Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)

Pictures

Does someone know how to properly post Apostle Paul Palmieri and the World Conference Center on the site?? The pictures looked great but they need proper citation.Jcg5029 21:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Can it be cited from the official website of The Church of Jesus Christ? CSG 21:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

the pictures are the same ones as those on this church's website, and the website specifically states that the items on it are under copyright. If the website were to state "everything on here is under public domain" then that would suffice. McKay 21:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification. CSG 01:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There are free downloads on the official webpage even though the page itself has a copyright. Wouldn't the pictures be under the same principles? If not - what is the difference? I simply am not well versed on this subject.Jcg5029 05:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because a download is free doesn't mean that we can use it on the encyclopedia. If they own the copyright, they can copy it as much as they want, and distribute to as many people as they want, so even though I can look at it, I can't further reproduce it, because I don't own the copyright. Consequently, Wikipedia as an entity can acquire a copy of the image, but because wikipedia doesn't own the copyright, they can't reproduce it and put it in their encyclopedia. McKay 14:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks I didn't know. I thought since my computer automatically copies them and places such pictures in the temp internet files that it would be okay for the pictures. Lets face it, every computer does that same thing thus somehow violating a copyright?? I understand your point though you are right. Thanks for the info.Jcg5029 20:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

By visiting their site, The Church of Jesus Christ, as copyright holder, has authorized you to look at the image. Fair use stipulates that you can store that temporarily to look at that image, but you do not have rights to upload that to a different website to share with others. Similarly, if you go buy a CD from the store, you have acquired a copy of the music, and you can listen to it. Fair use stipulates that you can use the CD on your computer, (even though technically, it first makes a copy of the music, buffers it onto the CD-ROM drive's buffer, copies that again across the bus to the RAM, makes a copy in the RAM, in RAM makes another copy as it translates it to a format playable by the speakers, then translates that across the bus again to the sound card, where the sound card copies it again and buffers it to play out the speakers). But none of that means that you can put the music up on your website, because you don't own the copyright. Does that make sense? McKay 22:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100%Jcg5029 03:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I can probably remedy this pretty easy. I will probably see Paul this weekend and I'll just take a picture of him myself and use that to post. As far as the Conference Center I can do the same when I am home in two weeks. I'll just swing by and take a good picture of it to use and post. That should solve any problems JRN 16:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have discussed some pictures with Dwayne this past weekend and he agreed to look for several pictures that can be used for the site. He has also given his permission for the pictures donated to be on Wikipedia. Just an FYI! CSG 01:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that it isn't enough to give permission to use on Wikipedia, but it must be licensed under a free license, like Creative Commons or GPL McKay 04:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats fine. Once those pictures are found, they will be licensed for this usage. Thanks for the FYI. CSG 02:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Progress

I think great progress has been made on this page in the past couple weeks. I think that it is now coming together as a much better page. Will all the arguements on the name in the past week much hasn't been said about more revisions of the page. How does everyone feel about the page; Are there any other areas that we need to specifically address? Any new categories or headings that we feel need included? Let's try and get a good concensus and move forward so this page can continue to improve. I would also to like to thank everyone for their input. JRN 16:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the Other section is random and spotty. This is because it was basically taken from Verry Valenti's article which was all question and answer. There is questionable info that needs sourced or taken out about a millenialistic belief system, etc. Also more pictures should be added legally when possible.Jcg5029 16:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there more that can be possibly included about the Faith and Doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ? It would provide for a more infomrational visit to this site and encourage other people to learn more about this organization. There are several people that can be contacted who have taken personal photos of many people and events. CSG 18:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

In order to have less points, howabout a Faith and Doctrine Heading and a Ordinance?? See what it looks like and throw in thoughts!Jcg5029 00:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

William Bickerton

There should be a William Bickerton page. I will volunteer to start it up!Jcg5029 22:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

Some unidentiied user has been making some good edits to the page lately, but he/she has changed alot of wording withing the intro paragraphs. I feel that the new paragraphs are very awkwardly worded and have lost the flow. Does anyone have any good suggestions to clean it up. I know the first paragraph has been touchy so I wanted to open it back up so we can have a concensus JRN 16:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Those changes have been made for the better, but I agree with JRN that the opening could be more professionally worded. I would encourage that person to identify himself/herself so that we can discuss these changes. CSG 00:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Rigdonite

The rigdonite reference was made at the end of the article. I dont believe that this is appropriate. I would like to see this removed. I understand that the organizations that resulted from the leadership of Sydney Rigdon are referred to as such, however it is the same as the term 'Bickertonite'. I believe that it is not appropriate to have at the end of the article as this organization should simply be referred to by its legal name. What does everyone else think? CSG 01:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The Rigdonite article looks well sourced, and relates to this article, there should definitely be some cross linking. If the appelation fits, it must be used. McKay 04:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed the Rigdonite article and think it is fine. I removed the reference to The Church of Jesus Christ at the beginning of the aritcle as a "Rigdonite" church because it was POV, but I find nothing wrong with a See also article at the end because it is well written and explains a good portion of history after 1844. Just having the Rigdonite article at the end doesn't mean that we are Rigdonites but just that it can explain some history more. JRN 17:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

So are you saying that The Church of Jesus Christ denies being a Rigdonite church? I think you're mistaken, but I may not understand the situation entirely. McKay 18:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a flaw of logic and somewhat opinion to say terms like "Bickertonite" and "Rigdonite" when refering to our church. First and foremost I have never heard the LDS church referred to as "Youngites" yet that is how you claim your line of succession. So my question is why "Rigdonite" or "Bickertonite" when referring to us. It almost gives says the impression that the LDS church is the only true one as other one's must have "ite" names at the end. I know this isn't exactly the question you asked and I'm not trying to start arguements but my question is why the apparent hierarchy that the LDS church has no "ite" reference. I think calling the church "Youngite" would be correct. JRN 19:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

In the late 1800s, it was not uncommon for the Community of Christ members (then members of the RLDS Church) to refer to members of the LDS Church as "Brighamites". They referred to themselves often as "Josephites". This nicknaming has been a very common aspect of churches in the Latter Day Saint movement. Of course these terms are not in general usage today, either by members in the CoC or anyone else as far as I know. However, Brighamite does link to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on WP. -SESmith 01:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're correct in your assessment on several accounts:

1. The church that Joseph Smith jr. established broke apart into several churchs, and each claims true successorship.
2. Rigdon and Young are two of those with claims to successorship to Joseph Smith
3. Those who followed Young are more numerous, and wanted a way to refer to the other groups
4. the term "Rigdonite" was chosen to refer to those who believe Sydney Rigdon had the more-valid claim of successorship.
5. "Youngite" is an equally valid as a way to refer to those who believe Brigham Young had the more valid claim of successorship.

Yet there's an article on Rigdonite and not an article on Youngite, why?

The reason is one of WP:A. "Rigdonite" has been used to describe those Rigdonites for quite some time. You may note that I recently put the Template:NN on the Rigdgonite article. I couldn't find any references on the term "Rigdonite", but references to the term abound ([1] [2]...) So while the term may not be notable enough for it's own article, it is at least prevalent enough to attach the term to various denominations (including The Church of Jesus Christ (the one that is also associated with William Bickerton)).

The term "Youngite" is, as far as I can tell, unassociated with the Utah headquartered churches in any WP:RS. That doesn't mean the appelation is incorrect, but without attributability, we can't apply the term to the "relevant" wikipedia articles, because Wikipedia is not for things made up on wikipedia. Though if you were to use the term off of wikipedia for some time, it might gain popularity enough so that there'd be something attributable to say on the Utah church's article. But as of right now, we can't put such an appellation on wikipedia. So while you may not like that the term is used refferring your church, it is a matter of fact that the monongahelan church is a Rigdonite church. McKay 20:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I never advocated the use of "Youngite" as a reference to the LDS church on wiki, I merely made the logical arguement that it is a correct term. What I was getting at is that the history is written mainly from the perspective of The LDS church (hence the abounding use of Bickertonite, Rigdonite, Strangite and Cutlerite yet no Youngite). This was not meant as an argumentative statement, merely a question of logic to point how LDS perspective has become mainstreamed.

The missing term you are all searching for is Brighamite, and it links to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on WP. -SESmith 01:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Now as far as being called Rigdonite, again, I would ask to keep such references out of the article for The Church of Jesus Christ. Although we don't argue that the term could be used to describe us, although I would argue how we could be called Rigdonite and Bickertonite on the same page, I would ask it not to be used on the page due to offensiveness. The reasons those terms are offensive is because we don't consider our church to be founded after any man besides Jesus Christ and they were names given to us by outsiders. So I would ask under the policy of civility to keep such references out of the text of our page. I find no problem with the See also link to describe history but I ask to discontinue those references in the text. I will remove the "Rigdonite" sentence from the intro paragraph due to offensiveness. I would appreciate your compliance. 205.149.72.72 21:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this is an issue of respect. The Church of Jesus Christ is offended at any other term than its actual name. McKay may not like it, but its true. Please respect The Church of Jesus Christ. I can find and cite the Latter-day Saints being called mormons by actual historians. I do not use these sources to change the name of the Latter-day Saint Church because I respect them and understand that name is offensive to many within the organization. I would ask McKay to use that same respect with The Church of Jesus Christ.Jcg5029 22:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Your own argument militates in favor of using the term. Some LDS are offended by the use of the word 'Mormon', as you say, but this does not prevent many historians from using it, as you say, and so it shouldn't prevent WP from using the term. Similarly, Rigdonite seems like a fair term to use since it is used commonly by historians. That's what NPOV dictates. If you are removing because it offends you, you are injecting POV. -SESmith 23:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"The parenthetical (Mormonism) is no longer favored when referring to the more than one Latter Day Saint denomination, because it may be seen as inaccurate or offensive by members of several Latter Day Saint denominations to which the article may apply, such as the Community of Christ.". Here is one example of why offensive terms are not to be used. Please do not use the terms. I could use the example that the *N* word could be used to refer to people of African American descent as I can find many uses of that term throughout history and I would be correct in what I say. Yet you will not see me use terms of that nature on wiki because it is an ethnic slur and offensive. I could use example after example of terms that could be found historically and cited yet are considered offensive and should not be used. So please do not use terms for The Church of Jesus Christ that we find offensive as we consider them to be religious slurs. This is not POV as I am not stating that we COULDN'T be called that but simply that we wish not to as we find it offensive. Your arguement is ridiculous. JRN 23:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There is an article called Mormon and there is an article called Nigger. Maybe you would like to edit the already-existing article called Rigdonite and explain why historians continue to use it despite its offensiveness to members of The Church of Jesus Christ. In the meantime, like the use of "Mormon" in many articles relating to the LDS Church, the mention of the term "Rigdonite" is not inappropriate here, unless viewed from a biased POV. It's not like the term is being used repeatedly throughout the article as the term of choice. -SESmith 23:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Good research except that I was talking about using the words to describe people in present context. Of course there are articles because there is a historical basis but that doesn't advocate the use. Again poor arguement JRN 23:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Then why did you take it out of the article? Check the article on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I bet it mentions "Mormon". -SESmith 23:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I would ask you to discontinue your WP:PA SESmith and try to be somewhat civil here. JRN 00:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for mocking your spelling. So why DID you take it out of the article, then, if it was not to advance a particular POV? -SESmith 00:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Apology accpeted. I took it out of WP:NCON because I think it clearly shows that in cases of terms that may be found offensive by denominations, such as the use of mormonism and the CoC, then the term should not be used. JRN 00:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I see. Those rules generally only apply to the naming of articles or to the terms that are used to repeatedly refer to subject within the article. It is not inappropriate to have a mention of the term in the article itself if it is commonly used by historians, etc. Thanks for accepting my apology. -SESmith 00:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have been picked up in the section below entitled "Section on alternative name usages". -SESmith 00:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources

I'm working on the sources for this article, and I would like to get a copy of "Valenti, Jerry (1986). "Volume 56", Welcome to The Church of Jesus Christ. Bridgewater, MI: Gospel News, 9." how would I go about doing that? McKay 20:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC) I believe you may contact The Church of Jesus Christ through their website.Jcg5029 21:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV in general

After reading much of the discussion on this page, it appears that a common theme is members of The Church of Jesus Christ requesting that non-member editors do this or that because it offends the sensibilities of the members or is alleged to show a "lack of respect" for the church or its members. Wikipedia:NPOV would seem to dictate that the members' requests should not be determinative in these matters, and that it is prudent and fair to include the otherwise encyclopedic information or terms that offend the members, and then to also explain in the article that members object to this characterization and why. This is the approach taken in all WP articles on religion. WP cannot show bias against or in favor of any religion. The article should not be controlled exclusively by The Church of Jesus Christ or its members, and they should have no veto over or a greater say in what is and is not included merely because they are members of the organization that is the subject of the article. If we can't at least agree to these basic premises of editing, perhaps we should begin to work on getting protection for the page. -SESmith 23:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, members of The Church of Jesus Christ are not in control of this page, everybody is free to edit and to improve upon the page. I know of no bias in favor of The Church of Jesus Christ over another church.

