Talk:Coriantumr (son of Omer)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coriantumr[edit]

I copied and pasted the content for this article from the Coriantumr Wikipedia page so that I can make three separate Coriantumr pages. Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by BlueMoonset talk 02:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles contain pre-existing material from the original Coriantumr article before it was split into three and redirected; unfortunately, that material has not been 5x expanded, so none of them qualify.

( Comment or view )
( Article history links:
)
  • ... that the Book of Mormon mentions three men named Coriantumr: the son of Omer, the last Jaredite king, and a Nephite dissenter? Source: Dennis L., ed. (2003). Book of Mormon Reference Companion. Salt Lake City, Utah, USA: Deseret Book. pp. 215-216. ISBN 1-57345-231-9.
    • ALT1: ... that the last Jaredite king, the the son of Omer, and a Nephite dissenter are all featured in the Book of Mormon despite sharing the same name of Coriantumr? Source: Dennis L., ed. (2003). Book of Mormon Reference Companion. Salt Lake City, Utah, USA: Deseret Book. pp. 215-216. ISBN 1-57345-231-9.
    • Reviewed:
    • Comment: Each of these articles were originally part of a larger article by the name of Coriantumr. I added content and split them into three. The original article now exists as a disambiguation page. The Coriantumr (Son of Omer) article has a notability issues tag, but we believe the article passes notability guidelines; Coriantumr Son of Omer appears in some secondary sources used within the article.

Created by Heidi Pusey BYU (talk). Self-nominated at 23:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Coriantumr (Last Jaredite King); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Since this hasn't been touched since the nomination back in October, asking if the local LDS expert Rachel Helps (BYU) can help out and see if the articles are fine. Though I'd still recommend a non-LDS reviewer be the one to make the final review. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Narutolovehinata5 Heidi is one of my current student editors, so I think someone else should look at it. Maybe Epachamo would be willing to weigh in on the notability of the Son of Omer one? We can merge it with another page if necessary. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Narutolovehinata5 and Heidi Pusey BYU: Since the Encyclopedia of the Book of Mormon (Bingman) addresses the "son of Omer" Coriantumr in a discrete entry as a discrete figure, and since the topic is addressed in multiple other sources from other publishers, I think the page's topic is sufficiently notable. Not all subjects on Wikipedia are equally notable, but it can still be notable, I would say, if I may weigh in and review.

General eligibility:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall:

QPQ not needed because this is one of the user's Heidi Pussey first five nominations. The hook is cited and is interesting. No plagiarism detected. The articles have been expanded by at least five times. The only point of issue in my view is that Coriantumr (son of Omer) is not at least 1500 characters of prose long, which is the minimum length for an article to be accepted for DYK. Would you expand the lede with some of the content in the body in order to bring it up to 1500 characters? It currently stands at 1471 characters. If you can do that, I will complete the review and pass the nomination. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 01:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Heidi Pusey BYU, I noticed that you elaborated in the son of Omer page such that it is now more than 1500 characters. Since that was the only issue identified with the earlier nomination, and since the seeming disagreement about notability has been resolved as being not the aim of this thread, on a re-review I will now pass the nomination. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall:

  • Pinging Narutolovehinata5 to let you know that from my understanding, the matter is resolved, based on the statement that concern about the notability of the page topic Coriantumr (son of Omer) is not the aim of this thread. With all pages involved in the nomination now at least 15000 characters long, I believe it is fit to pass. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Detailed discussion of sourcing and conflicts of interest. Collapsing so WP:DYKNA isn't overwhelmed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Encyclopedia of the Book of Mormon isn't independent of the subject and as such doesn't count at all towards notability. Were you aware of that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? Is there a specific policy you're referring to? I don't get what you're trying to say, "isn't independent of." Thmazing (talk) 07:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTABILITY. To count towards notability sources are required to be independent of the topic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the assertion, made with no reasoning offered, that The Encyclopedia of the Book of Mormon is not independent of the subject of the page, Coriantumr (son of Omer). The author of the encyclopedia, Margaret Bingman, is not a close relative of the subject nor an employee of the subject, both things that are impossible under the circumstances, that being that the subject is a figure in the Book of Mormon. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 09:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is Bingman a member of the LDS church, or was the book published by an LDS-affiliated/owned publishing house? If so, I can see where the "the source is not fully independent" argument is coming from even if I don't agree with it (because a consistent application of that would basically open a can of worms with other denominations too). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bingman is a member (which generally doesn't matter per consensus) and the book was directly published by a LDS denomination (which generally does matter per consensus). We already consistently apply that standard when evaluating the notability of religious topics. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that Bingman is a member of the LDS Church is not true. Bingman is not a member of the LDS Church; she is a member of a Christan denomination called Community of Christ. The Encyclopedia of the Book of Mormon was not published by the LDS Church; it was published by a press called Herald House. Even in the event that one concludes there is denominational association, I agree with Narutolovehinata5 that denominational association does not by itself eliminate a subject's independence. Wikipedia can cite books about U. S. history published by American university presses, and it can cite books written or published by Protestants and Protestant presses about biblical studies or Christian history, and I think that is also true of Mormonism. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Community of Christ is a LDS denomination. Herald House is their house organ. We aren't talking about whether you can cite them, we're talking about whether they count towards notability. Plenty of usable sources simply don't count. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think that independence is limited to a close relative of the subject nor an employee of the subject? The core of the standard is affiliation... And who is affiliated with a religious text? The religion. I think you're forgetting that "independent" applies both to publisher and author, you're only talking about the author whereas I am almost entirely talking about the publisher. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That might be an unfair standard. By that standard, should be ban using Muslims as sources for Islam, Catholics for sources about Catholicism, etc.? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can use them, nobody is saying to ban them. We can use non-independent sources, they just don't count towards notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am with Narutolovehinata5 on this. I think the sources cited on the page are valid for Wikipedia and sufficiently count toward notability. I think it would be appropriate to remove the notability tag. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you think that the sources are independent? Thats the only way they can count towards notability. Here's an easy way to understand how independence works here: who do these organizations hold is the author of the work Coriantumr is a character in and what do they hold is their relationship to that figure? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I looked for your "easy way to understand how independence works here" on Wikipedia's content guideline page for reliable sources and an explanatory essay about independent sources. I did not find "who do these organizations hold is the author of the work [X is in] and what do they hold is their relationship to that figure" in the reviewed and accepted guideline, or in the explanatory essay. The explanatory essay describes independence as follows: An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic. The essay explains "vested interest" as follows: Interest in a topic becomes vested when the source (the author, the publisher, etc.) develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic. You have not described how the authors or publishers have a financial or legal relationship to the topic of the page, which is Coriantumr. Does Coriantumr fund Herald House or Deseret Book, or pay wages to Largey or Bingman or Hardy or Gardner or Sorensen? Is Coriantumr a brother to one of them, or on a board of trustees for Herald House? The answer to these questions is no. Inasmuch as Coriantumr is a figure in a book, I do not see how you would conclude any of that about the sources cited on this page. From reading the content guideline page for Reliable Sources and the explanatory essay about independent sources, it seems reasonable to conclude the cited sources are independent of the topic, Coriantumr. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 08:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do religious organizations not have a vested interest in their scriptures? Let me ask it this way... What sources would you consider to be non-independent of the topic? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As aforementioned, according to the explanatory essay about independent sources, a source's interest in a topic is "vested" when there is a financial or legal relationship to the topic. Denominational affiliation or religious interest are not mentioned. Sources not independent of the topic would include, for example, something about Coriantumr by Joseph Smith, the man who dictated the Book of Mormon, the book Coriantumr appears in. Likewise, something by John Milton about the Prince of Darkness in Paradise Lost, would be non-independent for the Prince of Darkness (Satan) page, as Milton dictated Paradise Lost. Something by Winston Churchill about content in A History of the English-speaking Peoples would be non-independent for a page about that content, as Churchill dictated The English-speaking Peoples. But that doesn't mean that any Christian publisher is non-independent of the Prince of Darkness character, or that any English-speaking publisher is non-independent of The English-speaking Peoples. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In short, Horse Eye's Back, the actual written policies are against your argument as currently stated. Do you have any other arguments against counting this work towards notability? Thmazing (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The policies aren't... A single line cherry picked from an explanatory essay is... The policy, guideline, and practice completely support my position. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that the religion founded by Joseph Smith is independent of the works of Joseph Smith that the religion is founded on? How? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have referred to and read both the content guideline page and an explanatory essay. You have referred to neither a content guideline page or to an explanatory essay about content guidelines, merely invoking unexplained "policy, guideline, and practice" that you call independence and notability, but which I cannot find the way you use these terms and assert them in the content guideline page I linked earlier in the thread about reliable sources. You accused me of having "cherry picked" a "single line". I disagree. I linked to and read a content guideline page and an explanatory essay supporting that guideline. I quoted multiple lines from the essay. You have not done any of that. You have expressed opinions you hold, and you have asserted that those opinions are consensus among Wikipedia editors, but you have not persuasively demonstrated or proven that assertion. Reference to and quotation of content guidelines would be a way to do that.
