Talk:Coriantumr (last Jaredite king)

Coriantumr

The information from this page was copied and pasted from the Coriantumr Wikipedia page in an attempt to begin creating three separate pages. Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

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)
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:

• Coriantumr (last Jaredite king)
• Coriantumr (son of Omer)
• Coriantumr (Nephite dissenter)

)

• ... 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.

• 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)

• 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)

• 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:

• New enough:
• Long enough: - no

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

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)

• 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)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

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)

Detailed discussion of sourcing and conflicts of interest. Collapsing so WP:DYKNA isn't overwhelmed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) @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) 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) 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) Though, I don't quite understand how one can be the owner of a religion? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) @Heidi Pusey BYU: who is the "we" in your opening statement? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• @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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • On Coriantumr (son of Omer), there are notability and POV tags. This nomination cannot be resolved until those issues are fixed, so I would recommend AfDing it as a matter of principle. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: Pinging for an update on this nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I mean, the article is still tagged, so... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

This may lean a little silly, but if suggesting a hook is acceptable, I personally like the idea of something along the following lines:

• ALT2: ... that Coriantumr, Coriantumr, and Coriantumr are all found in the Book of Mormon?

P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

You're right. Thank you for your input on this matter. Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Notability

@P-Makoto: would you be so kind as to explain which sources you feel give significant coverage of the topic? As far as I can tell none of the sources we have do, we only have passing mentions like the encyclopedia entry. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

My apologies for any misrepresentation. However, I disagree with your edit summary claiming there was "deliberate misrepresentation". Any misrepresentation that took place was unintentional. You said that concern about notability was not the aim of your discussion and interjection here on the talk page. That left me with impression that notability was no longer (and possibly had not been) under dispute.

The encyclopedia entry is not a "passing mention". The encyclopedia entry is an entry dedicated to the figure named Coriantumr. If it were an entry about something else that mentioned Coriantumr only tangentially, rather than an entry about Coriantumr, that might be a passing mention. For example, the singular mention of Coriantumr in John Sorensen, "Book of Mormon Peoples" (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Macmillan, 1992) is a passing mention of Coriantumr, as Sorensen neither narrates nor analyzes Coriantumr.

Additionally, there is sufficient significant coverage of Coriantumr in cited secondary sources. For example (non-exhaustive), Grant Hardy's Understanding the Book of Mormon narrates the king Coriantumr story, as does John Christopher Thomas's A Pentecostal Reads the Book of Mormon (which identifies the king Coriantumr story as "part four" of the book of Ether.

There is also sufficient significant coverage of king Coriantumr in secondary sources that can be used to further develop the page, such as the following non-exhaustive examples, identifiable with a straightforward Google Scholar search:

• Brinley, Douglas E. (1995). "The Jaredites—A Case Study in Following the Brethren". In Nyman, Monte S.; Tate, Charles D. Jr. (eds.). The Book of Mormon: Fourth Nephi Through Moroni, From Zion to Destruction. Religious Studies Center. ISBN 0-8849-4974-5. (a take on the Coriantumr story and its doctrinal meaning in the Latter-day Saint tradition's beliefs about ecclesiastical leadership)
• Draper, Richard (1994). "Hubris and Atē: A Latter-day Warning from the Book of Mormon". Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. 3 (2). ISSN 1065-9366. (narrates and analyzes the Jaredite downfall in Coriantumr's reign)
• Jolley, C. (January 1980). "Coriantumr and Saul: Old Testament Tragic Archetype and Book of Mormon Analog". Rocky Mountain Review of Language and Literature. 34 (3). (a literary analysis of Coriantumr as an analog for the biblical archetype set by Saul)
• Miller, Roger L. (2004). "'Hail, Cumorah! Silent Wonder': Music Inspired by the Hill Cumorah". Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. 13 (1–2). ISSN 1065-9366. (literary analysis of Coriantumr's reception in Coriantumr, the poetic drama written by Clinton F. Larson)

