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.
A fact from Corianton: A Story of Unholy Love appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 3 November 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is related to the Harold B. Lee Library holdings. Learn more about this collaborative project to improve coverage related to the BYU library's holdings, and how you can help here.Harold B. Lee LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/Harold B. Lee LibraryTemplate:WikiProject Harold B. Lee LibraryHarold B. Lee Library-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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.
ALT2: ... that the 1931 Mormon film, Corianton: A Story of Unholy Love was considered lost until Orson Scott Card donated a copy to Brigham Young University? Source: *That the film was lost: Astle and Burton article: "Though Lester Park surely did not purposely commit fraud, the public embarrassment—and legal trappings—caused the film to be completely withdrawn and swept under the rug. As with Riders of the Purple Sage, this removal was absolute: all negatives, prints, and other materials disappeared so completely that most historians have claimed Corianton was never even completed." *That Card donated it: Findingaid "Custodial History: Motion picture film, [...] donated by Bernice Park Spencer, Peggy Scott Card, and Orson Scott Card"
Article appears to meet requirements and no close paraphrasing was found. A QPQ has been done. I do not have access to the source for the original hook so AGF on that. However, I do wonder if this "it's the only Book of Mormon story with sex" thing is widely considered as fact among the LDS community, because if not then it may be better to add attribution to the hook. As for ALT1, it may need revising since it implies that the writer's contempt charge was directly caused by the film, whereas the actual article leaves this part ambiguous (it's not clear if why he told the judge to "shut up" was directly because of the film or for something unrelated). I'm not really a fan of ALT2 as the first two hooks seem more interesting to a non-LDS audience. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Narutolovehinata5. I know the BYU Studies website has been down, but if you wait long enough, hopefully the source for the original hook should load. It's difficult to prove a negative, but as someone who has read the Book of Mormon multiple times and is a practicing member, the claim rings true for me. The source for the information was published in BYU Studies (BYU is a university sponsored by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) so I don't think they're trying to pull a fast one on anyone. We could redact it to read "one of the only stories in the Book of Mormon with any sex in it" if you're nervous about such a definitive statement, but I don't think the qualification is necessary. I don't think that ALT2 is all that misleading, but you're correct that the article is ambiguous about why he was in court. I added a sentence to clarify that the instance where Bean was in court and told the judge to shut up was part of the many lawsuits following the movie's release (presumably about its financing). Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's an LDS Living article that mentions "Sexuality and chastity are sensitive subjects, and the Book of Mormon gives very few hints about how Book of Mormon peoples understood them. You might recall Jacob’s sermon about how “many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds” due to whoredoms and wickedness (Jacob 2:35), or Alma’s talk with his son Corianton about forsaking a mission to pursue "the harlot Isabel" (Alma 39:3), or the terrible violence described in Moroni 9:9." This is a list of all the places in the Book of Mormon where sex is alluded to. The other mentions in Jacob 2:35 and in Moroni 9:9 discuss sex from a detached and more general standpoint, and aren't really a story where a person in the book has an illicit relationship like in Corianton. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Such an extraordinary statement would need very strong sourcing and even your LDS Living source doesn't seem to explicitly state "this is the only story about sex in the Book of Mormon". Either the original hook will need to be revised, or we'll have to go with ALT1. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I think I'll need to ask for a second opinion on ALT0. The article and the hook now say "one of the only", but the source says "virtually the only", and the two phrases don't exactly mean the same. ALT1 is already acceptable, but given that I'm not sure if ALT0/the article matches the source enough and vice-versa, I'd like to ask for help. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who has spent a lot of time reading academic scholarship in Book of Mormon studies and American literature studies in order to help improve and maintain the Book of Mormon page, I find it reasonable to accept the hook source's claim that "Corianton's story is virtually the only one in the Book of Mormon with any sex in it". The claim is not that extraordinary in the context of how other academic sources assess the Book of Mormon (I can't think of any that claim the book is actually teeming with stories involving sex, or even has such in any moderate quantity). Whether or not the claim is "widely considered as fact among the LDS community" seems like an odd question. I figured that as Wikipedians, we typically turn to what reliable scholarship says, rather than try to make our own assessments. When it comes to giving straightforward information about Latter-day Saint/Mormon history, especially non-controversial subjects like films and movie adaptations, BYU Studies is a peer-reviewed, academic journal that can be taken to be reliable.
Narutolovehinata5 has already verified the article meets all other requirements (it's been expanded, it's neutral, it has reliable sources, and it has no plagiarism; looking at the page myself, I agree). The hook is interesting and verified by a reliable source for the subject. I approve.
If impasse remains, maybe the hook could be rephrased as, ′that the early Mormon filmCorianton: A Story of Unholy Love was based on ″virtually the only [story] in the Book of Mormon story with sex in it″?′? And then change the main page to use that fuller quotation as well? I don't think that's necessary, but if it would help as a compromise, maybe it's an option. P-Makoto (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article appears to meet requirements and no close paraphrasing was found. A QPQ has been done. I do not have access to the source for the original hook so AGF on that. However, I do wonder if this "it's the only Book of Mormon story with sex" thing is widely considered as fact among the LDS community, because if not then it may be better to add attribution to the hook. As for ALT1, it may need revising since it implies that the writer's contempt charge was directly caused by the film, whereas the actual article leaves this part ambiguous (it's not clear if why he told the judge to "shut up" was directly because of the film or for something unrelated). I'm not really a fan of ALT2 as the first two hooks seem more interesting to a non-LDS audience. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
To be honest, I think I'll need to ask for a second opinion on ALT0. The article and the hook now say "one of the only", but the source says "virtually the only", and the two phrases don't exactly mean the same. ALT1 is already acceptable, but given that I'm not sure if ALT0/the article matches the source enough and vice-versa, I'd like to ask for help. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
As someone who has spent a lot of time reading academic scholarship in Book of Mormon studies and American literature studies in order to help improve and maintain the Book of Mormon page, I find it reasonable to accept the hook source's claim that "Corianton's story is virtually the only one in the Book of Mormon with any sex in it". The claim is not that extraordinary in the context of how other academic sources assess the Book of Mormon (I can't think of any that claim the book is actually teeming with stories involving sex, or even has such in any moderate quantity). Whether or not the claim is "widely considered as fact among the LDS community" seems like an odd question. I figured that as Wikipedians, we typically turn to what reliable scholarship says, rather than try to make our own assessments. When it comes to giving straightforward information about Latter-day Saint/Mormon history, especially non-controversial subjects like films and movie adaptations, BYU Studies is a peer-reviewed, academic journal that can be taken to be reliable.