As for your question, why are you asking about the founding of religions? The question at interest in this matter is about whether or not the sources cited on this page are independent of the topic and sufficiently establish its notability. I am saying that Deseret Book as a publisher, and Herald House as a publisher, do not have financial or legal relationships to the topic of this page, which is Coriantumr. You have not demonstrated that they have any such financial or legal relationships to the topic of this page, which is Coriantumr.
You seem to be implying a belief that historical or religious affiliation with a text disqualifies a publisher or author from independence from the topics of pages about the content of that text. However, you have not demonstrated that that is a widely held consensus among editors on Wikipedia. I do not share your belief. To use an additional examples, I do not think that being published by Baylor University Press, a publisher associated with a university that has affiliations with Baptists (a denomination that regards the Bible as scripture), makes Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr non-independent of a Wikipedia page about Peter because of Peter being in the Bible. I do not think that being published by the University of Virginia Press, a publisher associated with a university founded by Thomas Jefferson, makes Scientific Jefferson: Revealed non-independent of a Wikipedia page about Notes on the State of Virginia because of Jefferson having written the book. Likewise, I do not think Herald House being associated with Community of Christ, a denomination that includes some members who regard the Book of Mormon as scripture, makes the Coriantumr entries in the Encyclopedia of the Book of Mormon non-independent for pages about Coriantumr because of Coriantumr being in the Book of Mormon. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Baylor University Press is independent of the baptist church... And these are university presses which are independent of their host institutions... Herald House is not independent of the Community of Christ. To continue your Baylor example an "Encyclopedia of the Bible" which was published by the Baptist General Convention of Texas and not Baylor University Press would be a primary source when it comes to the Bible. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have mischaracterized the Baptist tradition. First, there is not a singular the baptist church for Baylor University to be either affiliated with or not. The Baptists are a movement and community who believe in the preeminence of congregational authority. Baylor University remains Baptist as an institution. Its website describes "its Baptist heritage" and avers being "unambiguously Christian". Second, there is a "special agreement between" Baylor University and the Baptist General Convention of Texas whereby they are "affiliated" with each other. This special agreement does not, however, make Baylor University Press non-independent of, say, the figure Daniel in the Bible.
As for your hypothetical example, first, why are you suddenly bringing up the idea of primary sources? I thought you were asking about source independence, and that is what I was talking about. Second, why would such an "Encyclopedia of the Bible" be a primary source for the Bible in any case? The Baptist General Convention did not exist in any time period concurrent with the creation or compilation of biblical texts in the Christian Bible. Such an "Encyclopedia of the Bible" would not constitute original materials that are close to an event or accounts written by people who are directly involved. Such a hypothetical encyclopedia would be a primary source for the Baptist General Convention of Texas, its publisher, and it would not be independent of the Baptist General Convention of Texas. But it would not be a primary source for, to give an example, the biblical figure Daniel, and it would be independent of Daniel. As editors of Wikipedia, we do, of course, always cite our sources in context of other sources and with an eye toward summarizing and expressing an accepted consensus. How much to cite this hypothetical encyclopedia would depend on what content in it one cites and on how that content stacks up within the wider consensus of the field of study.
In any case, you still have not persuasively shown, with reference to accepted Wikipedia policy, that the sources you keep questioning somehow do not demonstrate the notability of the page's subject, Coriantumr. You have variously claims that the sources are not independent of Coriantumr, or that they are primary sources for Coriantumr. These claims have not held up under scrutiny with reference to written policy, a quoted essay, and linked information about the sources you question. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 06:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't talking about what we can and can not cite. How does the Baptist General Convention of Texas not have a vested interest in the Bible? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My example was about the figure Daniel in the Bible, in order to be comparable to the subject of the page we are talking about, Coriantumr (as a figure in the Book of Mormon). Per the explanatory essay about independent sources linked further up in the thread, Interest in a topic becomes vested when the source (the author, the publisher, etc.) develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic. If you believe the Baptist General Convention of Texas has a financial or legal relationship to the biblical Daniel, could you tell me what that financial or legal relationship is? Does Daniel fund them? Is Daniel one of their trustees? I do not see how this would be possible when Daniel is a figure of disputed historical reality from thousands of years ago. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 06:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vested interest is not limited to the legal and financial, those are just two examples. The explanatory essay talks about other examples, such as family relations. Also note that the Baptist General Convention of Texas appears to sell Bibles, meaning that this hypothetical would also fall under "a product that is made or sold by your company or employer;" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you're now wondering "Jeez does Herald House sell the Book of Mormon? Because if so my argument is completely screwed" yes... Yes they do [1] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not wondering that. Is the topic of this page Herald House's published edition of the Book of Mormon? It is not. The topic of this page is Coriantumr. Herald House does not sell Coriantumrs. Coriantumr is a figure in a public domain text that people can read for free.