These examples demonstrate that the topic of this page is sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Those sources appear to primarily be covering the Book of Ether, the focus needs to specially be on Coriantumr (last Jaredite king) not just relating that he is part of the story or analyzing the story. The only one that is actually significant coverage is the piece in the Rocky Mountain Review of Language and Literature. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Its not a great source... The author doesn't appear to be a scholar and it looks like Rocky Mountain Review was actually a part of the Association of Mormon Letters at that time [3] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Note that the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies is a product of the Maxwell Institute which is controlled by the LDS Church. It doesn't count towards establishing notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

In covering the book of Ether, these sources give substantial coverage to Coriantumr, who is in the book of Ether. To give just one example, "Coriantumr" appears some fifty times in 20 pages in Brinley (1995). The coverage in all these sources involves description and analysis beyond mere mention. Just because Coriantumr isn't in the title doesn't mean it's not substantial coverage. You are overstating the expectations for establishing notability.

As for the article in the Rocky Mountain Review, first: the Rocky Mountain Review of Language and Literature was in 1980 a publication of the Rocky Mountain Modern Languages Association, an organization founded in 1947, predating the existence of the Association for Mormon Letters by nearly thirty years. The web page you linked is merely noting some years when Rocky Mountain Modern Language Association's conference had panels and sessions on Mormon literature. Note the language used: AML Session. Academic organizations sometimes submit panels to each other's conferences. For example, there will be some panels affiliated with the American Catholic Historical Association at the 2024 American Society of Church History annual meeting. That doesn't mean ACHA and ASCH are the same organization, or part of each other. If anything, that Jolley presented at the Rocky Mountain Modern Language Association seems like it should be considered a sign of the topic's notability. The Rocky Mountain Modern Language Association is a regional but independent branch of the Modern Language Association, the premier U. S. organization for the academic study of the humanities and literature writ large, and it accepted Jolley's paper as covering a notable and meaningful subject worth the conference's attention.

Second, there is no reason that affiliation with the Association for Mormon Letters would be a problem anyway. Simple social affiliation does not disqualify a source's independence. As we have discussed before, clear non-independence is established by legal and financial relation. The claims you are making would imply that the Catholic Historical Review published by the Catholic University of America can't establish notability for Catholic topics, or that the Howard Journal of Communications published by Howard University (a historically Black university) can't establish notability for topics in African American studies. That is an unreasonable standard, and it is not Wikipedia's standard.

That same vein addresses the matter of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies sufficiently. The Journal of Book of Mormon Studies is a peer-reviewed periodical with an editorial board. The journal is printed as a joint effort by the Maxwell Institute and the University of Illinois Press, both of which are academic institutions. Just as publications from Baylor University Press, affiliated with the Baptist General Convention of Texas, can still establish the notability of topics in biblical studies, so too articles in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies can still establish the notability of topics in Mormon studies and Book of Mormon studies. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes... In general you need non-Catholic sources to have a notable Catholic topic... If all you have is Church writings then you don't have a notable topic. Brinley is from the Religious Studies Center so not independent. The Journal of Book of Mormon Studies is not a " a joint effort by the Maxwell Institute and the University of Illinois Press" its wholly an effort of the Maxwell Institute which is published *on its behalf* by the University of Illinois Press... Meaning that it carries no academic endorsement from the University of Illinois Press. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

You characterize the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies and Catholic Historical Review and Religious Studies Center as "Church writings". However, if you mean to imply that they are simply publishers of devotional literature, that is inaccurate. These publishers have denominational affiliations, but they are also participants in academic scholarship. This goes back to the example I spoke of earlier: Baylor University Press is Baptist-affiliated but nevertheless independent of Christian topics like biblical studies. Likewise, the Maxwell Institute has Latter-day Saint organizational affiliations but its publications nevertheless can establish the significance of topics in the Latter Day Saint movement.

