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have not looked into the Obama issue you mention, and I would need to research the context before giving an answer. On the surface (i.e., only what you posted here), the comment certainly appears problematic at best. As for whether it belongs in the article, that would be covered by WP:WEIGHT. As Barkeep49 mentioned, bring up those concerns on the GAN page so they can be addressed. Rachel has done a great job there addressing every concern brought up, and I expect she will address this one, too, given time. As for your puzzlement over why "BYU would have chosen to proceed with this", it's not BYU making the decision. As I've pointed out before, Rachel has no dog in this fight. Her edits to the Card article show she is making every effort to maintain a good balance in the article. If you go read the GAN page, there are multiple places where they discuss whether something should be included or not, and how much should be included. It's a process, not something set in stone. Go participate in the GAN and make sure your concerns are heard there, in the appropriate venue. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Card has nothing to do with Mormon history, so if BYU didn't direct her to the Card article, why was it chosen, and how do you know all this? Card has expressed exceptionally contentious views. I would find that article very difficult to write well; in fact, if someone offered me money (even a large sum) to do it, I'd decline because getting it right would take a lot of work. You have to balance what he has said against making sure it doesn't turn into an attack page. Rachel and the other BYU editor who has worked on it have not done it well, and Barkeep wasn't even aware of some of these views, and yet was about to promote it. And once it's promoted, it can go on the main page as DYK. I very much hope that's not the aim here. SarahSV(talk)22:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BYU is an R2 institution. I would hope such institutions are interested in the promotion of knowledge for its own sake. But it would be good to hear from Rachel what expectations the university has for her and how she selects her topics. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) "Mormon history", meaning anything to do with any remotely-related topic. As Card is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, his article falls squarely under that umbrella. It's not even a stretch. Rachel has asked me quite a lot of questions over the years, and we met a couple times at Wikipedia-related events. We've discussed her job and what it entails. No one here is arguing that Card isn't a contentious person or topic. Quite the opposite, in fact. Since, for better or for worse, Card is a prominent figure, making sure the article is a good, solid article falls right into what Rachel does as the Wikipedian in Residence at BYU. If you review what is being discussed in the GAN, you'll see that Barkeep49 has addressed that controversy in multiple spots in the review process, as has Rachel. Just to make sure it doesn't get promoted without your concerns being discussed there, I've quoted the part above that includes those concerns. I've also pointed people here and to COIN, just to be thorough. Hopefully, that will help you see that no one is trying to sneak anything through here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Roman Catholic history" doesn't incorporate everyone who happens to be Roman Catholic and went to a Roman Catholic school. I'd prefer to hear directly from Rachel what the university asked her to do in relation to Card. SarahSV(talk)23:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, hi guys. So, firstly, I don't think I have to stop editing because of the COIN discussion. I don't believe I'm violating any Wikipedia policies, but if I am, please be specific. I was going to respond to the COIN discussion yesterday, but decided to get advice from other editor friends and sleep on it. Here, you mentioned the guideline that "WiRs must not engage in on-Wikipedia public relations." When I read that, I assumed it meant promoting events or spamming talk pages with news or something. I don't think editing any page about a BYU alum or professor is "public relations" but you are free to disagree with me.
How do I decide what to work on? I get to decide what we work on. I try to work on both obscure and popular pages. I assign certain pages to my students. I do have input from others on the topic of "what should we work on"? I ask our special collections curators for suggestions so that we can have pages with good quality to go along with collections. Some examples of this work are Rose Marie Reid and Elizabeth Kane. Sometimes I look through our findingaids or exhibits to find ideas for pages to work on. That was the case with Didymus the Blind and Topaz War Relocation Center. I have an ongoing project to improve "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in... [country name]" pages. That's something I came up with myself on seeing how most of them were pretty minimal. Yes, my own interests can influence what I work on. My husband is from South Africa, which inspired me to work on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in South Africa. That got me interested in Julia Mavimbela's page (although I noticed that she's not mentioend on TCoJCoLDS in South Africa page, I should fix that!).
In 2018, I started a brief project to create pages for Mormon women in the hard sciences. I think I was inspired by a BYU news article on Denise Stephens. Many of them are BYU alums or professors. Cynthia B. Lee and Denise Stephens were part of that project (there was also a lot of background research on my part, gathering names, determining who was notable enough for their own page, etc.). Some other editors were worried about us writing about BYU-connected professors because of our BYU connections. I stopped trying to create new pages for BYU professors for a time because of this. My latest student created a page for Patrick Madden (essayist) though! She knows the professor and I thought her interest could help her learn.