Your reasoning would seemingly have it so that Penguin Random House's A History of Reading is not an independent source for a Wikipedia page about reading or about books, because Penguin Random House sells books. Your reasoning would seemingly have it so that W. W. Norton's Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare is not an independent source for a Wikipedia page about William Shakespeare because W. W. Norton sells his complete works. Your reasoning is not reasonable; it is excessively strict. My explanations about the sources used on this page are not "completely screwed" as you claimed. Your arguments remain unpersuasive and ungrounded. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Books/reading is a broad class of goods/services/activities so thats not really comparable. In terms of the W. W. Norton book the independence is actually questionable, but that doesn't matter at all because the topic isn't of questionable notability. My position is actually a very moderate one, perhaps you lack objectivity when it comes to LDS topics for some reason so you perceive them as excessive or extreme? You are after all a LDS WP:SPA without significant experience outside that topic area or an understanding of how wikipedia in general works. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 08:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back: Not particularly interested in reading this whole argument, but someone with over 3,000 edits over a span of several years in a broad topic area is absolutely not a single-purpose account; ...subjects like "spiders", "nutrition", "baseball", or "geometry" are diversified topics within themselves. If a user only edits within a broad topic (such as "spiders"), this does not mean the user is an SPA... As for the argument that seems to be suggesting that those who practice a certain religion are non-independent to those topics, that does make me wonder: if such is true, are you also suggesting that, say, a football fan writing for a football publication about football would be non-independent about said football subject? And if that's also the case, then the vast majority of subjects with Wikipedia articles would suddenly become non-notable, as usually only someone who is interested in a topic will write significant coverage about the topic. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a member of a football team writing for a football publication about their football team would be non-independent when it came to that football team. A simple fan would have no such issues, a "Superfan" or one of those scenarios where someone is a 1/1,000% team owner are a little more of a grey area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You would also have the same shared ownership issues, if Mr Big owns both the football team and City Steam News then City Steam News' coverage of the football team doesn't count as independent. Same on the religious side when Mr Big Trust owns both the church and the news outlet. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Though, I don't quite understand how one can be the owner of a religion? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In most of the world religious denominations are set up as charitable corporations or trusts. I would note that sports teams are also sometimes set up that way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not appreciate your accusations. I have demonstrated understanding of how Wikipedia works by citing content guidelines. I have done my utmost to be civil and polite, even when your comments in this thread have come across as snarky (e. g. "Jeez does Herald House sell the Book of Mormon? Because if so my argument is completely screwed"). You accuse me of being an SPA, or "single purpose account". I do not think this is the case. I have a variety of interests on Wikipedia, encompassing American history and book topics. One of those books is the Book of Mormon. Another of those books has been What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815–1848, the page for which I expanded, improved, and nominated for DYK. The most recent article I brought to good article status was about an ex-Catholic atheist involved with a novelist, Frank O'Connor, and half of the articles I have created do not involve Mormon studies (Frank O'Connor and Boom Town). You accuse me of "lack[ing] objectivity" on "LDS topics". I disagree, and other editors have as well. For example, a fellow editor thanked me for "reconciling an edit war in a NPOV way" on a page involving Mormon studies.
The impression I have from our discussion here is not that your position is moderate. The impression I have from our discussion on this page unfortunately is that of an editor who, not for the first time, "refuses to deescalate and continues to make accusations"..."but fails to produce evidence", to borrow another Wikipedia editor's words describing you in an earlier interaction. This is unfortunate. I ask that you not accuse me without substantive evidence of being an SPA or "single purpose account", or of "lack[ing] objectivity" on topics I contribute on, or of not being "understanding of how wikipedia in general works". I try hard to be a fair minded, civil, and helpful editor on Wikipedia. After I've tried extensively to civilly clarify an understanding of Wikipedia policies pertaining to this apparently contentious matter, that you would so casually disparage me seems unprofessional and inappropriate for Wikipedia. I would point out that Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence can be considered personal attacks on Wikipedia. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 08:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What Hath God Wrought is clearly not outside of the LDS topic area. SPA is not an accusation it is a description and your editing history[2] fits it... There are few edits outside the topic area in your edit history... You're 9/10 on LDS topics on main (Charles Francis O'Connor is the exception) and 10/10 on talk. Of your last 100 edits 99 appear to be LDS related. How is that not few edits outside the topic area? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of clarity I will answer. However, I maintain that this line of questioning is unproductive, distracting from the actual aim of this thread (determining the notability of Coriantumr (Son of Omner) and borders on or is unprofessional and inappropriate on Wikipedia. If you press this point, I anticipate not replying to you further in this thread.
What Hath God Wrought is a general history of the United States from 1815 to 1848. The page mentions the Latter Day Saint movement only once, and the page cites periodicals dedicated to Mormon studies only twice, out of 35 citations. The "LDS topic" element in that page is more or less tangential.
You look at my "last 100 edits," but that is an arbitrary cutoff point. Were someone to look at, for example, your last 50 edits as of 17:20, more than 50% are about roads. In the balance of my time on Wikipedia, I created the Frank O'Connor page and the Boom Town (book) page; I additionally expanded and nominated for DYK the Eleanor Hadley and Four Hundred Souls pages. Even if one were to conclude that an account is allegedly "single purpose", it is entirely possible for well-intentioned editors to have a niche interest. A Wikipedian having a preferred focus is perfectly acceptable. It is true that in being familiar with a lot of Mormon studies historiography, I have made many contributions to Latter Day Saint movement articles. However, that does not immediately equate to what you accused me of: lack[ing] objectivity when it comes to LDS topics and being without significant experience outside that topic area or an understanding of how wikipedia in general works. It is to those assertions by you that I take issue.
It is clear there is not consensus between the two of us about the question of sufficent notability for Coriantumr (son of Omner). For that to be resolved on this page will, I think, require the perspective and participation of editors beside ourselves. Please do not continue to press here about me as an editor instead of discussing the page topic and the DYK nomination. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Determining the notability of Coriantumr (Son of Omner) is not the aim of this thread. This isn't a venue where such a thing could be determined even if we wanted to. We are here to discuss a DYK nomination and it doesn't seem like this one is ready yet. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for misunderstanding you. I thought that since the nominator, Heidi Pusey BYU, brought up the existence of a a notability issues tag on the page in her nomination (but explained that she concluded the topic was notable based on the sources), and that since you wrote that one of the sources cited isn't independent of the subject and as such doesn't count at all towards notability , that you thought notability was an issue with whether or not this DYK should go forward. I take from you saying that this is not the aim of this thread, that you did not mean to dispute the notability of the topic in your earlier comment. With that in mind, the notability of the page is not an issue that prevents the DYK nomination from going forward. I am not sure why you say that it doesn't seem like this [DYK nomination] is ready yet when on my initial review, I held that the only problem was one of the pages being less than 1500 words long. Since Heidi Pusey BYU has since expanded the page such that it meets the 1500 word minimum, I will pass the nomination. I am no longer sure what all this discussion on your part has been about, but it is good to no longer be worrying about it. Thank you for clarifying this, Horse Eye's Back. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was Narutolovehinata5 not me who requested a non-LDS reviewer not me ("Though I'd still recommend a non-LDS reviewer be the one to make the final review.") I have no problem with a LDS editor like you making the close as long as its competent, that being said I don't think your close is competent. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did I tell you that I'm LDS? What do you mean by that? If that is supposed to be a statement about aspects of my private personal life, whether or not that is true is irrelevant, and it is not an appropriate thing to be guessing about or publicly disclosing. This is not the first time you have unnecessarily leapt to a presumption that the "other side" (which itself is an unfair way of characterizing editors who disagree with you) appears to for the most part share the same faith. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 02:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I believe you did, about a year ago. If you did not I apologize but if you don't want to have to reveal details like that don't make edits in those topic areas, if you do there is zero expectation of privacy. Again I did not request the non-LDS reviewer, I don't have a problem with a LDS reviewer. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You say there is "zero expectation of privacy" on Wikipedia. This is false. According to a written Wikipedia behavioral guideline, Wikipedia's policy against harassment, and in particular the prohibition against disclosing personal information, takes precedence. I do not remember telling you things about my private life. Do not claim such knowledge one way or another. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand, when you edit COI topics you have no expectation of privacy when it comes to the COI. If you don't want anyone to know that you're a Martian don't edit a hundred articles about Mars and have hundreds of edits at Marvin the Martian and War of the Worlds. I will however "forget" that personal information about you if that is your wish. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one misunderstanding. The written Wikipedia behavioral guideline for conflicts of interest makes this abundantly clear. The guideline directly states the following (this is a direct quote): Wikipedia's policy against harassment, and in particular the prohibition against disclosing personal information, takes precedence over this guideline. The prohibition against disclosing personal information takes precedence over the conflict of interest policy. Editors who believe they are responding to potential conflicts of interest therefore must do so without violating the policy against harassment or the prohibition against disclosing personal information. Rather than violate other users' privacy, editors should follow the page's advice for how to handle conflicts of interest.
