Talk:Coriantumr (Nephite dissenter)

Coriantumr
The information for this article was copied and pasted from the main Coriantumr Wikipedia page in an attempt to create three separate Coriantumr character pages. Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 22:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Notability
where are you seeing significant coverage in independent reliable sources? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * As mentioned in the edit summary, the page includes citations to a university press book (The Annotated Book of Mormon, published by Oxford University Press) and an independent press with a reputation for academic publications (Second Witness, published by Greg Kofford Books). Oxford University Press' independence and reliability as an academic press seems to go without saying. Any question about Greg Kofford Books I would answer by stating that the Brill-published anthology American Sociology of Religion: Histories identifies Greg Kofford Books as a press that "specializes in Mormon studies" and publishes "important works" in that field (124). The additional sources beyond those further establish the subject's sufficient notability for Wikipedia sources. As the notability guideline states, "There is no fixed number of sources", though "multiple sources are generally expected". 17:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC) P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The The Annotated Book of Mormon does not appear to give significant coverage of the topic. I don't have access to Second Witness but what you've presented does not in general suggest that Greg Kofford Books is generally reliable. Also what additional independent sources? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * May I ask for your reasons and/or evidence for believing that coverage is not significant, and for disagreeing with the assessment of Greg Kofford Books articulated in an academic anthology published by Brill, an academic press?
 * By "additional sources beyond those" (where "those" means The Annotated Book of Mormon and Second Witness) I meant the sources that are cited on the page: The Encyclopedia of the Book of Mormon Book of Mormon Reference Companion, and Warfare in the Book of Mormon. I would emphasize that these sources are, on the page as it presently exists, used in conjunction with Annotated Book of Mormon and Second Witness. They are not used in isolation but are triangulated with the other sources. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It appears to be a passing mention. Brill does not say that Greg Kofford Books meets out reliability standards in this context, I am not disagreeing with Brill in any way. Even if we take them to be reliable, is the coverage in the book of this topic significant? Triangulation is not part of the notability equation, independence is (specifically non-independent sources don't count). Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Why do you believe that a press that "specializes in Mormon studies" and publishes "important works" in that field should not be considered reliable to cite on a page that falls within Mormon studies (insofar as Book of Mormon studies is part of Mormon studies)? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You haven't even demonstrated that the book actually contains significant coverage of Coriantumr (Nephite Dissenter)... So we're working backwards. Please do so. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I was replying to your claim that Greg Kofford Books was not "generally unreliable".
 * It seems that neither of us are in personal possession of the book Second Witness at this moment. I think that as we have no reason to distrust judgment of the editor who has been expanding this page and helping it meet notability and reliability guidelines, we should feel free to trust their sense that the coverage is sufficient to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. We should also keep in mind that as there are many different editors on Wikipedia, it's possible that our read of Wikipedia policies will slightly differ in degree, though hopefully not in kind. I hope that there can be sufficient respect between editors that one can accept it if what one thinks of the notability of an article is different from what other editors think of the notability of the article. I for one think that coverage of the subject of this page is sufficient for it to count as notable. Especially when compared to comparable subjects of other pages from the study of various religions, such as Adathan and Yadathan and Kalqa'il. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That person has not asserted that the source contains significant coverage. If you weren't committed to demonstrating the notability why did you remove the tag? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe the notability of the subject for Wikipedia's purposes has been sufficiently demonstrated on this page. That is why I removed the tag. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You removed the tag before the discussion on this page. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note that neither Adathan and Yadathan or Kalqa'il appear to meet our notability guidelines either... You can't point to other deficiencies to justify a deficiency. It does however make my life easier, you would not imagine how many non-notable or in need of improvement pages have been identified by people saying "Oh yeah! But X, Y, and Z meet that same criteria and nobody is questioning them" Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Primary sources?
Hi Big Money Threepwood. I noticed that you also tagged this page for citing too many primary sources. Were you referring to the four citations to Helaman? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I assume they also mean Bingman, Welch, Largey et al, plus the pronunciation guide. Hardy and Gardner are the only non-primary ones there as far as I can tell. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)