Talk:Nehor

The Amalekites?

I was under the impression that the Amalekites were different from the Amlicites, even though they're never mentioned together. OneWeirdDude 15:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Some references that could be used to improve the page:

• Grant Underwood, "The Earliest Reference Guides to the Book of Mormon: Windows into the Past", Journal of Mormon History 12 (1985): 69–89, https://www.jstor.org/stable/23285890.
• Kenneth H. Winn, "The Book of Mormon as a Republican Document", in Exiles in a Land of Liberty: Mormons in America, 1830–1846 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1989), 18–39.
• Dan Vogel, "Ant-Universalist Rhetoric in the Book of Mormon", New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology, ed. Brent Lee Metcalfe (Signature Books, 1993), 21–52.
• Mark R. Grandstaff, "Having More Learning Than Sense: William E. McLellin and the Book Of Commandments Revisited", Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 26, no. 4 (Winter 1993): 23–48, https://www.jstor.org/stable/45228695. (28n10)
• J. Christopher Conkling, "Alma's Enemies: The Case of the Lamanites, Amlicites, and Mysterious Amalekites", Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14 (2005): 109–117, 130–132.
• Dan Belnap, "'And it came to pass . . .': The Sociopolitical Events in the Book of Mormon Leading to the Eighteenth Year of the Reign of the Judges", Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 23 (2014): 101–139.
• Matthew Scott Stenson, "Answering for His Order: Alma's Clash with the Nehors", BYU Studies Quarterly 55, no. 2 (2016): 127–153, https://www.jstor.org/stable/43957269.
• Joseph M. Spencer, "The Structure of the Book of Alma", Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 26 (2017): 273–283.
• Matthew Bowman, "The Profession of Nehor and the Holy Order of God: Theology and Society in Ammonihah", A Preparatory Redemption: Reading Alma 12–13, ed. Matthew Bowman and Rosemary Demos (Provo: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2018), 1–12.
• Grant Shreve, "Nephite Secularization; or, Picking and Choosing in the Book of Mormon", Americanist Approaches to the Book of Mormon, ed. Elizabeth Fenton and Jared Hickman (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019), 207–229 (213–215).
• David Charles Gore, The Voice of the People: Political Rhetoric in the Book of Mormon, Groundwork: Studies in Theory and Scripture (Provo: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2019), especially chapter 4.
• Avram R. Shannon, "After Whose Order? Kingship and Priesthood in the Book of Mormon", BYU Studies Quarterly 60, no. 4 (2021): 75–91, https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5186&context=byusq.

P-Makoto (talk) 06:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Also the following:

• Melissa Ragain, "Episodes from an Inland Sea," X-tra 17, no. 1 (Fall 2014): https://www.x-traonline.org/article/trent-harris. (verifies that movie character Nehor is named after Nehor from the Book of Mormon, and briefly analyzes that deployment)

P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Universalism

@Epachamo: I saw you moved the "see also Universalism..." up recently but it looks like that was before I added Universalism to the section about interpretation. Any preference or suggestion on your end between linking the page on the word universalism or just moving the "see also" part down to that area?Adri-at-BYU (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Adri-at-BYU: Looks like great edits! My vote would be to move it down to the section about interpretation as a see also. Epachamo (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Notability

@P-Makoto: can you explain the argument for notability? We don't currently appear to have significant coverage in independent reliable sources on the page and I can't locate any off of it. You have? Can you share them? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Your edit summary claimed that Almost everything is Maxwell somehow, presumably meaning that almost everything cited on the page was published by the Maxwell Institute, which would suggest the topic has limited coverage in sources. Although I do not quite see why citing multiple sources published by an academic press with a strong reputation in this field (academic Book of Mormon studies) should be a problem, I nevertheless noted this characterization was inaccurate, pointing out in my edit summary that The page includes references to multiple sources which are unaffiliated with the Maxwell Institute, which is to say there are multiple sources referenced on the page which are not published by the Maxwell Institute. I briefly identified those sources in the summary, and I now recapitulate them more fully below:

• The page cites A Pentecostal Reads the Book of Mormon: A Literary and Theological Introduction, written by Christopher Thomas and published by CPT Press in 2015. CPT Press is the publishing arm of the Centre for Pentecostal Theology. I have seen no evidence suggesting that the Centre for Pentecostal Theology operates as an arm of the Maxwell Institute.
• The page cites "The Earliest Reference Guides to the Book of Mormon: Windows into the Past", an article written by Grant Underwood and published in the Journal of Mormon History in 1985. The Journal of Mormon History is a peer-reviewed academic periodical and is printed by the University of Illinois Press. I have seen no evidence suggesting that the University of Illinois or its press are dependent upon the Maxwell Institute.
• The page cites "Episodes from an Inland Sea", an article written by Melissa Ragain and published in XTRA Contemporary Art Quarterly in 2023. XTRA Contemporary Art Quarterly is an art news periodical, and I have seen no evidence suggesting that its publication is dependent upon the Maxwell Institute.
• The page cites "After Whose Order? Kingship and Priesthood in the Book of Mormon", an article written by Avram R. Shannon and published in BYU Studies Quarterly in 2021. I have seen no evidence suggesting that BYU Studies is published by or dependent on the Maxwell Institute, since BYU Studies is published instead by BYU Studies.