I do not remember disclosing personal information to you one way or another, so I don't see how you could be "forget[ting]" any such undisclosed information. What I remember happening a year ago is that you sweepingly assumed that editors who disagreed with you must have been Mormons (the "other side" appears to for the most part share the same faith).
In any case, mere affiliation socially or religiously is not on its own a conflict of interest. As the Wikipedia behavioral guideline for conflicts of interest states, How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. I would say there would be no conflict of interest in the case of an American editor contributing to pages about, say, classic American literature like Little Women or American Gods, or in the case of a Buddhist editor contributing to a page about the Lotus Sutra, or to a Mormon editor contributing to a page about the Book of Mormon. It is common sense that there would be a conflict of interest if Abigail May Alcott Nieriker, sister of Little Women author Louisa May Alcott, contributed to Wikipedia pages about Little Women or its character Meg March, or if Amanda Palmer, ex-wife of American Gods author Neil Gaiman contributed to Wikipedia pages about American Gods or its character Shadow Moon, or if Deseret Book Company president Laurel Christensen Day contributed to a Wikipedia page about Deseret Book. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 05:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a significant conflict of interest most of the time, but it is a conflict of interest. I think you're confusing the two. I would also note that organized religions generally come with a significant financial relationship, thats where most people get in trouble. As for the comic book style obvious COI editing you describe, I mean yeah... We have that too, Thmazing for example. This is drifting off track though, I must have been mistaken and I apologize regarding what I must have misremembered you disclosing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Horse Eye's Back and P-Makoto: noting two things here: 1) I do not feel comfortable with promoting a hook which relies heavily on the sources under discussion, and 2) I would feel a lot more comfortable if the ongoing discussion on the article talk page was instead resolved at WP:RSN. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This whole debate seems to be on the notability of a few of the subjects and if the sources make them notable, right? (throw out my idea if I'm not understanding this discussion correctly) An idea, then: Horse Eye's Back, you could nominate whichever one you feel is non-notable for deletion at AFD, and if its kept, well, then this DYK nomination passes and everyone stops arguing, if not, then it isn't promoted. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for whether you are understanding the discussion correctly, I am admittedly not sure myself. I'm not sure what the debate is on because Horse Eye's Back explicitly stated that Determining the notability of Coriantumr (Son of Omner) is not the aim of this thread, so I am not sure what the concerns were and/or are. I thought that notability was the concern, so when HEB said determining notability was not the aim, I thought the matter was resolved, and that's why I promoted the hook. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: Pinging for an update on this nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, the article is still tagged, so... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coriantumr (son of Omer) takes significant portions of its text from the preexisting article Coriantumr, as noted in its creation edit. I've conservatively calculated the number of prose characters copied at 431. Per WP:DYKSPLIT, the 431 must be expanded fivefold, which would require an article of 2155 prose characters; the article is currently 1765. Given this along with all the other issues, I don't see how this article can be included as a bold link in the DYK, though the other two articles seem eligible. I don't believe the review mentions which of the hooks are passed, but either they should be recast without the son of Omer, or he should be placed last with a non-bold link. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This may lean a little silly, but if suggesting a hook is acceptable, I personally like the idea of something along the following lines:
P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regrettably, all three of the articles split from the original Coriantumr article are not eligible for DYK, since the bulk of the edits were done prior to October 7, and the individual articles not nominated until October 19. Looking at the article history for Coriantumr, the article had 7584 prose characters as of the last edit prior to Heidi Pusey BYU's first edits to the article on September 25, and 9504 prose characters as of October 17, so about a 25% expansion, very far from the 5x required for expansions. Comparing even back from October 19 to October 9, the changes to the imported text to the three articles are insignificant compared to the overall quantity of material copied. The seven-day limit is there for a reason; while it may have flex, it doesn't have nearly that much. I'm sorry for the bad news. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Thank you for your input on this matter. Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources[edit]

@P-Makoto: can you explain why you think that the pronunciation guide is a primary source but the other three aren't? churchofjesuschrist.org, Herald Publishing House and Deseret Book all appear to be Church publications of LDS denominations. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simply for the sake of clarity, Herald House is not affiliated with the LDS Church. Its association is with a completely different denomination, called Community of Christ.
According to the policy page on Wikipedia, a primary source is Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent sources. An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source for the outcome of that experiment. For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources. Historical documents such as diaries are as well.
The books written by Largey, Bingman, and Sorensen are not sources written by witnesses to Coriantumr. They are not breaking news about or diaries from Coriantumr. They are not sources that are close to the "event", and they were not written by people "directly involved". I do not see how any of that is even reasonably possible, inasmuch as Coriantumr is a figure in a book.
A document somehow (emphasis on that) written by Coriantumr would be a primary source. A document personally penned by Jospeh Smith would be a primary source, inasmuch as he dictated the book Coriantumr is found in.
None of that is the case for the sources you are claiming are primary sources. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 08:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Community of Christ is a Latter Day Saint denomination. Who does the Community of Christ say wrote the book that Coriantumr is found in? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 08:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is the relevance of this question? I will answer, but you have not given a reason for asking.
The answer is that Community of Christ holds no official position on the question you posed. As historian David Howlett explains, Members [of Community of Christ (CofC)] think of the Book of Mormon in various ways. No one is required to believe in the Book of Mormon to be a member of the Community of Christ; only Jesus is seen as worthy of “belief in,” as one of my CofC theologian friends reminds me constantly. In addition, the CofC First Presidency does not require that members hold a certain belief about the Book of Mormon’s historicity. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 09:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like he's saying that the Community of Christ is LDS (Mormon) and recognized the Book of Mormon as scripture. Do you still deny that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would point out that, per the Encyclopædia Britannica, Community of Christ does not accept the appellation Mormon.
Did I ever deny that there are members of Community of Christ recognize the Book of Mormon as scripture? Some do; some do not. That is what Howlett wrote: "Members [of Community of Christ (CofC)] think of the Book of Mormon in various ways. No one is required to believe in the Book of Mormon to be a member of the Community of Christ" (emphasis added).
My question to you is, why would that make it so a source written by a member of Community of Christ, or published by Herald House—or for that matter published by Deseret Book—is a primary source? The Wikipedia content guideline page does not define primary sources that way. As quoted earlier, Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved.
Would you say that because the publisher Eerdman's was founded by Calvinist Christians, a biblical studies book like The Parables of Jesus: A Commentary becomes a "primary source" even though it was published 2,000 years after Jesus and his parables?
Do you mean that because Thomas Jefferson founded the University of Virginia, an academic monograph like Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings: An American Controversy (published by the University of Virginia Press) is a primary source?
Your apparent standard for what is a primary source is not the same as that of Wikipedia. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The LDS Church doesn't accept the appellation Mormon anymore either... Yes the case could be made that the coverage of Thomas Jefferson by the University of Virginia would be non-independent, but what would be the point? Nobody is disputing that Thomas Jefferson is a notable topic and we have hundreds of completely independent sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to throw in my 2¢ that the LDS church is absolutely financially invested in the religious texts it publishes, and in fact has a financial relationship with every tithing member of the church that goes rather beyond that of most other religions. Materials concerning the interests of an organization that are published by the organization or its members are not independent of the organization. That definitely excludes all scholarship coming from BYU (as it is owned and operated by the church). I would actually go so far to say that this article has substantial NPOV issues due to all of its sources being written by members of the LDS faith, especially when the authors are engaging with the topic as if it is part of a historically accurate narrative rather than as a work of literature. JoelleJay (talk) 04:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
all of its sources being written by members of the LDS faith
First, this is a false statement. Margaret Bingman, author of Encyclopedia of the Book of Mormon (cited on the page), is a member of a denomination called Community of Christ. She is not Mormon.