As a note of improvement what does everyone feel on a section about Terms such as "Bickertonite" "Rigdonite" and the like and why the church does not like or condone the use of such appelations. Would that satisfy your claims of POV? JRN 23:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the discussions above, where there are many mentions that such-and-such should not be mentioned or included because it offends members. Whether it is members of the church making these arguments I do not know and it is not important, but it is important that in practical terms such arguments appear to be made on behalf of the church or its members. -SESmith 00:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You still have not shown how ("The article should not be controlled exclusively by The Church of Jesus Christ or its members"). As I see it is being edited by a variety of people. JRN 00:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Look, I never said that it was being so controlled, and if you got that impression from the statement I hereby repeal the statement. I was merely pointing out that that is one of the imperitives we must strive for. The greater issue that my comment was meant to highlight is one of NPOV and the appearance that changes are being made because they are said to offend the Church or its members. -SESmith 00:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If it helps, let me rephrase my initial concern:

"After reading much of the discussion on this page, it appears that a common theme is some editors are requesting that other editors do this or that because it is said to offend the sensibilities of certain editors or is alleged to show a "lack of respect" for the church or its members. Wikipedia:NPOV would seem to dictate that these requests should not be determinative in these matters, and that it is prudent and fair to include the otherwise encyclopedic information or terms that may be offensive to members, and then to also explain in the article that members object to this characterization and why. This is the approach taken in all WP articles on religion. WP cannot show bias against or in favor of any religion. If we can't at least agree to these basic premises of editing, perhaps we should begin to work on getting protection for the page." -SESmith 00:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting this issue be resolved in a timely manner and not dragging it through the mud. I agree with the consensus so far in this discussion. Clearly we do not want POV to cloud historical accuracy. My statement was mostly in concern with the name discussion and I feel that this clears up the '-ites' issues.Jcg5029 02:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Section on alternative name usages

Well what do you think on creating a section on the use of the terms in context and why the church finds such terms offensive. I belive that would keep with a NPOV as it would show both sides and not support or deny either. JRN 00:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be a great way to deal with that particular problem and would applaud such a development if the consensus favored it. This could also be supplemented by a discussion on pages such as Rigdonite.

My overarching concern (as discussed in the section above on NPOV in general) is also that editors stop using the "take this out because it is offensive" argument and rather focus on addressing these concerns by creating and refining a balanced discussion in the article, not by requests to eliminate terms or information. -SESmith 00:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel that's acceptable. Although it may seem POV I just want to make sure that The Church is represented correctly and I feel that we can work together so that it is represented right and there is a NPOV

Where do you feel the placement of the paragraph should go? I think towrds the beginning so that the use of the terms in the intro paragraph can be cleared up in proximity to their use in the article. What do you think? JRN 00:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I would welcome it wherever the consensus wants it placed. In all honesty, I don't have a preference. In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the discussion about the name of the church and the different nicknames and whether members like them or not (Mormon, LDS, etc.) is placed quite late in the article, but I see no absolutely no reason why in that article it wouldn't fit earlier too if that were the consensus. (I mention this article not because I think this one needs to be patterned after it, but because it is an article that has in the past faced similar issues of nicknaming and the relative approrpiateness and offensiveness of the nicknames. There are probably other examples that could be used too. The article on the Unification Church does not seem to have a discussion of the derogatory term Moonies.)

For this article, if you want to create such a section, I would suggest just putting it where you think is best and if others decide it should be moved, presumably they will move it and hopefully a consensus will develop through the edits and the discussion here. -SESmith 00:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and made a rough one. We can use it as a basis to edit and come to a concensus on.205.149.71.152 01:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this is better for the representation of this organization. It is simply a matter of making the page better. I simply felt as though the simple mention of 'Rigdonite' randomly at the bottom of the page was a bit tacky and lacking in professionalism. This mentioning of it causes a bit more clarity. CSG 01:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Note: this refers simply to the first several paragraphs CSG 02:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this looks great and helps distinguish the terms.Jcg5029 02:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with SES, the inclusion of a seperate paragraph (like the one we have) is fine. McKay 17:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's developing nicely and is quite clear in making the points necessary on both sides. I like the paragraph placed where it is in the article. -SESmith 22:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Countries/Total Membership

Recently different editors have requested citations on two statements specifically.

1. Total Membership - is roughly 15k but needs a source

• • This is difficult because The Church is growing so fast it will probably double or triple in another five years, making this a continual update that is very difficult to continually have published for accuracy.

2. The Fact that The Church of Jesus Christ is growing

• • This is a true statement condisering over the past ten years The Church of Jesus Christ has been established in the Congo, Malawi, Rwanda, Mosambique, Nepal, Malasia, Philippines, Ecuador, Panama, Costa Rica, Peru, and many, many other countries. Now because of this very swift growth there is probably no current publication saying yes this Church is spreading throughout dozens of countries, but that does not make the statement less true.

Any suggestions??128.118.80.170 14:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Does the church ever publish population numbers? Like in a General conference or something? The numbers don't have to be accurate as of today, but find a published number and use it.

"Growing" is kinda ambiguous. If you can attribute that over the past ten years, it has been newly established in several countries, then you may as well say that. If you can show that the population of the church has increased over the past 10 years, then you can say that.

The recent link gives a proper citation and ends naming disputes.Jcg5029 00:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Tree Link (revisit)

Some unknown individual has again repeatedly added the Tree Link template to the page. I really think it is pointless and is just junking up the page. If anything it should at least be moved out of the external links section. What does everyone think? JRN 20:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's a problem with it. Sure, move it if you think it belongs elsewhere, I think the guy who put it on the page was just aiming for the bottom of the page. McKay 20:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Locating templates at the bottom of articles (after external links & before categories) is a very common here at Wikipedia, and this is generally considered a proper location. I added one additional line between the last ext link & the template so that it displays a little more distance between those two screen elements. -- 12.106.111.10 22:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The following related discussion is copied from User talk:12.106.111.10#The Church of Jesus Christ

Although you make think the template is valid if you checked the talk page you would see that a concensus voted to keep it off the page as they viewed it as not valid. Please refer to the talk page before making any major additions or corrections. JRN 19:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The template is legitimately found on:

• The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
• Community of Christ
• Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite)
• Latter Day Saint
• Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
• Church of Christ (Temple Lot)
• The Church of Jesus Christ
• Latter Day Saint movement
• Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints)
• Category:Latter Day Saint denominations
• Succession crisis (Latter Day Saints)
• Rigdonite

Subjectively removing it from only one of the articles it relates to (in this case 'The Church of Jesus Christ') is highly POV, and removing it from all of them based on a limited discussion on Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ would be highly irregular. Consensus building is not a "vote", and even at Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ I see no real consensus for removing the template. If you think that the template has no value I suggest that discuss this at WP:LDS, and/or do a TfD so that the template is completely removed from Wikipedia.-- 12.106.111.10 20:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Additionally the way you are removing the template is also harmful, because you keep removing more that just it. You have absolutely no justification for removing all of the categories & foreign language links. -- 12.106.111.10 20:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The removal of the categories and foreign links was a mistake. 205.149.72.72 23:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I support having this template included per reasons above. -SESmith 23:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think before the issue was a name 'Bickertonite' for the name of the church, correct me if I am wrong. I see no real issues with the link as it is currently found on the many groups pages within the movement.Jcg5029 23:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree. This tree is only useful for Latter Day Saint movement articles, and sparingly on those. It is being overused. Succession Crisis (ok), Latter Day Saint movement (ok), Church of Christ (maybe), all specific denominations, no. Don't clutter up specific denomination articles when the reader can easily go to articles where the chart actually makes sense. Should LDS articles also have the Christian denomination tree as well? Of course not, Neither should other Christian denominations. Bytebear 06:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The tree shows all of the break-offs and churches formed as a result of the Latter Day Saint movement. It belongs on that page, but putting it on every other page just amounts to clutter with no real value added. Stekun 17:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay that makes a lot more sense than having it on every page. I would be in favor of removing it so long as it is still included in the movement pages while not denomination pages. So long as the movement is entirely consistent in its stance of this issue.Jcg5029 20:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I started this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Latter_Day_Saint_movement#Mormon_Denomination_Tree to put it in a more central location so we can reach a consensus on how it should be used. Stekun 21:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The Church vs the church (Name revisted)

