![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
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)
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.
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.
General eligibility:
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
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)
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 |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
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)
|
---|
|
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)
@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)
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.
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)
Community of Christ does not accept the appellation Mormon.
Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved.
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
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).
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)
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.
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)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.
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
For Herald House
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.
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?
material in the BoM etc. is not considered a document of ancient civilizationit therefore cannot have
any historical interest or utility by anyone outside apologiamaking 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.
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)
You may disagree with this, but consensus is very strong that all links in the chain of publication must be independent.
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)
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)
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.
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)
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.
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).
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).
it does not matter who the publishers are if the author is non-independent.
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
References