Second, I maintain that this would not matter anyway. Mormons donating money to a church that exists in the twenty-first century does not create a financial relationship with a figure from a public domain book published in 1830 (and the church gives away copies of this book for free, moreover). Or do Americans who pay taxes to the United States government have a financial relationship to the U. S. Constitution, or to Alexander Hamilton? Do we consider American historian Ron Chernow's Alexander Hamilton not independent of Alexander Hamilton?
especially when the authors are engaging with the topic as if it is part of a historically accurate narrative rather than as a work of literature
First, I would point out that The Annotated Book of Mormon, a source cited on this page which was published by renowned academic publisher Oxford University Press, states: the book [i. e. the Book of Mormon] may be of interest in terms of American history, religion, literature, and popular culture, or the broader fields of religious studies, biblical reception, and world scripture (bolding added).
Second, discussion on the WikiProject Christianity talk page concludes that using sources that expressly support the view that the Book of Mormon is a historically accurate account is acceptable—Wikipedia relies on similar sources for its coverage of Catholicism, Hinduism, and many other major world religions. As contributors to Wikipedia, we should not have Wikipedia repeat as fact statements that are not NPOV, of course, but if there is NPOV content in such sources, the NPOV portions can be drawn on and summarized without problem. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I said LDS faith specifically because it includes other LDS movements.
Scholarship controlled by the church is not independent of the interests of the church, especially when it is generated within the constraints on academic freedom maintained by BYU.
We are allowed to use sources that are by adherents, they just should not be the only sources on a topic.
And a project-level discussion with three participants is nowhere near the consensus needed to legislate on source independence re: notability or NPOV. JoelleJay (talk) 07:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, I would point out that in a Salt Lake Tribune article cited on the Wikipedia page you linked, non-Mormon scholar Laurie Maffly-Kipp is interviewed to state that the existence of BYU's mission expectations doesn’t mean that the scholarship that comes out of BYU “isn’t outstanding,” Maffly-Kipp says. And such tensions over a university’s mission are hardly unique to religiously related schools. "There are plenty of state schools that are facing threats from political factions in their states that want to steer the ways that faculty are teaching (e.g., forbidding the teaching of critical race theory)," Maffly-Kipp says. Pressure on academics is not unique to BYU or to religious schools. I would join others in hoping that there in the future there is more academic freedom at BYU. But that Wikipedia page on its own has not established a reason to consider all scholarship coming from BYU (referencing your words), whether publications in periodicals like BYU Studies (cited plenty by non-Mormon scholars in Mormon studies), or from institutions like the Maxwell Institute (likewise cited and respected the wider field of Mormon studies), to somehow be "primary sources" (as Horse Eye's Back claimed they were) even when they do not meet Wikipedia's primary source definition (original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved), or to so inherently violate NPOV they cannot establish notability.
Second, even whatever one thinks of institutions with Latter-day Saint affiliation, what do Herald House and Oxford University Press as publishers have to do with BYU? Why should concerns about academic constraints at BYU cast doubt on material published by Herald House (a publisher not affiliated with BYU) or Oxford University Press (an academic publisher without any Latter Day Saint affiliations)? You speak of your belief that adherent-authored sources "should not be the only sources on a topic"; I think think that even within that point of view, Oxford University Press' The Annotated Book of Mormon provides an example of a publication produced beyond denominational affiliation. You could point out that Grant Hardy, author of the annotations and essays in the book, is a Latter-day Saint, but he is not in charge of Oxford University Press. If the annotations and essays in the book were poor scholarship, Oxford University Press would reject his book proposal and not publish him. The press itself is an academic publisher independent of denominations, and it practices editorial and peer review. Its decision to publish The Annotated Book of Mormon carries significant weight in understanding the annotations and essays inside it as part of the academic fields of Mormon studies and religious studies. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 14:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Outstanding non-independent sources don't count towards notability any more than non-outstanding ones do. There's no issue with using them, they just don't count towards notability. The Oxford University Press source does not appear to give significant coverage to the topic of this page Coriantumr (son of Omer). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The publisher being independent doesn't make non-independent authorship independent. It still means that only non-independent researchers have taken enough interest in the topic to write significantly on it, which is what the whole point is when understanding independence in the context of notability. When someone writes a biography of their relative and publishes it in a respected independent publisher, the biography is still a non-independent source: WRT notability, the fact that the person is a relative suggests that relationship was a motivating factor in the author choosing that subject to write about, and therefore doesn't represent the interest of the world at large in the subject; WRT NPOV, there is a much greater chance the author chose which material to highlight based on their personal feelings on the subject, or to promote themselves/family, rather than based on the real-world importance of any particular aspect of the subject. Of course there are also many motivating factors and biases involved in any independent creative work that can jeopardize NPOV as well, but those are much harder to identify and will still at least reflect evaluation of the topic from a more distant position.
For Herald House, it's obvious how its relationship with CoC/LDS (it is literally an instrument of CoC) would substantial influence what kind of content it publishes:

Herald Publishing House serves as an integral part of the Community of Christ by partnering in creation, devising the plan, facilitating the production, communicating with the customer, and distributing to market, resources specific to denominational needs and the needs of the global community.

It has a vested interest in promoting a positive image of LDS faith and in maintaining the integrity of its belief system. It's not possible to say its exploration of any particular LDS subject is due to broader interest rather than simply representative of niche insider interest (in the same way a company might support deep-dives into the details of its history that no one outside the company cares about). The same goes for active members of either movement, due to their significant financial and social contributions to the church and adherence to doctrine/ideology. JoelleJay (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The publisher being independent doesn't make non-independent authorship independent. . . . When someone writes a biography of their relative and publishes it in a respected independent publisher, the biography is still a non-independent source
Why is the respected independent publisher's interest (in this case, Oxford University Press) in the source irrelevant? Being published involves editorial review, and for many presses (including Oxford University Press) peer review as well, which means several stages at which the publisher could decide that the subject isn't notable and doesn't warrant publication. Publishers don't publish books as mere favors to strangers; they publish books whose scholarship they consider notable.
For Herald House
Yes, Herald House is affiliated with Community of Christ. However:
First, that does not answer my question about why conditions at BYU would be relevant to Herald House. You seemed to imply that your observation about BYU made all the sources cited on this page suspect, but BYU is not affiliated with Community of Christ or Herald House. BYU is affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), a different denomination.
Second, you state that Herald Houses's interest in any particular LDS subject (by which I will presume you mean "Latter Day Saint movement" rather than "LDS Church") is simply representative of niche insider interest. However, having reasons for interest in a subject is not described as non-independence on the notability guideline page or the independent sources explanatory essay. The explanatory essay frames non-independence as having "financial or legal relationship". What is the financial relationship between Margaret Bingman and Herald House on the one hand as author and publisher, and Coriantumr the subject of the page on the other? Bingman and Herald House as participants in Community of Christ have cultural reasons to be interested in Coriantumr, but that is not the same as having a financial or legal relationship to a character in a public domain book. A history of Herald House published by Herald House would be non-independent, that I can agree with. But to say it has no independence from Coriantumr seems to me as strange as saying that because Bethany College is affiliated with the Disciples of Christ, its publications have no independence from Alexander Campbell's hymn "Upon the Banks of Jordan Stood", or that because the American Historical Association was chartered by the United States government, its American Historical Review would have no independence from Alexander Hamilton's poetry, such as his "Omicron". Having a historical and cultural association with Cambpell doesn't make Bethany College financially dependent on "Upon the Banks of Jordan Stood"; having a historical and cultural association with the United States doesn't make the AHR financially dependent on "Omicron"; having a historical and cultural association with Joseph Smith doesn't make Herald House financially dependent on Coriantumr.