After referring to WP:Manual of Style, can it be agreed that apart from quotations we should be referring to "the church" rather than "The Church"? There has been an small "edit war" re:this and I just wanted to make sure everyone is on the same page. Thx.-SESmith 23:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats fine with me, I didn't realize it was an issue.Jcg5029 23:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I take blame for that as I must have misread that a while back. I thought it was ok to reference as "The Church". I was incorrect and should have rechecked the WP:Manual of Style before reverting. I have brought up the use of "The Church" as a shortened reference to The Church of Jesus Christ on the manual of style (LDS) page to try and find a proper shortened for of the name for use as one doesn't exist now. Please feel free to go there and comment and make suggestions. Thanks - JRN 15:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, -SESmith 22:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Church of Jesus Christ → The Church of Jesus Christ (William Bickerton) — According to WP:D because more than one church has this name (at least 20 independent congreations do), this should be a disambiguation page because none of them have been shown to be meant "much more than any other" (a google test The Church of Jesus Christ shows that a church that doesn't have "The Church of Jesus Christ" as it's official title might be meant more than any other, but consensus on the talk page says it shouldn't redirect to that church.) it should be a disambiguation page (the one currently found at Church of Jesus Christ (disambiguation). The church that currently has the article at The Church of Jesus Christ is commonly known as the "Bickertonite church" or "The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)" but some have claimed that the term "Bickertonite" is offensive (currently their only reference for that claim of offensiveness is a pamphlet published by the church that I've been unable to procure, but I'm willing to WP:AGF and not use that term to desribe their church. There have been several members of that church that make spurious, mostly-POV arguments against a move like: "We're the only church that uses that name officially" or "We're the largest church that uses that name officially" or "Putting anything in parenthesis after our church's name is offensive" or they'll misquote policy like "The project page says we should avoid disambiguation page" (but we have to have one anyway, the question is "where?"). The next question is where it should go. Members of that church refuse to provide alternates because they claim that referring to the church by any name other than its official name is offensive, so I have to make some suggestions myself. I think (William Bickerton) is the best choice becuase it's very much like the much used "Bickertonite", but isn't using the offensive term (Bickerton) might be a better choice? the Church is headquartered in Monongahela Pennsylvania so (Monongahela) or (Monongahela) might also be an option. I think that they are the only Rigdonite church, but they don't like to be called Rigdonites, but (Rigdonite) might be the best option. McKay 17:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. My reasons are above, as I started the requested move. McKay 21:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Support : Ideally the page for The Church of Jesus Christ should be a disambiguation page due to its inherently ambiguous nature and the attempts by other more prominent churches to co-opt and use the name. I'm neutral on the actual title of the article this church would be moved to. -SESmith 22:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Change to Undecided : I believe both sides have strong arguments and am taking no position here on what I think should be done, because I can't decide myself. It's a tough call. -SESmith 11:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Support too similar to the LDS church and in fact I was shocked that this was somethng different. This one definitely merits a disambiguation. I can see other users making the same mistake. 205.157.110.11 23:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. Oppose - I don't understand why this was made but I am directly oppose to the change for many reasons
   • Church of Jesus Christ has a disambiguation page for the "20 organizations that use Church of Jesus Christ".
   • None of the names proposed by McKay follow any policy of wikipedia including WP:A no original research which states original research "defines or introduces new terms (neologisms), or provides new definitions of existing terms". As none of the proposed terms have been found with any type of common usage, Mckay is trying to introduce new terms and introduce new definitions of The Church of Jesus Christ
   • Although it may be walking the line of POV, The Church of Jesus Christ uses no other terms to describe itself as it finds other terms offensive. Particularly those relating to men. For clarificiation please see The Church of Jesus Christ under the category of Use of Descriptive Terms. WP:NPOV clearly shows that the boas for or against the church's beliefs or views is POV. Therefore using terms as "Bickertonite" "RIgdonite" "Monogahela" or such are directly opposed to views of the church
   • Disambiguation links have been placed at the top for Church of Jesus Christ (disambiguation) and The Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerites). As the Cutlerites are a small faction of no more than 50 active members, I belive WP:D is satisfied in that "The Church of Jesus Christ" would refer to said church much more that it would refer to the Cutlertite Church. I believe this fulfills WP:D.
   • WP:NCON for latter day saint church's gives no alternate name for The Church of Jesus Christ other than The Church of Jesus Christ. So creating an alternate name would be against WP:NCON.
   • I don't understand totally what this is for as McKay has stated that it is not a vote. We have been discussing this matter openly for a while and I don't know what he is trying to accomplish. - JRN 18:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose I have replaced my first post so that i might sign this one.
   • This is taken from the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints).
     • Guiding principles
     • Listed in relative priority
       • Use accurate titles and terms. - The Church of Jesus Christ is the name recognized by the United States Government
       • Present titles and terms in a neutral point of view; avoid "endorsing" or "opposing" the views of any church. - This title does not play favorites or oppose anything but upholds United States Government recognition
       • Avoid disrespect without sacrificing NPOV policy. - This name does not disrepect anyone and is not POV directed because of the registration as a corporation under this name in the USGovt registry
       • Prefer general Christianity and Latter Day Saint movement articles (such as "Priesthood" or "Priesthood (Latter Day Saints)") over more specific unidenominational articles, unless there is a significant amount of unidenominational material. - No conflict here.
       • Make it easy for readers to find articles relating to the Latter Day Saint movement and its various denominations, their members, and their theology. - This has been done due to the current disambiguation page in place.
       • Prefer shorter titles and terms over longer ones. - Adding anything additional to the title violates this.
   • This is taken from the same page.
     • Although the practice is discouraged, if it is absolutely necessary for disambiguation, articles that apply in the context of only one Latter Day Saint denomination should contain the following parentheticals:
     • CHURCH REFERENCE IN TITLE
       • The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - LDS Church
       • Community of Christ - Community of Christ
       • Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite) - Strangite
       • The Church of Jesus Christ - The Church of Jesus Christ
       • The Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite) - Cutlerite
       • Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints - FLDS Church
       • Pentecostal Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints - PLDS Church
       • Others full name of denomination
     • This page is in correctness following this policy as well.
   • According to these policies of naming an article of the LDS Movement, this page is in compliacnce with them. This includes Wiki:Disambiguation according to the policy as it applies to the LDS Movement because according to this disambiguation policy no other church claims the title The Church of Jesus Christ except the one registered in the United States as such. Therefore, I oppose any changes made to the current title of the article.CSG 22:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose. At the moment, there is no naming conflict. If there are "20 other organizations" using that name (I've seen no evidence, other than the Cutlerite branch), I don't know what they are, and they have no pages on Wikipedia. Moreover, this is probably the largest such church, and the other organizations, if they exist and are sufficiently notable for their own article, can be represented if necessary by The Church of Jesus Christ (disambiguation). COGDEN 14:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose. I am opposed for the same reasons. No other organizations besides the Cutlerites can be found using this term on wikipedia. Are there missing pages?Jcg5029 15:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

move, yes or no?

Yes, I have stated before that wikipedia is not a democracy, but if you'll note, this isn't just a vote, it's a survey. Opinons matter more than vote counts. This is part of a formal process to move the page. I've stated the arguments, and none of you are quoting policy anymore, you are just making POV statements, so I'm opening this up to the community because a formal discussion will show the following points:

1. Adding something like (William Bickerton) to the end of an article is not introducing a new term, it is wikipedia policy. Take a look at WP:D for that policy, but look at Category:Disambiguation for hundreds of examples of this Nightshade (disambiguation), they aren't creating new terms when they create articles like Nightshade (book), they're disambiguating, like must occur for this page.
2. Most (if not all) of the arguments given by JRN show that he is ignorant of wikipedia policy.
   • His mentioning of WP:A doesn't apply
   • His mentioning of WP:NPOV is to introduce his NPOV into the article
   • and WP:NCON is to determine what should be used before the parenthesis, if that weren't so Mercury (element) would be in violation as well as tens of thousands of other articles that are disambiguated with parenthetical phrases. McKay 19:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

A) The LDS Movement page was changed without consent, during this discussion no less, B) LDS Movement page can't override WP:D policy. McKay 22:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You forget that that article IS Wikipedia Policy and any changes made would be in violation of said policy. CSG 22:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You are simply avoiding the Wikipedia policy regarding the naming of articles that fall into the category of the Latter Day Saints Movement. I have quoted it and supported it above. CSG 22:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not ignoring it, You're referring to a newer version, one that doesn't have have consensus. this version had consensus, and supports calling your church "Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite). I'm not saying that this policy shouldn't change, but that this policy shouldn't be changed in the middle of a discussion on where the page in question should be located. And then it should be changed only after consensus. I've McKay 22:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Who made the change McKay? I don't believe it was any one of us. I tried to find out but I couldn't. Do you know who it was? JRN 23:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Where to move to

It was mentioned that WP:NCON doesn't give suggestions to disambiguate. But that's because that isn't it's job. On the other hand, WP:D does give suggestions as to what to put in parenthesis:

1. When there is another word (such as Cheque instead of Check) or more complete name that is equally clear (such as Delta rocket), that should be used.
   • I don't think anything could be used which would satisfy the other editors, those who are members of the church in question.
2. A disambiguating word or phrase can be added in parentheses. The word or phrase in parentheses should be:
   • the generic class that includes the topic (for example, Mercury (element), Seal (mammal)); or the subject or context to which the topic applies (for example, Union (set theory), Inflation (economics)).
     • This is why historically, the article was titled "(Bickertonite)". But that term is probably offensive. "Church" is the generic class, but that doesn't work, "Rigdonite" might be better, but they claim that that term is offensive too. (William Bickerton) or just (Bickerton) solves this case best. (Bickerton) is shorter, but might be construed as too close to (Bickertonite). (William Bickerton) indicates that really there's only one church he's been involved with, so that's got to be the church in question. Both of those last two will help people who are familiar with the term "Bickertonite".
3. Rarely, an adjective describing the topic can be used, but it's usually better to rephrase the title to avoid parentheses.
   • Rephrasing the title might be something along the lines of "The Church of Jesus Christ with headquarters in Monongahela, Pennsylvania" notice the use of lowercase "w" and "h" signifing that those aren't part of the proper noun.

Note that any of these are fine with me, I just think wikipedia policy dictates that The Church of Jesus Christ should be a disambiguation page . I'm willing to consent to a different alternate name if someone proposes one. Where it gets moved to doesn't matter much to me (beacuse policy is a little unclear here with accusations of POV being thrown around rampantly), just as long as it gets moved. (Because that's policy) McKay 22:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

My major stand on this issue is that it cannot be associated with a man. Period. That is strictly against church beliefs. Doing so would constitute a strong POV against the church.

Then give us another option. You're going to have to realize that there's a strong possibility that the article will be moved to another location. Those who support the move don't really care where. If you don't provide another option, then (William Bickerton) it will be.

Mckay I wish you to be WP:CIVIL and stop accusing everyone of being from the church and throwing around POV.

My accusations of POV stand.

I am the only one who has made any acknowledgement of belonging to the church. We are here to discuss the issue and not each other. Any further conversation about the editors will constiture a WP:PA as you have no evidence of any of your accusations.

One can have a POV problem without a COI Problem

This will be enforced from this point forward. I want to resolve this in the most civil manner possible.

I'm not sure where I got the idea that all of those opposed to the move, maybe it was people saying stuff like "you guys know who I am" to each other, and knowing each other. But without further evidence being brought forward, I will try not to call you all members of that church.

I noticed you posted a dispute template on the WP:NCON page. That might be the more proper place to resolve this issue as we will get more third party individuals to help out. I think as it stands now no one here is should make the final decision. I think if we can come to a conclusion on the WP:NCON page then it would end any further discussion. Do you agree? JRN 23:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that the NCON page is not the place to resolve. I'm following proper procedure in this process. McKay 15:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

3. I also would like to add that I strongly oppose any move for The Church of Jesus Christ. There is only one organization here that is in question to the name 'The Church of Jesus Christ' besides The Church of Jesus Christ. That would be the Cutlerite organization from information provided by McKay. Now, for the many, many organizations that may associate with the name 'Church of Jesus Christ' there is already a disambig page. So right here the issue is between two organizations. Not three. Not twenty. Two. All of the editors here including McKay have agreed to this point. So the issue between these two groups should be and already have been addressed. The easiest way to settle a disambig problem between two or relatively few organizations would be a link at the top of both pages. Both of the pages in question already have a disambig link. The Church of Jesus Christ has a disambig link at the top of their page. I would argue that for the relatively few, and no evidence has shown it to be anything other than very few, people who would not look up the 'Cutlerites' with the term Cutlerite have easy access to that page. So according to my understanding the WP:D issue has already been resolved. No editor has currently explained why the disambig link above both pages are not satisfactory. I oppose any move. SESMITH previously argued that if it would not be 'Bickertonite' then it should be the official name of the church. That name is The Church of Jesus Christ. Since the disambig link already exists there would be no issue. I oppose any move.Jcg5029 00:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Not just the name "the Church of Jesus Christ" but usage of the term. I think that it's likely that the church of Jesus Christ-Christian, probably refers to itself as the Church of Jesus Christ. Note that it took me 4 hours at the library to find a book showing the history of the Cutlerite church and historical usage of the name. I have demonstratably "proved" that this term could refer to the cutlerite church, because I thought that that church would be the easiest. It has been shown and attributed that there are at least 20 distinct organizations that go by the name "Church of Jesus Christ" That is good enough for wikipedia. I have explained why the disambig link above both pages are not satisfactory. I'll say it again: "According to WP:D." Lets read all of the relevant sections, shall we?

• Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic.

  In this case, the term "Church of Jesus Christ" can be associated with more than one topic. It could refer to the church with it's headquarters in Monongahela Pennsylvania, it could refer to the church informally called "Cutlerites", it could refer to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" it could refer to the body of saints with a belief in Jesus Christ. It could also refer to one of the at least 20 organizations with such a name (according to adherents)...

• Two different methods of disambiguating are discussed here: disambiguation links, disambiguation pages

  JRN implies that dab links are the preferred way of resolving the conflict. McKay has said that dab pages are the preferred way of resolving this conflict

• A user searching for a particular term might not expect the article that appears. Therefore, helpful links to any alternative articles with similar names are needed.

  This says that in the cases where there is a conflict, there should be a link to other places, the "otheruses" templates are examples of hatnotes that can be used. Speficially:

• When a user searches for a particular term, he or she may have something else in mind than what actually appears. In this case, a friendly link to the alternative article is placed at the top.

  So if The Church of Jesus Christ doesn't become a disambiguation page, then there should most certainly be a hatnote directing to the right place. The Question is "When should we just have hatnotes back and forth, and when to have disambiguation pages?" the "Dab links" section gives the following hint:

• Where there are several articles to be disambiguated from each other, include a link to a separate disambiguation page.

  Hmm, "several" is a bit ambiguous, but I think 20 different churches should alone be enough to satisfy that criterion. Or Salt Lake, Independance, Monongahela, Cambridge? (aryan), and the body of believers is also enough. But note that the disambiguation page provides a more clear criterion:

• When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other..., then that topic may be used for the title of the main article.

  I have shown on countless occasions that church with it's headquarters in Monongahela is not meant much more than any other usage of the term. I suspect that either the Salt Lake City church, or the term of the body of saints with faith in Jesus Christ might be the most popular usage of the term. I have asked for anyone to provide any evidence showing that the Monongahelan church is mean much more than any other usage of the term, and they have only been met with sayings that the monongahelan church is larger than the cutlerite church, which doesn't show usage of the term at all.

• Where there is no such clearly dominant usage there is no primary topic page.

  meaning the term's page should be a disambiguation page, which is what I'm using. No one has shown "clearly dominant usage" so the page should be a disambiguation page.

I'm quoting the policy directly here, those opposing the move are using terms like "well the monongahelan church is bigger" when the policies in place specify "dominant usage" of the term or one topic being meant "much more than any other". This is the policy folks. McKay 15:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry did you show evidence other organizations besides the 'Cutlerites' use the article? Nope. Looks like the page is currently correct according to all wiki policies. Unless 19 missing pages can be found...Jcg5029 15:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, did you mean 15 more? Because I did show 5 (Monongahela, Salt Lake, Independance, Cambridge, people)

I can list some more

• Church of Jesus Christ, Minsk (or Church of Jesus Christ (Belarus)) (referenced here and in other places as "Church of Jesus Christ")
• Church of Jesus Christ in Madagascar (two million adherents) (most certainly notable)
• Church of Jesus Christ (Cleveland, Tennessee) "At least 20 independent religious bodies in the U.S. bear the name Church of Jesus Christ. " Largest was founded in 1927 by Bishop M. K. Lawson in Cleveland, Tennessee. It currently has 100,000 members.\

Sure, there are probably more, many of them are not notable. But certainly there *is* a name conflict. The Monongahelan church is not the only church with that name. It must be established that one of them is meant "much more than any other" or show "clearly dominant usage" failing that, The Church of Jesus Christ must become a disambiguation page.

Also, note that some of these are larger than the Monongahelan church. Even if you want to go by size, the monongahelan drops out of top ranking. McKay 16:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with these churches, for the following reasons:

• Church of Jesus Christ in Minsk is usually described with a qualifier, such as Church of Jesus Christ, Minsk, and is just a single congregation, not a distinct denomination. The name is also a translation from the Belarusian language. On the church building itself, it probably has the Belarusian name. Its article, if one is created, would probably be called Church of Jesus Christ (Minsk, Belarus), because it refers to a single congregation and has a distinct location.
• Church of Jesus Christ in Madagascar, if someone creates an article for it, would be called Church of Jesus Christ in Madagascar.
• The charismatic "Church of Jesus Christ" founded by Lawson in Cleveland, TN, is actually called the Church of Jesus Christ International. The name of their article would be Church of Jesus Christ International.

As it stands, none of these churches have their own Wikipedia articles, and I still see no risk of confusion. COGDEN 02:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You keep making a great proposal that Church of Jesus Christ should be a disambig page. It already is.Jcg5029 16:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This is taken from the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints).

   * Guiding principles
   * Listed in relative priority
         o Use accurate titles and terms. - The Church of Jesus Christ is the name recognized by the United States Government
         o Present titles and terms in a neutral point of view; avoid "endorsing" or "opposing" the views of any church. - This title does not play favorites or oppose anything but upholds United States Government recognition
         o Avoid disrespect without sacrificing NPOV policy. - This name does not disrepect anyone and is not POV directed because of the registration as a corporation under this name in the USGovt registry
         o Prefer general Christianity and Latter Day Saint movement articles (such as "Priesthood" or "Priesthood (Latter Day Saints)") over more specific unidenominational articles, unless there is a significant amount of unidenominational material. - No conflict here.
         o Make it easy for readers to find articles relating to the Latter Day Saint movement and its various denominations, their members, and their theology. - This has been done due to the current disambiguation page in place.
         o Prefer shorter titles and terms over longer ones. - Adding anything additional to the title violates this.

Following these simple guidlines for the Latter Day Saint movement shows no move is needed.Jcg5029 16:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

To emphasize that this statement was correct please see WP:NCON. Overlapping naming issues should be resolved by WP:D. McKay has gone into elaborate detail to show how Church of Jesus Christ overlaps with many other organizations. For just this issue, a disambig page has already been formed under the title Church of Jesus Christ. Thus both naming disputes and disambig policies and guidlines are strictly adhered to on this page as it now stands. There is no issue.Jcg5029 17:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

First off, you have not ever showed that it is recognized by the national government, only by Pennsylvania. But we shouldn't be using government naming convention, but wikipedia policy. Also Did you not read my argument about WP:D? I quoted WP:D and showed how The Church of Jesus Christ isn't in compliance with those guidelines. Current Disambig policy is not being met! THERE IS AN ISSUE. Stating there isn't an issue doesn't mean anything, you have to show how my logic was flawed! I'm quoting policy, tell me where I'm making a mistake in my interpretation! Make a logical argument, not logical fallacies like a proof by repeated assertion. Just having a disambig page doesn't bring full compliance. The location of the disambig page is also set by WP:D. WP:D is what should be used when there's a conflict. Here's another example of why JCG is wrong in trying to use Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints) to resolve this policy. Lets look at the cutlerite church using it:

1. Use accurate titles and terms:
   • "The Church of Jesus Christ" is what they are called. It's accurate.
2. Present titles and terms in a neutral point of view; avoid "endorsing" or "opposing" the views of any church.
   • no problem here either
3. Avoid disrespect without sacrificing NPOV policy.
   • The term is not disrespectful to anyone
4. Prefer general Christianity and Latter Day Saint movement articles (such as "Priesthood" or "Priesthood (Latter Day Saints)") over more specific unidenominational articles, unless there is a significant amount of unidenominational material.
   • no conflict here
5. Make it easy for readers to find articles relating to the Latter Day Saint movement and its various denominations, their members, and their theology.
   • Yeah, it would be easy to find the cutlerite church if it were at The Church of Jesus Christ
6. Prefer shorter titles and terms over longer ones.
   • Adding anything to the title would violate this one

So, using these guidelines, it's clear that The Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite) must be moved to The Church of Jesus Christ. I'm so glad we have this policy. McKay 18:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a correction to McKay there has been evidence, see preface of History, that the Church is NATIONALLY registered as The Church of Jesus Christ. The state registration just emphasized that already established fact.128.118.246.242 18:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Where? can you provide this source? The only reference I have found so far is this one in pennsylvania If there's more, feel free to bring them forward, but like I said before, we care about popular usage of the term, not legal recognition. McKay 21:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, see using accurate terms. Your proposed terms have been already explained as inaccurate and even offensive, while the Cutlerites accurately call themselves 'Cutlerites'.128.118.246.242 19:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have only proposed options because no one else has. Mmy argument above is just that the church based in Independence, MO calls itself "The Church of Jesus Christ", and according to WP:NCON it belongs at The Church of Jesus Christ. McKay 21:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:D comes into effect only when a specific name can be associated with multiple terms. Please establish that multiple sources use The Church of Jesus Christ. So far McKay has established multiple organizations use Church of Jesus Christ.128.118.246.242 19:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Along these lines, dominate usage has been clearly shown. Being legally registered in Missouri and Being legally registered in the United States is a big difference. In fact, that would show that the organization is recognized in a dominate form more than the Cutlerites who simply refer to themselves as Cutlerites. any argument outside of legal recognition or a published document would simply show that the person making the claim has serious POV issues, might I ask if McKay is a member of the Latter-day Saints, Cutlerites or another organization in the Latter Day Saint Movement?128.118.246.242 19:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Dominant usage has NOT been shown. Legal usage is not dominant usage. Wikipedia policy AGAIN FOR THE 15TH time. a meaning neeads to be used "much more than any other". I can create a legal document that shows that I've got an organization called "The Church of Jesus Christ". Such legal documents mean nothing on wikipedia, Wikipedia policy is all about usage of a term. So what if I am a cutlerite? If you'd like to file an administrative complaint with potentially POV actions in this regard, feel free. All I do is quote policy. If somehow you think I've exerted a POV. Show them where. McKay 21:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe the demonstration of dominate usage was not properly noted here. The above editor made some valid points that were quickly discarded. Sure, legal is not the final say, but it does show usage. When a state recognizes an organization, but the Federal Gov recognizes a different organization by the same name -- Why do we think that happens? Probably the organization who is recognized nationally is a national organization. This is true for The Church of Jesus Christ. In fact, the church is a worldwide organization with membership in Europe, Africa, Asia, North and South America.

Now, on the contrary, the Cutlerites are one small group with one chapel in one city in Missouri.

So lets look at this -

The Church of Jesus Christ - worldwide and countless times the membership

The Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite) - maybe fifty members?? in one location...

Now, I would argue this clearly demonstrates dominate usage. It appears common sense a worldwide organization would use a term dominately more that one chapel. Now this tiny group of people ALREADY disambig themselves and commonly refer to themselves as Cutlerites. There would appear to be a dominate usage here by The Church of Jesus Christ considering they only refer to themselves as The Church of Jesus Christ. Others who are aquainted with the organization refer to them by the said name also. The major question has been historical usage which has been cited as offensive. Clearly dominate usage has been demonstrated between these two organizations.