These are institutions and publications that apply standards of editorial and peer review and which engage the worlds of academia. Simple affiliation with a movement or culture is not on its own non-independence or conflict of interest. Or do you mean to say that American university publishers can't establish the notability of American history, or that journalists who use Twitter can't establish the significance of events in the history of Twitter, or that Verso Books (formerly New Left Books) as a publisher can't establish the significance of topics in the history of the New Left?

As for UIP and the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, do you believe the University of Illinois Press would be publishing a journal without academic merit? University publishing is not a candy store; it's not as though just anyone could go up to the UIP and pay money to be published. That would jeopardize the UIP's reputation as a publisher. It's interested in publishing on behalf of respected institutions (such as the Maxwell Institute is, as an institution which advances the field of Mormon studies) and publications (such as the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies). P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 02:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

You keep making these straw men... Stop. It would not jeopardize the UIP's reputation as a publisher because its published on behalf of someone else, avoiding reputational damage is actually one of the main reasons for using the "published on behalf of" setup. For UIP it is a purely commercial relationship, its not academic in any way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, and I think it is sufficient to leave it at that because I have elaborated on the reasons quite extensively on this page by this point. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes you have... Overelaborated even. Let me know if you end up finding better sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Assessing the article

@Horse Eye's Back: You recently reassessed this article, without explanation in the edit summary or on this page, from B-class to Start-class. Would you care to explain why you did so? Which of the B-Class criteria does it fail? According to the editing guideline for content assessment, in a B-Class article, Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher. That is to say, an article that can satisfy an average reader can be B-class, even if it is not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher.

Bear in mind that per the editing guideline for content assessment, even an article with significant problems is still appropriately rated C-class, not Start-class (and you did not express any significant problems in the edit summary of your reassessment). A Start-class article is still quite incomplete. However, this article summarizes the full narrative of king Coriantumr . What are the B-class criteria that the article fails? It would be helpful if you are more specific about the criteria and about which parts of the article fall short than Not a B....

Looking at the article, I believe it is at least C-class. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

A lack of established notability is a significant problem. If we can solve that issue then C-class would also be reasonable, but it definitely leaves readers wanting which means that B is off the table. We have considerable editing to left to do it seems. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I have already explained my reasons for disagreeing with you about the notability in an above thread on this page. There are sufficient sources that establish the topic's notability.

According to you, the article leaves readers wanting. However, you did not say anything about what more they would want from this article. I asked you in my previous comment to please explain "What are the B-class criteria that the article fails?" I added that "It would be helpful if you are more specific about the criteria and about which parts of the article fall short". Why did you not do so? Why did you provide no specific explanation of what parts of the article leave readers wanting?

I explained specifically why I think the article is not incomplete. I pointed out that it summarizes the full narrative of king Coriantumr. I add here that the article moreover has an additional section about Coriantumr's reception in literature. I think the average reader curious about king Coriantumr in the Book of Mormon would be left quite satisfied by this page. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

But much of the section about Coriantumr's reception in literature is undue, its poetry and such without any secondary source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I can agree that the paragraphs which do not cite secondary sources are not as due. I have trimmed the paragraphs that cited only primary sources, leaving in place the material which cites a book published by Oxford University Press and an article published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you by any chance have access to Edward? Its the best one we have and it seems like the sort of source whose citations might lead us to other sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't personally have a copy of Americanist Approaches on hand at the time of writing. If you wish to contribute to the main page of this or to other articles with Book of Mormon studies topics, it likely makes sense to spend time reading publications in the field of Book of Mormon studies so that you are familiar with the scholarship and can cite sources to add content.

In any case, whether or not it is the "best" one, it is not the only one. I provided citations to four other articles in the Notability section of this talk page, the quality of which I have sufficiently explained. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the field, thats why I don't think its notable. We've been over why those articles are questionable, are you sure thats the best you can find? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)