I'm aware that Community of Christ and the LDS Church have historically practiced what they call tithing, or membership donating money to the respective denominations. However, that financial relationship does not seem to be what the explanatory essay on independent sources refers to. The essay speaks of your company or employer. If Bingman was dependent on Coriantumr for money—if Coriantumr were her employer—that would be non-independence. Americans pay taxes to the United States government, but does that make American scholars non-independent of the United States' history and literature? Or if a scholar of a nation participates in fundraising for its causes (for an example, Timothy Snyder is a historian of Ukraine who also fundraises for Ukrainian causes], is that scholar's scholarship non-independent?
Finally, if I may, your applying the abbreviation LDS (very frequently used to refer to specifically the LDS Church) to Community of Christ (a denomination different from the LDS Church) is very confusing. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LDS generally means all LDS (the fundamentalists are overrepresented in the popular imagination), LDS Church generally means the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The only one in all of the conversations who keeps confusing LDS and LDS Church is you if I'm not mistaken. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the independence issue its a spectrum not a binary, even if you are working from a binary if you try to understand it by working backwards. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Publishers are given zero weight because they are not the ones actually producing the SIGCOV. We don't evaluate the GNG notability of a topic based on whether it has ever been simply recognized as important; we evaluate based on how much has actually been said about it by completely independent authors in RS. A study published in Nature on a drug by the pharma company that manufactures it is not transformed into an independent analysis of the drug's importance just because the journal and the reviewers are independent. They're not the ones actually writing their evaluation of the topic.
"Financial involvement" is not just "employer v employee". "Financial interest" is not only limited to selling a product directly related to the article subject. LDS movements depend on membership for funding, therefore they have a vested interest in promoting content that supports their ideology and suppressing that which does not. Unlike e.g. Abrahamic scriptures, material in the BoM etc. is not considered a document of ancient civilization with any historical interest or utility by anyone outside apologia: its relevance is both exclusive to LDS adherents and regulated by one or the other denomination through doctrinal control. It is not separable from the religion, thus analysis of LDS scripture from within the religion cannot be independent as it is analysis of itself. This would be true even if the scholarly research wasn't being directly funded and disseminated by the church(es). JoelleJay (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I must frankly disagree with your total deemphasis of publishers. Otherwise, there would be no purpose to Wikipedia guidelines about self-published sources like blogs. There is a significant difference between the notability The Annotated Book of Mormon can be taken as affirming as a publication of Oxford University Press, versus the notability parallel content published on a personal website would affirm. The editors at Oxford University Press may not have written every word of the annotations, but they reviewed them, and if the publication process there is anything like the publication process at other reputable academic presses, there was likely back and forth; pushback from editors against things Hardy wrote, instructions to change this or that, etc.—a whole dynamic that doesn't exist in self-published sources.
Secondly, while I will not reiterate the reasons for my disagreements about financial relationships, independence, and notability—I have laid my thoughts out sufficiently clearly I think, and we seem simply to disagree—I think it is important to push back against your very sweeping claim that because material in the BoM etc. is not considered a document of ancient civilization it therefore cannot have any historical interest or utility by anyone outside apologia making its relevance ... exclusive to LDS adherents. A document does not need to be considered a depiction of reality to still be relevant to people. The biblical Book of Daniel and the Book of Job are widely agreed by biblical scholars to be fictitious, but they are not therefore less relevant to world literature and religious studies than the historical books of the Bible. The first president of the Book of Mormon Studies Association was John Christopher Thomas, a Pentecostal with no Latter Day Saint background and no devotional commitment to the Book of Mormon, and certainly no apologist. And a graduate seminar on the Book of Mormon in American literature has been taught at the University of Vermont. Whatever one concludes about the notability of Coriantumr (son of Omer) or the independence of the particular sources cited on this page, it is a wholesale misrepresentation of the state of Book of Mormon studies to say it and the book can have no relevance to anyone other than apologists.
The Book of Mormon is not solely relevant to this or that denomination, or this or that religious movement, any more than the Quran and its depiction of Gabriel taking Mohammed into heaven would be relevant only to Muslims, or any more than The Lord of the Rings and its depiction of non-real characters like Pippin Took would be relevant only to some hypothetical group that believes Middle Earth is real. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia reason we distinguish between content published by an academic publishing house versus a personal blog is one of reliability, not notability or independence. If simply having an independent publisher was enough to make a work independent, we would have no issues with autobiographies being used to support notability of their subjects. You may disagree with this, but consensus is very strong that all links in the chain of publication must be independent.
I said material in the BoM etc. is not considered a document of ancient civilization with any historical interest or utility by anyone outside apologia. I am talking only about its use and relevance as a historical document on ancient civilizations, not about its impact in other domains. This is important because it means we have very little historical/archaeological/anthropological interest from non-apologists in the topics at hand, and therefore it is difficult to balance the corresponding in-universe approach and discourse provided by LDS scholars, as required by FRINGE. JoelleJay (talk) 02:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not quite that "simply" having an independent publisher is enough to make a work reliable and/or independent. I would agree that autobiographies and memoirs are not independent works. However, I arrive at that conclusion because they are not subjected to the same forms of editorial and peer review as other forms of nonfiction. Autobiographies and memoirs are often published for their literary value, their lyrical quality and prose (such that publication of a memoir or autobiography may not attest the relevance of the subject so much as the enjoyability of the reading experience), rather than for having informative or analytical contributions to the fields of knowledge in the way that encyclopedias, journal articles, and other forms of nonfictional works are reviewed. Writing about the culture, religion, political movement, etc. that one affiliates with is not the same degree of failure of independence because it is not the same degree of legal and financial relationship (one obviously has both a legal and financial relationship to oneself, as a person, as one would as the subject of an autobiography, inasmuch as the "topi"'s finances and one's own are one and the same).
You may disagree with this, but consensus is very strong that all links in the chain of publication must be independent.
Apparently I do disagree with this. Additionally, I have not found clear evidence of this very strong consensus. After reading Reliable Sources content guideline, the Notability guideline, and an explanatory essay about independent sources, I have not found a mention of a need for "all links in the chain of publication" to be wholly unaffiliated from the topic in question (emphasis added) to the extent that social/cultural/denominational affiliation are insurmountable penalties. I have based my understanding of independence, reliability, and notability on Wikipedia on these written guidelines (and the supportive explanatory essay). P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 03:16, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Someone writing an academic monograph on a relative, or on an org they belong to, is also not considered independent regardless of where the work is published. This is what it means by The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic worth writing and publishing non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it. Scholars paid by their church1234 to write works on its religious texts are not independent. Members of a church publishing books on their church's religious texts through their church's publishing house1 are not independent. A tithing member of the church who studied at a church-owned university but is affiliated with other institutions1 is closer to independence than the other two, but is still an adherent approaching the topics from an adherent's perspective. None of these groups represent interest--in the form of SIGCOV--in the subject from the world at large for wikipedia purposes. Their interpretation of the text is necessarily going to be different from secular or other non-LDS academics, and we see this in the way this article is written, treating BoM as a historical document and theorizing on the motives and reasoning of characters, as well as interpolating info from different stories, as if they actually existed. It would be fine to have such material in an article if it was balanced by commentary from non-adherents approaching the text solely from a religious studies or literary analysis stance and if it was made clearer that the content was ahistorical. This again touches on our FRINGE guideline, which states The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. While the page is not purporting to be a scientific theory, we still run into the issues pointed out above: it would be OR to clarify that non-adherents universally consider the content to be relatively recent fiction, because the current sources do treat it as historically plausible (or at least as inspired testimony from ancient religious texts). JoelleJay (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
but more importantly, WP:PRIMARY sources that need secondary context. Andre🚐 01:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

I read through the long discussion. I don't think progress is being made. If you feel strongly that this page is not notable, please nominate it for deletion so that we can have a discussion with the larger community. If there is consensus that the page is not notable, we can merge the info onto another page. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not generally how it works, the burden is on those who think the article is notable to provide sources which contribute to notability. If that can't be done only then do we need to go to AfD. The solution everyone here wants is a notable article, which is why every chance will be given for notability to be demonstrated. Note the courtesy being extended as COI editors are not allowed to participate substantively in AfD but can participate in a talk page discussion (if this goes to AfD and any do I will be promptly nominating them for a LDS topic ban broadly construed). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Y'all wouldn't be playing games with me now would you[3]? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perplexed as to what you're talking about. Based on the above discussions, notability is likely established and there are no COI editors or sources. (No one [NO ONE] has quoted policy to refute the latter.) And, as for your last comment, what?