Sure, McKay will counter that other organizations use the term 'Church of Jesus Christ'. There is already a disambig page for those churches. Sure larger organizations stress the name 'Church of Jesus Christ', but no other has been shown to commonly use the term THE -- NOTE THE ARTICLE -- the article is either lowercased or not used at all. So no other organization stresses the article in the name except the Cutlerites, which has already been demonstrated that The Church of Jesus Christ uses their name dominately more.Jcg5029 02:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

just to reiterate major points here "Church of Jesus Christ" is a dab page for all church's who use that name. "The Church of Jesus Christ" is currently conflicted by two articles on wikipedia, therefore a link at the top will suffice for WP:D. As of now on wiki "The Church of Jesus Christ" refers to two organizations, one being larger and more prominent that the other, thus common sense who support the larger one have more "common usage" of the term. I believe McKay's statement that it took him 4 hours to find ONE book that reference "The Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite)" should suffice enough to show more common usage for The Church of Jesus Christ. I believe all policy is satisfied. JRN 03:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

All those who are in favor of the move please go here. It should end the dispute.

[[3]]

McKay, please withdraw your request to move the page. Your requested move has been shown as an offensive name.Jcg5029 23:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

For the love of all that is holy, can we stop with the "offensive name" lines of argument, please? It's not McKay's intent to offend, clearly. He's making good-faith efforts to improve. It is irrelevant that someone is offended by the suggestion to move, even if that someone is members of the church or the church leadership itself. Pls see section discussion on NPOV in general on this same page, and can we all please start (and continue) to assume good faith and not fall back on these trite arguments? [misunderstood meaning]-SESmith 10:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh I am sorry, thats not the way I intended that to come across. Read the link, you see, the proposed name for the move has been shown as an offensive term. Not the suggestion to move as offensive, but I can see how some might be offended by it.Jcg5029 01:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see. I apologize for my outburst. I totally misunderstood your meaning. In retrospect it should have been clear to me. My mistake, and I withdraw the comment/request. -SESmith 21:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I hate polls but think there could be confusion with the name and favor a move to something neutral like The Church of Jesus Christ (Pennsylvania) per the naming policy of the church. and keep The Church of Jesus Christ a disambig page. --Trödel 19:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC) In a quick search I found following Churchs that use the name:

• http://www.apostolicsofnewlandnc.org/
• http://www.cutlerite.org/
• http://www.cojc.org/usa/main/
• http://www.brfwitness.org/Articles/2004v39n2.htm
• http://www.monroecc.edu/depts/sociology/pluralism/Storefronts/SF43.htm

Additionally, many christians consider "The Church of Jesus Christ" to be a non-formal organization made up of the true followers of Christ. So I think that a disambig page would work best here. --Trödel 20:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

In the web site you mentioned, the church opposes the Pennsylvania disambiguation, and I can understand that, since I wouldn't want people referring to the LDS Church as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Utah)", either. The way I see it, since the only other notable organization that we know of with the proper name The Church of Jesus Christ is the tiny Cutlerite branch, and it's not clear whether the Cutlerites use the The as part of their proper name, and the Cutlerites have no problem with being called Cutlerites, whereas this church has the "trade name", so to speak, and is offended by any disambiguators, there's no reason to disambiguate the article, so long as there is an "other uses" tag directing to a disambiguation page.

As for confusion, I don't think there is any real risk. Most likely, anyone typing "The Church of Jesus Christ" is looking for this church. Someone looking for the Cutlerite branch would probably type "Cutlerite". Anyone looking for the "Church of Jesus Christ International" would include the "International". Anyone looking for the "Church of Jesus Christ, Inc." would include the "Inc.", etc. The only other case that could be of concern is the single congregation in Minsk that presumably still exists, whose name is translated "Church of Jesus Christ", and another in Ukrane whose name is "Tserkov Iisusa Khrista" which also translates as "Church of Jesus Christ", but these don't have their own articles, and I doubt anyone would be confused. As to the various pentecostal congregations that might use the name (such as the one in Newland, NC), I really doubt any of them are notable. Use of the term to describe the Christian Church is rare, but I think a proper name takes precedence over a rare common or descriptive name that is most often called something else. COGDEN 20:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Your comment re trademark made me curious. It looks like this denomination does have a trademark but they claim that the first use of the mark (I assume the graphic) was in 2004. Before that the word mark "The Church of Jesus Christ" doesn't seem to have had any trademark status - probably because the phrase is to generic. Interestingly, the first claim of the word mark was a bookstore in Utah.

I don't know for sure whether they would be able to sustain a claim in the U.S. for the trade name, but its plausible. Trade names don't have to be registered to be protected under either state or federal law, and in fact, the Community of Christ was unsuccessful in getting its name registered, but I wouldn't dare go out and start a new church with that name (not that I would, of course). This church has apparently been using the trade name "The Church of Jesus Christ" since the 1800s, they are an international organization, and they have some government registrations. The term "church of Jesus Christ" could be generic, but it's hard to say. It would take years of litigation probably about a million dollars to find that out. The addition of the "The" at the beginning of the name would help a lot in its case for owning the trade name. COGDEN 23:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That aside, the general guidelines lean towards using the page as a disambig. Just like Georgia is a disambig page even though the overwelming majority of english speakers would use Georgia for the state not the country. I would guess that the number of people searching for this church would be much less than the number of people seaching for CJC LDS who are too lazy to type in Latter-day Saint. A disambig page would allow all uses to be identified and not claim that this particular denomination is the "right" one called The Church of Jesus Christ.

Sorry I misread the page from this denomination. --Trödel 21:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I think that the existence of people who are too lazy to type in the full name of the LDS Church shouldn't be a factor. I really doubt that anyone would expect to get the LDS Church by typing "The Church of Jesus Christ", and if they got this church instead, they'd know that the article was not about the LDS Church. There are two types of people: (1) people who know that the LDS church is called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and that insistance on using the full name is a big deal to church members, and (2) people who know the church as the Mormon Church. Nobody I know calls it "The Church of Jesus Christ". COGDEN 23:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that any of these churches should have their article at "The Church of Jesus Christ", but that the term "The Church of Jesus Christ" can be used to mean more than one thing. The clear wikipedia policy is if one term is meant much more than any other, then it should have the primary page, if not it should be a disambiguation page. I've presented the google test results (The Church of Jesus Christ) as some evidence that the church with it's headquarters in monongahela is *not* meant much more than other usage of the term. I'll admit that the evidence is weak, but no one has presented any evidence to the contrary. People have said "this church is larger than others with this exact name", but I've stated that church size, and legal authority mean nothing for this policy dispute. Usage of the term is what's important here. McKay 21:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It can be used to mean more than one organization, but it's the only organization that can be presented by that name without a necessary qualifier such as "(Cutlerite)", "Inc.", "International", or "of Latter-day Saints". People expect that an organization's article is titled by the full official name, or the name used by the organization itself, and since people expect that everything else other than this church will be disambiguated, I just don't see any naming conflict. And once again, I don't think the Google test applies here, since you can get the LDS Church as the first result by simply typing "church of Jesus" or "church jesus", but nobody calls the LDS Church that. It's just a fact that it's a subset of the full name, and there are so many LDS Church-related websites. COGDEN 23:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with COGDEN and just wanted to add one more thought. For those too lazy to type Latter-day Saint or Latter Day Saint -- those same people probably would not type in all capital letters, thus they would not even arrive at this site. They would arrive at a page like a search engine of yahoo or the like. So while I can see the points Trödel made, surely those same people would not take that much time into typing all caps as well and then just stopping.Jcg5029 00:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 19:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Rigdonite

Okay, I know I know this has been beaten over. We are all happy with the section added clarifying the issue right?? I just want everybody to read the third paragraph...doesn't that last sentence just sound bad?? I'm not saying Rigdonite is not a historical term that should be mentioned, but is there a better way or even a less clunky way here or later in the page to say it?Jcg5029 02:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing it. It terribly interrupts the flow and reads like a 2nd grade report. It sticks out like a sore thumb and breaks all continuity in the paragraph. The use of descriptive terms clarifies those statements so I don't think it needs to be there.

On a side note I'm up for revisiting the introduction as I feel it has been mutilated. It seems to jump back and forth and spends too much time on the bickertonite issue. Thoughts???? JRN 03:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and made some small changes and rewordings that I feel convey the message clear and with less jumpbled jargon. How does it look??? JRN

Disambiguation and the "The"

This appears to be a difficult disambiguation problem, but maybe we're focusing on the wrong things. Can't we resolve this by making a distinction between The Church of Jesus Christ with the initial "The", which represents an organization, and Church of Jesus Christ, which seems to be a good candidate for a disambiguation page? I think including the "The" is very significant. There's no clear indication that any of the other organizations use the "The" as part of a proper name, and someone searching Wikipedia hoping to find out about the Christian Church wouldn't include the "The". I would analogize this to The Cure, which is about the band, versus Cure, which is a disambiguation page. COGDEN 00:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

There seems to be some confusion about pictures within this article. There have been many addition of pictures and removal of pictures. In order for these desired pictures to be a part of the article, there needs to be some clairification on how this can be accomplished. Copyright cannot be the entire issue if this aforementioned person keeps removing them. Any explaining yourself would be helpful to all so that we can go about this correctly. My understanding of the policy is that provided that these images have been taken by a person who wishes them to be used on the site, they can simply relinquish them to public domain and add them to the site. Is it really that simple? CSG 18:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're referring to this edit I recently made. I didn't actually remove any images during that edit. Those images were commented out, and didn't appear on previous versions of the page for quite some time. They were commented out, becuase those images were marked as possible copyvio images.

Yes, if the person who took the images puts them in public domain, they can be added to the site. McKay 14:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

History

I added a lot of good, well known information into this site -- it expands it and I welcome other editors to help make it look awesome. Also some later history not well known...Jcg5029 01:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Disambig sections

McKay has done excellent research to change the Cutlerite name to no longer include the article (The). Because of this I propose and am changing the link to the Cutlerites - who can already be found though the other disambig page. Plus see all the reasons why the disambig on their page to this one was considered by all editors as not needed. Jcg5029 00:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Organizational Structure and Auxilaries

I added a ton of external links in the hopes of expanding the page and giving more information on church auxilaries and structure. Jcg5029 01:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Differences?

What are the differences between this group and other LDS/Mormon groups?

I'm sorry, but that's a sensitive subject around here. They don't like to be compared to other LDS sects. Comparison material gets removed from the page. McKay 16:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, McKay, could you repeat what you desired to remove from the page? I didn't follow. Is there a specific place on this site or other sites that need worked on in order to properly represent this group and its history and membership? Jcg5029 18:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC) (EC, this was removed, I've re-added it as my reply pertains to this).

It was a vigorous struggle in April of this year.

• "there is very little similar"
• should probably be removed from wikiproject
• we did have a doctrinal section, but it was too wordy

  He refers to an older version, that did have comparisions, but JN, and JCG, and a couple others, gradually removed all of it.

• removing all links to other LDS churches
• stop adding references to LDS churches

  I believe he refers to these edits (and others like them):

  • [4]
  • [5]

• stop "vandalizing" with your opinion

  Referring to basically the same content.

So, while I think such comparison content should be added to the page, it won't stay. They fight big battles over removing content like that, so while I'd like to help, I feel like I don't have time to fight this smaller battle. McKay 19:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh let me explain. My question I initially posted was directed at McKay not realizing he did not actually make the unsigned post, I had thought it was a part of his post.