I have also worked on pages more relevant to general Mormon studies. I collaborated with one of my student workers to create Portrayal of Mormons in comics. I have an unfinished MA in American literature. I'm interested in Mormon literature, especially fiction. Some other people interested in Mormon letters noticed that it's hard to find a good, contemporary overview of Mormon letters, which led to my work on Mormon fiction and Mormon studies. After working on Mormon fiction, I wanted to continue working on Mormon author pages. I noticed that some popular women authors didn't have very good pages, and we worked on pages like Traci Hunter Abramson. We don't have Stephanie Meyer's papers (archival collection), but she is probably the most popular LDS author of all time! She should definitely have a good page! One of my students at the time was a fan, so she added style and themes sections and improved the page. At the same time, I started working on the Orson Scott Card page. It only seemed fair that if we improved Stephanie Meyer's page, we should improve Orson Scott Card's, too. His page came up in this talkpage discussion. Why did I choose to work on his page? Back when I started working in 2016, our curator of the Card collection asked me to add something about the existence of our collection to the page. I did so, but felt like I wasn't experienced enough to improve the page. Basically I told him I didn't want to touch the page because I knew my edits would be under scrutiny, and I didn't want to make a fool of myself. Only after about four years of editing did I feel confident enough to edit his page. Confident enough to realize that actually, his page wasn't that great before I started editing it. He is SO prolific and yes, it was difficult to write for multiple reasons. A lot of the contemporary reviews of his work are lost in the black hole that is the 1990s and early 2000s (yeah, I'd love to dig up more info from that time period!). I dug up old interviews with him that were referenced in physical reference books on science fiction and fantasy. I cleaned up the views on homosexuality section (I summarized long blockquotes, found citations, moved stuff around, organized information into paragraphs, etc.). Card is definitely a polarizing figure. Do I find his views on homosexuality offensively intolerant? Yes. However, that isn't his only view. Barkeep49 encouraged me to find more information about his self-reported political views, which include boring moderate things like being for gun control. If you feel that his views on race merit special attention, I'm listening. I did shorten my summary of his essay that imagined a dystopia with Obama as its leader (I was worried about WP:UNDUE), but I'd consider expanding it. You're saying we didn't do a good job of representing Card's views. Are you referring to his comment about Obama talking like a white person, or are there other views that are underrepresented? And yeah, I was planning on nominating the page for DYK. Any editor is allowed to make DYK nominations.
I encountered my own personal, unconscious biases on Battle at Fort Utah. I wanted to work on this page because I live in Provo, and I was curious about its origins. It's difficult for me to confront the fact that Brigham Young ordered an extermination campaign against the Timpanogos, especially considering that Mormons were the target of a different extermination order in Missouri. Another editor helped me to realize that I was using biased language to refer to the Timpanogos (you can read about it on the talk page there). In 2017, one of my students worked on Black people and Mormonism, and after she left, I went through and verified every source and added more information. The page is almost unrecognizable now, because I haven't been able to keep up with recent edits to the page (due to my increase in home responsibilities because of COVID).
Okay SlimVirgin. I tried to give you some background on myself, some of my editing, and how I choose what pages to work on. I feel like you are acting hostile towards me personally. Is that right? Did I do something to offend you personally? Or have you had bad experiences with paid editors that made you suspicious of all paid editors? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. It is largely what I expected and am glad to have it confirmed that you choose topics without "pressure" from the institution. I will re-iterate what I said at COIN, which is that I think editing about BYU itself (i.e. these articles or about employees (particularly professors) would fall under typical COI and would require talk page disclosure and probable use of edit requests rather than direct editing. This would especially be true in the case you outline of Patrick Madden (essayist) where you state that the editor has a personal relationship with the subject. That is about as clear of a COI as it gets and so I have moved it into draftspace for AfC review. However, outside of that I see no issues with your editing or need for talk page disclosure. I am interested, of course, to hear what Sarah thinks. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, I'm very concerned about your attitude to this. You see no issues with the editing and no need for talk-page disclosure, even though WP:COI says there should be talk-page disclosure. Is it your view that Wikipedia's guidelines can be ignored, and if so, how far do you extend that? To the MoS, RS, MEDRS? If only COI, please say why. And note that being paid creates a COI. Your position seems to be that it doesn't.
My position is that Wikipedians-in-Residence need to disclose their employer per Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure#Wikipedians_in_residence. My position is that when they edit with a COI, as happened above with Madden, they need to follow appropriate COI policies. However, I also feel that, as the COI guideline states, 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. Is an alumni of a university someone related to their organization which per the guideline would require on-article disclosure? I'd lean no but don't feel strongly about it which is why I posed that direct question at COIN. Hope that clarifies my thinking on this matter for you SlimVirgin. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rachel, I hope this is something you are able to accept in the way I intend: Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may because of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation. I am not as familiar with the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price as I am with the Bible, but I hope this will be meaningful to you. —valereee (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear friends and fellow editors, I am resigning my position as WiR and will stop editing from this account at some point (probably by the end of January 2021). I have a 14-month-old special-needs baby who is high-risk and I have been without daycare since March. My parents and in-laws have helped watch my two children, but the stress of homeschooling my first grader, taking the baby to her appointments, and trying to work from home has taken a toll on my mental and physical health. I'm planning to focus on surviving the next nine months, but I might start editing from my personal account, rwelean in the future. I would love to get back into videogame writing, my true passion! Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to hear it, Rachel. I'm a fellow mom of a special-needs child (now grown) and understand how stressful that must be right now. My very best wishes to you going forward, both on wiki and IRL. —valereee (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rachel Helps, I am sorry to hear about your personal difficulties that have led to your decision to resign as a WiR. WIthout kogging you down with the details, I want to let you know that I too may be considered a "special-needs individual", and that without the sacrifices willingly made by my own mother in relation to my care for the first quarter-century or so of my own life, I would not be where I am today, including being able to be active here on Wikipedia. So I applaud you personally for your efforts to put the welfare of your family first. I wish you well in the future, and hope that, at some point, our paths may cross again here, should you choose to continue yout work on Church-related topics in the future. Until that time, may the Lord bless and keep yopu and yours, and thanks for your tremendous contributions to various articles here. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the creation. If interested, you can nominate at the article at Wikipedia:Did you know that showcases new or expanded articles that are selected through an informal review process. Thank you
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Amkgp}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