So I agree with Rachel. If you think notability's still not established, you should ask the larger community to weigh in. If you're just trying to maintain this conversation for as long as possible, why? No offense, but what is your goal here?Thmazing (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Horse Eye's Back statement that COI editors are not allowed to participate substantively in AfD: according to whom? The only Wikipedia policy on the intersection of COI and AfD I have identified is the Articles for Deletion page stating that editors should Please disclose whether you have a vested interest in the article. Editors who disclose potential COIs, such as by including the name of an employer in their username, are not disallowed from participating in AfD conversations. It remains the case that I don't expect COI to be a major issue; as a figure in a book, Coriantumr cannot possibly be payrolling any Wikipedia editors.
Additionally, your statement that you will be promptly nominating [editors who you believe to have a COI] for a LDS topic ban broadly construed (bolding added) is a drastic escalation. It gives off an impression of possible hostility to these users that is misplaced and unnecessary. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"you should not act as a reviewer of affected article(s) at AfC, new pages patrol or elsewhere;" elsewhere would include acting as a reviewer at AfD. Also note that COI says "you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly;" yet this article was created directly. You have also misquoted me, please do not do so again. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 09:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You were quoted correctly. Everyone here has been striving to assume good faith. How about you? Thmazing (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel that I was, why is out too hard for you to assume good faith about that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is not with notability per se, nor with any editor COI, but with NPOV and FRINGE, which extends from all the refs being from adherents/apologists. The historicity of the topic is a minority view, but all the coverage is from the perspective that BoM is either historical-as-written or is at least an ancient document that may have inaccuracies/metaphor like any other primary scripture; this is an issue because it does not represent how this character is received in the mainstream. For example, Gardner's assessment that capturing the king was a "common tactic" among Jaredites, or that the sons "chose" an attack for reasons not explicitly stated, relies on interpolating/extrapolating the text as if it had historical basis. A secular analysis would ascribe any implied motivations/reasoning from a character to the author, with evidence of authorial intent drawn from both the narrative and the author's background, rather than to the character. Gardner's or Hardy's views would be fine to include if they were balanced by secular sources clearly treating the subject as ahistorical literature/myth, or from a comparative religions stance examining how the story has been incorporated in LDS faith. But if we don't have such sources, then this is equivalent to a page on an Ayurveda decoction sourced only to Ayurveda practitioners, which would fail FRINGE and NPOV regardless of how we framed statements as "in the Sushruta Samhita narrative" and attributed them to Ayurveda scholars. If we don't have evidence that non-Ayurvedic discussion exists on the topic, it should not have a standalone article. The same goes for any other belief system. JoelleJay (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for weighing in.
If I may, I'd like to press back a bit on what you've said that if I understand rightly, implies that ascribing motivation and volition to characters, or making assessments of a setting's mechanics, necessarily means taking on the text as if it had a historical basis. While a secular analysis could ascribe any implied motivations/reasoning from a character to the author, as you put, examining characters as if they were people is also a form of literary analysis.
That's the mode of analysis Grant Hardy generally deploys in his work on the Book of Mormon. In his earlier Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader's Guide (Oxford University Press, 2010), Hardy writes, Imagining the feelings and motivations of literary characters as if they were our friends or acquaintances has always played a large part in the enjoyment of fiction. In the last half century, theorists have produced a number of sophisticated studies explaining the process by which readers come to know characters and why this is a valid response to literature (24). Hardy goes on to describe his academic approach to the Book of Mormon in the following terms: my project, which tries to make sense of the actions and thoughts of the narrators in order to provide a coherent, comprehensive reading of the Book of Mormon as a whole (25).
Other literary theorists writing about the phenomenon in a more general sense have expressed similar models for literary engagement. Peter Lamarque, in Fictional Points of View (Cornell University Press, 1996), writes that Readers, somewhat like scientists or historians, frame and modify hypotheses about fictional content, assessing the quality and connectedness of the data, attempting to construct (fictional) states of affairs such that they render maximally coherent the evidence available (61).
All this to say that I would not characterize Grant Hardy's approach to the topic, or that of publisher Oxford University Press, as a solely uncritically historical approach. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if Hardy's work was explicitly literary analysis, the issue with NPOV would remain because it is still attention from an adherent rather than from outside the faith. JoelleJay (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the editorial material in The Annotated Book of Mormon literary analysis? I'm not sure what else I'd call it. And Oxford University Press is an academic publisher, not a devotional publisher; Hardy may be a Latter-day Saint, but the editors who considered his project worthwhile, notable, and relevant to the field of religious studies made that decision not as adherents, but as academic publishers in the broader field. 23:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC) P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is the editorial material discussing the author's narrative style and drawing comparisons to other mythic accounts, or is it simply summarizing stories and adding in shallow exegetic hypotheses like what is cited in the article? It's certainly not in the New Historicism school of literary criticism...
As has been explained elsewhere, it does not matter who the publishers are if the author is non-independent. It is not critical analysis of the text written by the publishers in their own words. JoelleJay (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New Historicism isn't the only only mode of literary analysis. There are other styles of literary scholarship (including, as Lamarque and Hardy outline, ones that involve imagining the world of a text). As for The Annotated Book of Mormon itself, its editorial material includes commentary pointing out allusions and quotations (whether internal or to and from the Old and New Testaments), signposts to help readers follow along with the Book of Mormon's temporally contorted plot through the multiple flashbacks and internal digressions, and interpretive suggestions (about the structures of books or chapter, the thematic meanings of story arcs, patterns in the plots and setting mechanics, etc.), to name just a few of the kinds of annotations that exist in the text. The appendix also includes several essays, including "The Book of Mormon as Literature" and "Reading the Book of Mormon as Fiction".
it does not matter who the publishers are if the author is non-independent.
I completely disagree. The publisher is critically important to these kinds of questions. The publisher may not personally write the text, but in academic publishing there is both editorial and peer review. Editors review the manuscript and provide feedback, including instructing authors to strike, revise, or rewrite portions; peer reviewers do likewise. I don't see what Oxford University Press would have to gain in uncritically publishing just anything that a hypothetical loose cannon writes. They, and other publishers, review texts, consider the interpretations in light of methodological expectations and the state of the field, and reject texts that either fail to meet academic expectations, fail to describe something notable, or both. If it didn't matter who the publisher was for a source, there would be no purpose to WP:SPS. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are focusing on the more minor issues--surrounding the reference for one sentence used in this article--and still ignoring the larger problem, which is that these references are still written by adherents rather than by mainstream non-faith scholars. Even literary analysis will be very different between a believer and secular academics, and Hardy makes no secret that the Annotated BoM is written from the perspective of a believer I tend to treat the Book of Mormon as historical (I was invited by Oxford to edit the volume from a believer’s point of view), but I also point out anachronisms and try to keep in mind the perspectives of those who regard it as religious fiction. You are not going to get NPOV coverage from sources that treat BoM as historical to any degree, full stop.