To answer the initial question I agree with McKay. Comparison material on certain subjects has been removed to remain neutral for this organization in respect to them and their beliefs. Jcg5029 19:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually the doctrinal section was a literal quote from the Faith and Doctrine of this church, not a comparison between groups. Also the links were a separate issue. They were linking ordained offices of this organization to specific pages where the overwhelming majority of the information was on other groups like the LDS Church. A nice edit made the links non denomination specific as it stands now. Jcg5029 19:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

For clarification, I don't believe he does agree with me. We both have seen that the content was removed in the past. He thinks that comparision is a violation of NPOV, which it is not. I think that it should be placed back in, and would support anyone doing so. McKay 20:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify this jumbled jargon, the above edits to this page made it NPOV. I would seriously ask any individual to view this page as of six to ten months ago to today. Huge improvements. As for the many many editions and changes referenced below, many did involve clear POV issues and some even vandalous to the site.

WP cannot show bias against or in favor of any religion, many of the above discussions or edits have been made so there is no bias against this religious group.Jcg5029 20:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

What you don't seem to understand, is that a comparison to another religion is not POV. It doesn't favor a church if you're comparing it. Encyclopedias should be useful. People who read the article on The Church of Jesus Christ would probably think a comparison to the much more common The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints helpful. It doesn't mean that that church is any "more true" than the church in this article, it just provides a frame of reference that would be more familiar to the reader. McKay 22:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

What you don't seem to understand is that this page is NOT ABOUT THE LDS CHURCH. Therefore putting information on here about the LDS church would violate policy because then this page would be used to advertise another church. If someone really wants to find out about the lds church then they are more than welcome to go to the lds page. THAT'S WHAT THE LDS PAGE IS THERE FOR. Please just stop whining about the additions/corrections that have been made to this page. We've all heard the same junk for quite some time now.

JRN 22:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

For example:

Liquid crystal display television references competing technologies.

Rational trigonometry references "classical" trigonometry

Halo: Combat Evolved references its "competitors" half life, and goldeneye.

Planck units though defined "naturally" they're also made by a direct comparison to their SI counterparts.

Relational model is compared to the hierarchical and network models

Would anyone in their right mind say "No, you can't reference SI units when talking about Planck units, Planck units are natural, we must only refer to them by their natural calculations! We have to keep a NPOV!" Absolutely not. It's absoultely absurd.

By saying that there shouldn't be any comparison with the LDS Church, you are exerting your own POV onto the situation. McKay 22:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep whining. This page has been drastically improved over the past couple months and is extremely NPOV. I see no faults with the page now and I really don't feel like arguing the same monotonous point over and over again with you. I have in no way exerted a POV over this page but have labored to keep it as neutral as possible. JRN 22:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe when the LDS Church also includes a section on other Latter Day Saint groups it would be appropriate. Discussion on the movement's page might be more appropriate. I have a hard time seeing where McKay keeps strict NPOV when he/she does not attempt to have this same type of section on other group's pages. Maybe a separate page with the basic differences of the major groups? Just a thought. That way all the groups could have the same basic section on the page linking to the major page. That way one group isn't picked on more than another. Until then. Jcg5029 01:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not editing any of the other pages. I can't speak for their POV. I've been watching this page, so I'm working on making it in line with policies and guidelines. McKay 15:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This page is in line with policy and procedure. No thanks to you and your POV. JRN 23:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What are the differences between this group and other LDS/Mormon groups?

This was the initial question. There are many, many Latter Day Saint articles here on wiki. Many are supposed to include opinions of multiple organizations, but thus far only info has been provided for the LDS Church and maybe the CoC. I think to bring this back to the initial point -- LOTS of work needs done on other Latter Day Saint pages to provide proper information on this organization. I suggest since all three of us feel this issue is extremely important we start working on them. Jcg5029 00:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

For whoever keeps leaving the unsigned comment I will list a couple (not all) of the main differences between the 2 churches:

1. We believe in one priesthood after the order of the Son of God 2. We do not believe Joseph Smith was the choice seer 3. We do not believe that we are currently in zion as the scripture describes 4. The President of our church is not arbitrarily given the title of prophet, seer, and revelator 5. We do not believe in "sealing" or celestial marriage 6. We never endorsed plural marriage or polygamy at any time during our history 7. We believe Joseph Smith had many revelations contrary to the will of God and that Joseph Smith eventually became a fallen prophet 8. We believe that there exist no other gods besides the true and living God. 9. We don't believe in baptism for the dead 10. We only use the bible and book of mormon as scripture There are many many others but I don't want to leave a lengthy post. As I have said before, there is very little common between TCOJC and the lds church. I disagree that this sight needs a section that differentiates us from any other organization, including the lds church. The only way that I would consent to a section like that is if there would be a section added to every other religion article covering the differences between it and every other religion. Unless we can satisfy that I don't feel the need to add one here. JRN 23:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Succession crisis issue

I have what is more of a question than anything else about a sourced statement in the section with the heading "Sidney Rigdon".

It is implied that during the 1844 succession crisis, John Taylor and P.P. Pratt (members of the Quorum of the Twelve) were not present because they were in the Salt Lake Valley. I'm quite sure this is wrong if the intent is to refer to the August 1844 meeting where Young and Rigdon were vying for leadership. Taylor and Pratt were both present at the August 1844 meeting, according to my sources. Perhaps the cited source is referring to another instance—the re-creation of a First Presidency under Brigham Young in 1847, perhaps? In any case, this needs fleshed out in the article to make it clear what we are talking about there. –SESmith 04:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand now--the article did say that this was the meeting to decide the Presidency, which would make it the 1847 meeting. I'll edit the article to clarify that. -SESmith 04:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That's just another example of one of the many points that we disagree on. I too thought it was the 1844 meeting and not the 1847 meeting. Personally I'm for removing the whole section of information because it really doesn't deal with the history of TCOJC since Ridgon left the organization before that point and the history tie ended. What do you think SESmith??? JRN 23:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was surprised it was added and wouldn't be disappointed to see it removed. I can see it's relevance since Bickerton's argument for authority is based on Rigdon's original claim, but I think Rigdonite article could cover the issues better, as could Succession crisis (and probably even Sidney Rigdon or First Presidency), though I see there's a debate over at Rigdonite whether the mere existence of that article is appropriate. It's the kind of thing that is relevant, but might be better served by a "see also" or a shorter summary section with a "Main article:" redirection.

If the intent was to refer to the 1844 meeting, I'm sure the information on Taylor and Pratt being in Utah is incorrect. None of the Latter Day Saints went to Utah until 1847. If it's referring to the December 1847 meeting it's totally correct—only 7 of the apostles were at that meeting. –SESmith 23:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The cited portion was about the 1847 re-institution of the First Presidency by the Quorum of Twelve. From my understanding The Church of Jesus Christ views these actions as a example of why the quorum was not acting correctly in these proceedings, thus sustaining (in their opinion) why authority remained with Sidney Rigdon as the primary Councilor to Smith in the First Presidency. Now, it is true, around this time Rigdon was looking to rebuild zion which caused a complete splintering of that self titled 'Church of Christ' which was later re-organized by William Bickerton. But TCOJC to my understanding of the cited article views these proceedings as a final move, along with rebaptism, which caused them to commit the dreaded 'A' word. So to shed light of their thoughts on these proceedings I feel it is very important to include this section where it is. Jcg5029 00:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

So, to clarify = TCOJC views since Rigdon was the right hand counselor to Smith in the First Presidency naturally the reigns of government were to fall on him UNTIL one could have been lawfully elected as President of the church. In their views, the quorum usurped authority from Rigdon and then (without the quorum with a lawful majority in their opinion) sustained a new First Presidency to lead the church in an unlawful manner violating church policies - once again in the eyes of TCOJC. So I feel their views on these proceedings are very important. Jcg5029 00:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks—got it. That's what I thought was meant and the edits I made reflected that.

From what's in the article, I'm not clear on how the authority passed from Rigdon to Bickerton. Is it Bickerton's vision that gave him authority to proceed with reorganization, or did he have the authority because he was an Elder in the "Rigdonite" church? –SESmith 02:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

JRN may have a greater understanding of this. From my studies it appears authority of the priesthood was given through the ordinations within the Rigdonite organization - which obviously they felt was the continuation of the Church of Christ. When Rigdon abandoned the church many people dissented and went to other organizations. Bickerton himself never joined them because he felt assured of his calling in the 'true and unadulterated Gospel of Christ'. With this authority of God Bickerton was completely alone at that time. He felt to join another church or faction of the restoration would require the inspiration of God. Through his visions, much like Joseph Smith, he was shown all these factions were incorrect and he alone must preach the Gospel which he had been ordained. All others had fallen. He alone carried the weight and responsibility. The Church of Jesus Christ consideres itself through William Bickerton to be the 'new wine found in the cluster' of Isaiah. So I guess my understanding is authority of Christ was ordained through Rigdon's 'Church of Christ' and revelation drived Bickerton to take the stands he did. Jcg5029 02:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Jcg5029 is correct of the descent of authoriy. We claim authority from Smith to Rigdon to Bickerton whereas the LDS Church goes Smith to the Quorum to Brigham Young (I believe). Bickerton was ordained an elder and evnagelist under Rigdon's authority before Rigdon's group splintered. Bickerton's vision did not give him anymore anuthority than he already had but merely placed him in the point where he was either to continue to preach the truth of the gospel as was given to him or not to, which would have led him to the dark chasm he saw before him. Of course this is all what TCOJC believes, and not necessarily the views of anyone else. Does this better explain the descent of authority? JRN 21:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. If I understand you correctly, Bickerton had full authority to do what he did by virtue of his ordination as an Elder in the "Rigdonite" reorganization of the church. Or was it because he was an Evangelist? –SESmith 23:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Both really. The ordination of an elder gave him the authority and the ordination of an evangelist made it his responsibility to preach the gospel to anyone who would hear him. JRN 23:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Parent church = "...of Latter Day Saints", or no?

I reverted back to the name of the parent church being "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints", because that is objectively the name of the Church Sidney Rigdon belonged to and held a senior leadership position in at the time of Joseph Smith's death, and which Rigdon is believed to have been perpetuating, which is also what the modern Church of Jesus Christ claims its succession through.

Furthermore, even this article quotes the Church of Jesus Christ's council, in 1855, under Bickerton, as referring to their own church as "...the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints..." This suggests this was still what they referred to themselves as. Is this wrong, or is there something I'm missing here? If it is true, this extends by many years the time in which the earlier stage of the modern church was known under the name I reverted to.

As an aside, the church's official website, as linked to in the article, also says "The Church of Jesus Christ is not affiliated with any other Church and has never been known under any other name" [6] (emphasis added), although this seems to be contradicted by the quotation from the church council under Bickerton in 1855 calling it "...the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints...", even if not by the claims of descendency from the church Joseph Smith organized in 1830, which was also known by other names, and as the article also notes, the church's name was also legally registered at one early point as "Church of Jesus Christ of Green Oak, Pennsylvania". Not trying to be antagonistic here, just pointing out and asking about something I'm not too familiar with but that doesn't seem consistent.

