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)

Notability
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&#39;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:
 * (a take on the Coriantumr story and its doctrinal meaning in the Latter-day Saint tradition's beliefs about ecclesiastical leadership)
 * (narrates and analyzes the Jaredite downfall in Coriantumr's reign)
 * (a literary analysis of Coriantumr as an analog for the biblical archetype set by Saul)
 * (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&#39;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 Horse Eye&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;s Back (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Assessing the article
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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;s Back (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)