And again, that you disagree is completely irrelevant to what independence means on wikipedia. In the context of PAGs, the publisher and peer review afford a degree of reliability above SPS, they do not transform something from non-independent to independent. Publishing in a journal doesn't even turn primary scientific research reports into secondary sources, despite reviewers and the editor providing extensive new experimental design recommendations on top of the textual analysis and feedback that occurs in academic book publishing. If simply getting something published removed one's relationship with the subject, there are about a thousand AfDs I personally would need to bring to DRV. JoelleJay (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I say "I completely disagree", I do not mean "I personally completely disagree"; I mean "I completely disagree with that interpretation of what amounts to independence on Wikipedia, and my sense is that Wikipedia's policy does not require us as editors to banish from our use sources written by authors who are participants in nations, religions, movements, etc. as non-independent and incapable of checking their biases". P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You were making the argument that simply going through the academic publishing process removes non-independence between an author and their subject, which I am rebutting. It now sounds like you are challenging FRINGE in general, or at least the characterization of a text written by a believer in the historicity of BoM and its divine provenance as being FRINGE? JoelleJay (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any intent of challenging FRINGE in general. I agree that Wikipedia should not express fringe beliefs in its own voice; Wikipedia should express what comports with an academic consensus. I disagree, however, with the implication that just because a text's author believes in things like Book of Mormon historicity or divine provenance that the text itself necessarily expresses fringe views. As a practitioner-scholar published by an academic press, Hardy can both be honest about the views he holds in his personal life (I tend to treat the Book of Mormon as historical) and be accountable to tempering and checking those views in order to produce an academically rigorous product that expresses interpretations that can contribute to the academic consensus (I also point out anachronisms and try to keep in mind the perspectives of those who regard it as religious fiction). I don't find it to be a reasonable interpretation of FRINGE and POV to suppose that an author's denominational affiliation renders their texts, regardless of content and publishing context, automatically FRINGE. To elaborate by way of another example, I don't think Mark Noll being an evangelical Christian who believes in miracles and a God-breathed Bible makes his two-part Oxford University Press series on the history of the Bible in American life (In the Beginning Was the Word: The Bible in American Public Life, 1492–1783; America's Book: The Rise and Decline of a Bible Civilization, 1794–1911) FRINGE; he's honest about his faith commitments but still holds himself to academic standards, and Oxford University Press holds him to those standards too. Both Hardy and Noll can hold, in their personal lives, views different from the academic consensus but still, in their scholarly lives, produce academically meaningful work, even while they write as believers about texts they consider sacred.
A discussion on the WikiProject Christianity page held that using sources that expressly support the view that the Book of Mormon is a historically accurate account is acceptable—Wikipedia relies on similar sources for its coverage of Catholicism, Hinduism, and many other major world religions. [...] As for characters from scriptures/traditions, Wikipedia generally presents the religiously accepted account of their life and person as discussed in reliable sourcing while also providing the academic appraisal of said persons. Wikipedia doesn't itself express FRINGE views in its own voice, but it can express the hermeneutical interpretations of figures, settings, etc. I maintain that the literary analysis style of Lamarque and Hardy, of imagining the world of a text non-real though that world may be, is a valid form of scholarly engagement. Saying that, for example, night attacks are or aren't common is an assessment of the Book of Mormon setting, based on its representation in the text; the setting's existence is irrelevant to the meaningfulness of the interpretation, which can still mean something whether one takes it to be real, myth, or fiction. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 08:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I've never asked for an administrator to weigh in on a discussion before, but this is going in circles and it doesn't need to continue. Does anyone feel it would be inappropriate to ask admin to join us? Thmazing (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In discussions admins are the same as any other editor. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. ;) Thmazing (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the conflict of interest here and whom? I don't quite understand how one can have one with a minor figure from a religious text. Is the suggestion that one being religious gives one a COI on all religious subjects? (in which case, that would be ridiculous - would that mean, if I were a Christian, that I would suddenly be COI-restricted from doing any work relating to Christianity?) BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Send to AFD unless salvagable I was recruited here from WP:FTN, but I'm inclined to agree that the article is problematic. A reader viewing this text might easily come away with the mistaken impression that Coriantumr is viewed by historians as a historic figure, when he is actually viewed as somewhere between a fictional character or a faith-based being. But we do have plenty of articles on both fictional characters and faith-based beings, so the concerns can be overcome with sufficient RSes. The standard is coverage in "independent reliable sources, outside the sourcing ecosystem of the fringe theory itself". There are lots of non-Hindus who write about Vishnu and his significance, for example. Right now, I'm not seeing any independent sourcing for the notability of any of the three Coriantumrs. Merge the synopses content to Book of Ether where appropriate. Feoffer (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hope that readers wouldn't come away with the impression that there's a consensus on Coriantumr's historicity, when the page narrates him only in the present tense. I wonder if a background section providing context about the book's production by dictation in the nineteenth century would make a difference?
Second, I would posit out that there are sources from "outside the sourcing ecosystem of the fringe theory itself". The Annotated Book of Mormon comes from Oxford University Press. And Margaret Bingman's Encyclopedia of the Book of Mormon is published by Herald House; although Herald has denominational affiliations with Community of Christ (formerly RLDS Church), that denomination does not officially advocate for Book of Mormon historicity and has moved away from that position since the mid twentieth century.[1]: 61 
Still, on reflection I can understand your assessment of this page specifically. The editorial material in The Annotated Book of Mormon makes just passing reference to Coriantumr (son of Omer). The remaining source which robustly engages Coriantumr (son of Omer) as a subject is the encyclopedic entry in Bingman's Encyclopedia of the Book of Mormon (which is written specifically about this Coriantumr). However, to be notable subjects require two non-incidental reliable sources, not just one. A merge to the book of Ether seems plausible.
I would disagree with that statement that there is no notability of any of the three Coriantumrs. Having contributed to the Coriantumr (last Jaredite king) page, I see sufficient sources treating it as a non-incidental subject. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC) P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with merging all three articles, as proposed by Feoffer. As indirectly shown above by Feoffer, the topics of all three pages are minor characters who are hardly as well known or covered by reliable non-affiliated sources as other faith-based characters such as Vishnu. Hence merging is the most appropriate action. Also, at the Oxford University Press website there is a description of the Annotated version of the BoM. (click the "Description" tab at this url). I doubt very much that there is much, if any, critical analysis on the topic of this article. I think a topic such as Vishnu can provide a template for how articles pertaining to faith-based characters should be written. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the Editor's Preface [4] in The Annotated Book of Mormon much of this work references itself along with "abundant references to the Bible." This does not indicate sourcing for notability on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter if it has been published by Oxford University Press, as noted above.
Also, Oxford University Press has published an annotated Bible [5] and New Testament guides [6], [7], [8]. OUP also publishes about Buddhism [9], [10].
So it is not remarkable that a version of the Book of Mormon has been published by OUP. I think one of the main intents behind the Annotated BoM is make the BoM much more accessible to a modern LDS audience and not necessarily intended to add to scholarship on LDS or the BoM.---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "I know of no one in the leadership of the Community of Christ who accepts the Book of Mormon as a work of history", in Launius, Roger D. (Winter 2006). "Is Joseph Smith Relevant to the Community of Christ?". Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. 39 (4): 58–67. JSTOR 45227214.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coriantumr_(son_of_Omer)&oldid=1220236928"