And, we should probably seek consensus here before changing the "name of the parent church" in the article again. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 20:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Use Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints: I too believe the parent church should be "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints", and the link should direct to Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints). The Church of Jesus Christ explicitly claims to trace its authority through Rigdon, who ordained Bickerton (see discussion section immeidately above this one)—and the church Rigdon broke from in 1844 was the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 01:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is my two cents worth...The Church of Jesus Christ does not claim to be the continuation of the Rigdonite Church. What The Church of Jesus Christ does claim is to be the continuation/true branch of the Church of Christ as restored to Joseph Smith. Now that name was changed over time, but its the original name that even the LDS Wiki page uses. I suggest we stay congruent between pages. I'll make the change. Jcg5029 03:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

See also the name of the page we are linking to, its the Church of Christ. Why make it any different??? Jcg5029 03:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Because the Church of Christ was called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in 1844, and the split did not happen until then at the earliest. Saying it is are a continuation of the Church of Christ means it was a continuation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, unless you are arguing for a pre-1833 branch off. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 07:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh I agree with the historical name, but there is a bigger issue. Leaving the name as Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints is completely accurate for history at the time, but it is very confusing to many who may view this page that are not associated with the Latter Day Saint movement. Lets be honest - most would assume that break off was of the Latter-day Saint church NOT the Latter Day Saint church. And yes there is a huge difference. So in order to not confuse the two -- it simply is easier to refer to it by its original name. Jcg5029 19:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that it is important to understand what this organization (The Church of Jesus Christ) is claiming. As far as my understanding is concerned, they claim to be the spiritual successor of the original organization that Joseph Smith, JR. set up initially. They do not claim any succession from any of the additional changes made to Joseph's initial organization. When Rigdon gained the presidency according to succession, and then Bickerton, they both tried to go back to what Joseph initially set up. The parent church of this organization according to practice and doctrine is The Church of Christ. Especially considering that there are several different pages for each of these organizations, I really dont see where your arguement is coming from to change it to the COJC-LDS. It really doesnt make any sense considering what this organization claims. CSG 19:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CSG091006 (talk • contribs)

Just a quick follow up to my comment previously too. I believe to my best knowledge is to create an accurate article for Wikipedia for each article on here. If we are to maintain the most accurate picture of this organization to the world, it is important to understand where this organization is coming from. The paragraph is simply stating where they 'claim' to gain their succession. CSG 19:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CSG091006 (talk • contribs)

Is that what is important, or is it to represent the body that they broke from in historical fact? I think we're interpreting the purpose of the box differently. An organization can claim all sorts of things, but the facts as understood by historians might say something completely different. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 22:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know Rigdon never "broke" from the organization. Rigdon continued on in what Joseph Smith was doing. They both faltered after the initial restoration of the gospel (1830) adding in doctrines as they saw fit. They only difference between Rigdon and Young were that Young was a polygamist and once Young took the group out west he officially split from The Restored Gospel when he rebaptized everyone in Utah under his authority and not the authority of Jesus Christ. The Church of Jesus Christ believes it is a true succession from the 1830 although Rigdon began to falter, William Bickerton began to slowly fix what had been created by the false revelations of Joseph Smith 71.61.86.233 22:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That's one POV. But our goal is to strive to be NPOV, not to advance the claims of one religion. A neutral POV would suggest that both Young and Rigdon "broke" from the church Smith had been the head of. To argue which church is the true continuation of Smith's is (1) ultimately unresolvable and (2) riddled with POV. Thus, neither should be represented in fact as being the continuation of Smith's church. Thus, both this article and the one on the LDS Church should state that the churchs' immediate institutional predecessor was the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, that is, the Church of Christ under its 1844 name. Anything else is sacrificing objectivity for the sake of advancing a church's own POV perception of what it is. The LDS Church's info box states this now and this one should too.

The concern about confusion resulting with the LDS Church is minor, but largely unavoidable. The link will redirecto to Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints), so it's largely attenuated. With so many Latter Day Saint denominations sharing such similar names, you're bound to have some confusion result. It's the nature of the beast; but that's one reason we provide links to other articles. :) Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 23:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I keep reverting the name in question back to what it was when this discussion began. Reaverdrop mentioned this in his/her original posting in this discussion, but can various editors please stop changing it until a consensus develops to change it? That's typically the way things work when there's a naming dispute in WP. Thanks. :) Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 00:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be Church of Christ for one main reason. The Church of Jesus Christ claims it's continuation of authority from Joseph Smith to Sidney Risgdon to William Bickerton. The doctrine (re)established by William Bickerton were those of the 1830 Church of Christ. Although the name was Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints after the change in 1834 until Rigdon left in 1844 we claim no part of that church. Our doctrines and beliefs did not come from that time period. They came from the 1830 church. The Church of Jesus Christ does not believe that it's parent church was the 1844 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Rich Uncle Skeleton seems to be confusing the line of authority with the parent church. They are two seperate things. Although Rigdon did things that were contrary to the will of God, according to the beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ, we don't feel he lost his authority. Thus when William Bickerton was baptized and ordained under the authority of Rigson it passed to Bickerton. William Bickerton did not continue on with Rigdon but re-established under the precepts of the 1830 church, also known as Church of Christ. I don't see how you can argue that historically. I think it would be suitable for parties involved to have more of a background in The Church of Jesus Christ before trying to make edits to the page. It seems unethical to make edits to something that you have very little knowledge of. Thanks JRN 01:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are you making assumptions about my level of knowledge? You know nothing about me. I am quite well-versed on this church and its history, thank you. If anything is "unethical", it is making edits or suggestions about edits concerning an organization that you are intimately involved with: see WP:COI. (You say "we" and "our", leading me to assume you are a member or a representative of this organization.) It's also "unethical" to make personal attacks in WP, and it's all the moreso reprehensible when it is based on limited knowledge of the person you are attacking.

I am not confusing the line of authority with the parent church. What I am saying is that from a historian's perspective it makes no sense to say that the parent church was the Church of Christ when that institution was not named that when the "line of authority" broke off from it. Historically (not theologically) speaking, no church can rightfully claim to be a branch off from the Church of Christ unless it branched off pre-1833, when the church was called that. I understand you and your church's desire to portray itself as the successor to the Church of Christ—that's your prerogative as a member and for all I know it's theologically true—but your theological views can't be incorporated into the WP article in this way if it conflicts with the manner in which most neutral historians interpret the church's development and history. Sorry. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 01:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I made no claims to the rightful succession of Church of Christ. I am a member of the said organization and believe I do have a right to edit this page. I have not been in a WP:COI just because I am a member. I have not tried to use this to promote or advertise and have made no gains from it. I am here to simply make sure that the page is correct and balanced. If you want to make claims of WP:COI then you will have a long road ahead of you stopping every on wikipedia from editing pages about their religion. I made no personal attacks on anyone. I just get angry when individuals make edits with seemingly little knowledge about what they are editing. I never called anyone out by name (including you). Thanks JRN 01:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that you have a right to edit the page and wasn't suggesting that I was going to "turn you in" for violating WP:COI; I was merely pointing out to you that before accusing others of unethical behavior (which you clearly did, whether or not it was me), it's helpful to examine your own behavior and make sure it is above-board. :) The reason I made the comments about you or the church being permitted to believe any theological theory of succession that you want is because of your statement above: "I think it should be Church of Christ for one main reason"—and then you proceeded to back up your assertion with reasons that are fundamentally theological interpretations as opposed to just a mere recitation of historical events.

If you weren't accusing me of being unethical, then whose edits were the ones "making you angry"? Or was this a purely theoretical spate of anger based on the potential that someone with little knowledge could edit the page?

Anyway—to get back to my point, stop making changes until a consensus develops. One clearly hasn't risen to the surface yet. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 01:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

New proposal

Since there is disagreement on the issue of the "parent church", I'm willing to propose a compromise. How about including both Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints) and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? It could say something like "Church of Christ (theologically); Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (historically)" or something similar. Perhaps "Church of Christ, which was renamed Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in 1838"? Either of these would succeed in acknowledging both viewpoints. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 01:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree because this would be two links to the same page. It would be against Wiki Manual of style guidelines for internal links. Do you feel the Church of Christ was a different church than Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?? If you feel they are two different organizations I may have more sympathy for your arguments. If you feel they are the same church with a different name, as all historical records agree -- MOST of the time with the name varying depending on the autobiography -- then why not make sure there is no disambiguation dispute? Feel free to discuss below. Jcg5029 04:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This was an attempt at a compromise because we had reached an impasse. It's OK to deviate from rules in such situations. See WP:IGNORE. If you're worried about the double linkage, there's nothing that says one can be linked and the other one not linked.

We've been over your position, and it's clearly not condusive to reaching a consensus. Let's try and move on and come up with some innovative solutions that can satisfy what everyone's looking for. Merely rehashing old arguments will not do that. If you disagree with my proposal, you need to come up with an alternative compromise, not just restate what others have stated and has been rejected. My position has been clearly stated above where you can read it; since it too was rejected, there's also little sense going over it again.

And so—I restate again—what do others think of my proposed compromise? If you disagree, please propose something else that represents some sort of compromise. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 05:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is incorrect for the same reasons as jcg5029, and I agree with his proposal. You briefly stated in previous discussions that accidental association with the L-dS organization was unavoidable, but jcg5029 has just made a proposal that completely avoids that association and still links to the correct organization. Plus it follows the wiki guidlines. 146.186.44.239 16:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way—I'm assuming good faith that this anonymous IP address is not a WP:SOCKPUPPET, but it does look a little suspicious that the IP address has made virtually no edits except comments on this page. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 22:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It avoids the association but has the unfortunate side-effect of being somewhat historically misleading—according to one POV, I might add. There's nothing wrong with compromising and listing both. No wikipedia policy is violated if only one link is included. Let's show a little give and take here and come up with a compromise that can gain consensus instead of just beating the same old dead horse. Why am I still the only one who has proposed a compromise? Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 22:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

New proposal

In order to support Wiki Manual of Style for internal links I suggest the following. This is because leaving the term Latter Day Saints will leave a majority of readers to assume that The Church of Jesus Christ broke from the 1844 Latter-day Saints who are now located in Utah. Nobody could argue this assumption will not be made because they have 13 million people. Compared to the few hundred thousand in the old church -- thats a big difference. Plus many don't understand the Succession Crisis, etc of the era. So, in order to maintain Wiki guidlines which state, 'However, make sure that it is still clear what the link refers to without having to follow the link.' If the title remains Latter Day Saint there is not a clear understanding of what that link will be.

Just brushing aside wiki guidlines would not be proper procedures.

My proposal is to rename this link Church of Christ since...

• It was the original name of the church in question
• It follows all wiki guidlines
• It is the simplest solution to the naming conflict

Now, the original title before all of this dispute was Church of Jesus Christ. Because arguments have been made to NOT change the title until there is a clear consensus I will return the article to its original condition. That way neither side in this argument will be completely happy until this gets resolved. That way we can work together to get a good conclusion to the naming dispute. Jcg5029 04:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Um, that proposal was already on the table, and has been for awhile now. We were getting no where with it, and I definitely oppose it. See my proposal above for a compromise position. In situations like this, it's OK to invoke WP:IGNORE in order to reach consensus. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 05:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Only you opposed it that I have seen. Feel free to not ignore wiki policies and please explain why my reasoning is incorrect? Jcg5029 14:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Reaverdrop also opposed it—see very top of the discussion. Your reasoning is not "incorrect"; it's just that your proposal has already failed to gain consensus. Please submit a proposal that suggests a form of compromise so we can come to an agreement. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 22:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal, see notes for rejecting compromise. 146.186.44.239 16:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way—I'm assuming good faith that this anonymous IP address is not a WP:SOCKPUPPET, but it does look a little suspicious that the IP address has made virtually no edits except comments on this page. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 22:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I am a student who makes edits in between classes from a computer lab and currently am too busy to make a name, etc. Thank you for assuming good faith. 128.118.148.63 23:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. It does get a bit confusing when your IP address shifts around and changes. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 23:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Place compromise proposals on parent church and related discussion here

For clarity, here are some of the compromise proposals I'm putting forward. If anyone else has a compromise position to advance, you can include it here. Don't include a proposal that doesn't entail some sort of compromise. There are others that could be proposed, but that's a start. If everyone performs a little give and take, it shouldn't be difficult to come to an agreement on some sort of compromise. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 23:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed compromises

1. Church of Christ (theologically); Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (historically)
2. Church of Christ, which in 1838 was renamed Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
3. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, but claimed to be a continuation of pre-1833 Church of Christ
4. Church of Jesus Christ of the Children of Zion [one name for the 1840s Rigdonite church]
5. Church of Jesus Christ of the Children of Zion; claimed to be a continuation of Church of Christ
6. Nothing: Don't specify a "parent" church at all, thus avoiding the issue.