You for some reason identified the "Maxwell [Institute]" as a point of concern but I am not sure I understand why. I would posit that the publications published by the Maxwell Institute should, if anything, contribute to the breadth of reliable sources covering the subject, as they are themselves sources independent of the above-described sources' coverage. The sources currently cited on the page that could be argued to have some connection to the Maxwell Institute are from the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, which is a peer-reviewed academic periodical which the Maxwell Institute has printed by the University of Illinois Press. As a peer-reviewed academic periodical, this ought to be considered among the gold standards for reliability and notability. Were you to hypothetically disregard the periodical's reliability on the grounds of its connection to the Maxwell Institute (which connection has not been demonstrated to me to be that deep, insofar as the Institute does not print the journal but rather the University of Illinois Press does) would be as strange to me as hypothetically disregarding the reliability and independence of, say, articles in Journal of Pentecostal Theology for subjects pertaining to Pentecostal topics and understandings, just because it's published by the Centre for Pentecostal Theology at Pentecostal Theological Seminary. I think that sort of approach goes far beyond what Wikipedia's standards for sources asks of us. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The only ones which appear to be independent of the LDS Church are CPT Press which doesn't appear to be a RS at all and XTRA Contemporary Art Quarterly which does not appear to contain significant coverage of the topic. I think you're misunderstanding, we can of course use non-independent sources in our articles... They just count for nothing when it comes to determining notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

What reasons/evidence do you have for concluding that The Journal of Mormon History is not denominationally independent? It is not published by any arm of any church.

I presume that "RS" in this context means "reliable source". What reasons/evidence do you have for concluding that CPT Press is not a reliable press? I have described how it is a publishing arm for a college institution, the Seminary. Additionally, the book itself, A Pentecostal Reads the Book of Mormon, has received favorable reviews such as from Reading Religion and from the academic periodical Pneuma.

I am aware that BYU Studies, being published by BYU, an institution owned by a denomination, might be considered non-independent. However, your initial comment for reasons I admit were not fully clear to me identified the Maxwell Institute as a point of concern, and so I pointed out that BYU Studies is not affiliated with the Maxwell Institute. They have separate publication tracks. Furthermore, I would still note that BYU though denominationally affiliated does operate as its own institution as well. BYU Studies articles are quite different from, say, denominationally-published Sunday School manuals, the same way that the Journal of Pentecostal Theology would be quite different from, say, a devotional book published by the Assemblies of God.

I disagree as to whether or not non-independent sources, in general, as a principle, "count for nothing". It is possible they may count differently. However, there are multiple independent sources which do cover the subject of the page and are cited on the page. Meanwhile, you have not provided clear reasons for disagreeing about the quality of those and other sources cited on this page. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Not in general or in principle... Just in the context of WP:Notability the first two lines of which read "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." The specific part of Notability which would apply here is WP:GNG "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

By that standard, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", this subject passes with flying colors. All of the sources are independent of Nehor, the subject. None of the authors or publishers are relatives of Nehor (if that is even possible when Nehor is a figure in a book). P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 18:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Is this your first time encountering our notability guidelines? You are very mistaken. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

It is not my first time. I disagree with your assessment of the notability of the subject of the page. I have explained why. You have simply said that I am mistaken without elaboration. I hope you understand why I struggle to understand your position on this. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Does A Pentecostal Reads the Book of Mormon contain significant coverage of Nehor? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The book treats the topic of Nehor in its pages. What are your reasons for concluding that it does not count as significant? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Its the person who wants to demonstrate notability who has to do so, you need to demonstrate that the book contains significant coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Note that the University of Illinois Press publishes it on behalf of the Maxwell Institute, they do not publish it themselves. That is a commercial relationship which carries no academic endorsement from the University of Illinois. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you believe the University of Illinois Press would continue printing an unreliable periodical? They have a reputation to maintain. To completely disregard UIP's involvement strains my sense of plausibility. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

That how "published on behalf of" works, thats the standard we hold everywhere on wikipedia (it doesn't strain the sense of plausibility of any of the tens of thousands of editors here with a background in academic publishing of some kind)... Why should we make an exception for this topic area? Also I think you're making an argument about reliability when we're talking about notability, its apparently reliable... It just doesn't count towards notability.Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

As a favor for my understanding, could you please link to where in Wikipedia policy it is stated that this is how "published on behalf of", in the context of publication by university institutions and university presses, works on Wikipedia policy? I am not asking for an exception to this topic area. I am expressing my understanding of Wikipedia based on my experience with it. I confess that often the kind of concerns and criticisms you express seem to claim Wikipedia expectation and policy while nevertheless not matching it as I have seen it understood and applied it in all my time as an editor, as well as occasionally make characterizations of editors and pages and sources that I do not understand your reasoning or evidence for. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

You want a wikipedia policy link which says that "published on behalf of" is not the same as "published by"? That doesn't exist. Again I think you're making an argument about reliability when we're talking about notability, its apparently reliable... It just doesn't count towards notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

You want a wikipedia policy link which says that "published on behalf of" is not the same as "published by"? That doesn't exist.

Then I am not sure why you said that That how "published on behalf of" works, thats the standard we hold everywhere on wikipedia when you seem unable to demonstrate that it is the standard held "everywhere on Wikipedia".

I think you're making an argument about reliability when we're talking about notability, its apparently reliable

I am glad we agree that the sources cited on this page are reliable.

It just doesn't count towards notability

We seem to continue to disagree about this. I have explained further above on the page why the sources cited on this page are independent of the subject Nehor and demonstrate its notability. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

They need to be independent of the LDS Church or any other religious organization which has Nehor as a component of their scripture. For example the United States Department of the Treasury is not an independent source when it comes to the Department's own texts, nor would the United States Department of Labor be an independent source when it comes to the Department of the Treasury because they're part of the same system. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)