Discussion on compromise proposals

• I would be happy with any of 1–5, and would consider any other compromise positions. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 23:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• And to respond to Skeleton's proposed compromises: in #3, "but claimed..." doesn't sound very NPOV, and in #4 and #5, that seems less informative since it was a passing name in an intermediate phase of the church's lineage; but something along the lines of #1 or #2 would work quite well. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 23:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• #6. Why do we even have to specify any church from which the CoJC branched? There's no law that says we have to specify a parent of any particular religion. For example, we don't say that the LDS Church "branched" from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, even though The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints wasn't incorporated until 1851, and other churches claim to be that Nauvoo church. Why not just totally avoid the issue here. That sounds like a good compromise. COGDEN 23:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)*
  • On #6: the LDS Church article does say "Branched from: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints", and I think it's useful and appropriate in both articles. The infobox gives lots of the most basic relevant information at first glance. This information is true and highly relevant for the subjects of both articles. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 23:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I guess it does, doesn't it. I think I have a problem with that, because the LDS Church considers itself to be a continuation, not a branch. COGDEN 02:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I could perhaps go along with #6, though it may not be ideal. (But a compromise by its nature probably never is.) My conceren would be that it would be misleading not to include anything—it seems to suggest that TCOJC just sprung up out of Bickerton's imagination. I suppose the text of the article would clear this up, for the most part. How would this correspond with including 1830-04-06 as the date of origin on the template? Not a problem or would it change to 1862? Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 23:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Also as far as parent church, it should be the Rigdonites. That is the most accurate. -Visorstuff 00:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• I would have to agree with Visor on this issue; Rigdonite was a common term and recognized in the period and afterwards. I aware of what this group views as offensive, but I advise strict adherence to academic standards. We can make it very clear that the group views it as offensive on theological grounds, but it is deceptive to claim they are a direct offshoot of the 1830 church; that position obscures a great deal of history and fact. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• I also agree with VisorStuff. When reading their literature, they make a big deal about being the "true" church by tracing their authority through Rigdon. At least they did way back when I first learned about the Mormon Church. I would, however, make sure the article mentions that they believe they are the true church and their "line of authority" -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 15:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Response

I got edit-conflicted with Skeleton's work above. I was writing:

This church explicitly claims to trace its authority back through Sidney Rigdon to Joseph Smith, and looks to Joseph Smith as its first (latter-day) prophet; this church regards the Book of Mormon as scripture. Given all that, it is more confusing not to indicate that its parent church is the original LDS church, which Smith often referred to as "the Church of the Latter Day Saints" from practically the beginning, than only to give a name that is arguably technically applicable but is no different than the modern name and gives no indication to someone casually glancing at the infobox any information other than what is already in the title of the article. It just isn't true that mentioning "LDS" as a "parent" group would lead "a majority of readers to assume that The Church of Jesus Christ broke from the 1844 Latter-day Saints who are now located in Utah" specifically; rather, it would lead "a majority of readers to assume that The Church of Jesus Christ [stems from] the 1844 Latter-day Saints", which is what this church itself teaches. As I noted above, Bickerton himself still referred to this church as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" in 1855 at least - so the former string of groups that this church claims succession from identified themselves with the "LDS" moniker from around 1838 to at least 1855, whether or not it was also known as "The Church of Jesus Christ" in 1830.

So basically, throwing in some indication of "(Latter Day Saints)" to identify the parent body is the only really accurate and informative choice, and omitting it would be uninformative to the point of wilfully coy.

It does seem odd that the IP number ahead, other than one edit almost three years ago, has suddenly become interested in this article and its talk page, after this debate began.

It seems from the church's official website and its denial of ever having been known by another name, which is transparently not true, and which contradicts Smith, Rigdon, and Bickerton, that they have a PR goal of discouraging associations with the larger Utah-based LDS church, but a private group's public relations agenda is not relevant to criteria for how to provide information on Wikipedia. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 23:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

As I spoke above I am a student at a university who cannot afford his own internet access, so I use labs to make any edits here on wikipedia. If you would like my autobiography I'll send you an email. Until then assume good faith people. 128.118.148.63 23:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem - I wondered why your IP number's first edits in years were several on this one article, but I assume good faith. On the other hand, there's no student so poor that she can't use the free internet access on her school's computer to select a Wikipedia username. I waited three years to do that, but it is handy. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 00:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

HAHA so call me poor and lazy. 128.118.148.63 00:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

With your insults (see section below) and strange behavior, you credibility is sinking like a stone. :) Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 01:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

How about poor and obstinate? Just go ahead and register; you can use "laxypoorboy" for your password and thus would never forget it and have no excuse for not using a registered name. This seems like a very simple request and if you are going to desire to have any credibility on Wikipedia you will need it. Here is to a better reputation. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with COGDEN. Jcg5029 01:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

More concerns on chain of succession as presented in article

As Skeleton says, we can suppose all readers are going to move past the infobox and start reading the article. I have concerns about that too though. The early part of the article mentions only the succession crisis after Joseph Smith's death and this church's claim of succession through Sidney Rigdon. However, you have to read through much more of the article before you gain any hint that there was what was apparently a second succession crisis as Rigdon's church disintigrated, and Bickerton emerged to lay claim to be carrying on where Rigdon had fallen away. Not much info if there were any other significant competing claimants in that succession.

And further, you have to get most of the way down before you find out that there was what seems an awful lot like a third succession crisis, when Bickerton goes out west, and then there are simultaneous church presidents in the East and West, though this is all presented in what seems like a euphemistic style... "During this later time period, the First Presidency appears to have taken on a lesser role within the church...", and William Cadman enjoys strategic passive verbs on his way to finding himself "the president of the whole church" opposite a guy who had just been ordained to that position by Bickerton... with the only reference being to the victor who wrote the history, a book by Cadman himself!

I mean no offense to anyone who has faith in God having successively called Bickerton and Cadman to be His spokesman on Earth. But for purposes of objective history, this article is in serious need of some referenced sources independent of the apparently competing claimants within the church. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 00:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The sources are problematic and need to be balanced by some third-party studies. That may be hard to come by considering the size of the organization. Perhaps we could consider adding some sort of tag to the article notifying editors that we are in need of more sources? Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 00:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Your lack of understanding between WH Cadman and W Cadman is almost as great as your lack of understanding of this organization. 128.118.148.63 00:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, that's not nice. Try to remain WP:CIVIL. (Do you hide behind an IP address so you can be rude at will without consequence?) They are separate people, but it is clear that they must be related somehow. Reaverdrop's overall point still stands—the sources are not neutral in their examination of the events in question; they may be presenting a POV based on family affiliation or religious dedication or belief. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 00:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to just say 1) College student - please tone it down. It is uncalled for. 2) If anybody would like to research and cite information to this page you are welcome, but lets cut the credibility questions and lack of faith in general of this organization. This groups history book is perfectly valid as are the rest of their sources. Tagging would be uncalled for completely, but researching is welcome. This is speculation from wiki editors against an organization and I also believe that to be uncalled for. Jcg5029 01:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Why would a tag requesting more sources be "uncalled for"? A neutral article about an organization cannot just use sources produced by the organization. We would suggest the same for any organization and this one is not being singled out for questions of "credibility". It's all a matter of NPOV, which an organization or its officers cannot maintain when writing about themselves. Isn't that basic—and self-evident? Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 01:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not question the credibility of the L-dS History because it was written in a large part by Joseph Smith, Jr. In fact, I think it gives the history more credibility. I would never question that source like I would never question The Church of Jesus Christ's official History book as written by WH Cadman. And the Volume II was published in the last five years - has editors reviewing every section. Jcg5029 01:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, some do, including me. A person closely involved with an organization cannot be relied upon to provide a NPOV of events involving the organization. I would also be skeptical of a page related to the L-dS church that only cites Smith's writings. The very fact that Cadman's book is referred to as "official history" should cause pause. I hope what I'm saying is clear to you and that you understand why an organization's own history of itself is not sufficient to meet WP's NPOV standards. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 01:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to say that it wasn't a dictatorship in writing. That is one of many sources. Plus the history was approved by the general priestood of The Church of Jesus Christ. And you are dismissing two points.

1) There is a cited second edition - not written by one man 2) If you feel this article needs more sources you are welcome to add them, however, your disbelief on their published records does not constitute a need for a tag. Tags are for article without citations or with incorrect citations. Find something besides speculation before adding a tag. Jcg5029 01:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to note, the LDS church article and some of its main related articles include references to non-member, unorthodox member, and excommunicated member sources, including D. Michael Quinn, Sonja Farnsworth, Todd Compton, Fawn Brodie, Richard Van Wagoner, Egon Mayer et al., etc. Certainly not the sources President Hinckley would select if he were asked to write the Wikipedia article on the LDS church from scratch. But they're better for it; those sources are needed for a well-rounded set of information. This article isn't any different. Tags can just be for additional sources; we just haven't had the opportunity to gain much academic information on the subject of this article yet, but we will try. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 01:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to contribute but there is no need for a tag -- check out volume 2. Jcg5029 01:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are you so defensive about the tag? It's simply a heads-up and an assist for editors. It adds the article to categories so those interested in researching for sources can help find them. It's nothing to be afriad of. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 01:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You are asking why an article with accurate citations needs a tag about needing accurate citations. That is my reasoning. enjoy your research as I continue to research with you. Jcg5029 01:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It would not be a tag about "accurate citations". It would be one that indicated more citations are needed; i.e., ones not written or approved by the subject of the article. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 02:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

And see, Jcg5029, you are insisting we take for granted that sources gained only from family members of the recent church's leadership must be accepted ab initio as an infallible authority on the matter. Do you see anything wrong with this picture? - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 02:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Just referring back to a comment made initially in this discussion. If sources with strong connections to the organization are considered POV, then how can the TCOJC-LDS use any sources that are written by people belonging to that organization? I would claim that the statement made is simply rediculous. It is like saying that in an article on biochemistry that you cannot site a source written by a biochemist because of POV concerns. I simply do not understand where the solidity of this idea comes from.CSG 02:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CSG091006 (talk • contribs)

It's just the simple idea that multiple sides of a story have to be presented. I never said sources connected with the article couldn't be used, but only using them is POV. Your argument is also venturing into a WP:WAX-style argument, which is not great. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 02:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

As we discussed, the LDS church articles have lots of sources from within and from outside the church. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 02:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

My bad on the style arguement. It was just to bring up a point. CSG 02:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CSG091006 (talk • contribs)

Hey, guys, I think researching is great, but a tag is not needed -- until a consensus is reached on applying a tag do not apply it again. 146.186.44.179 11:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

A tag is a note that helps alert editors about what is being worked on re: the article. It casts no aspersions on the article or its subject. It's simply a WP housekeeping thing to help fellow editors out. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 00:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Article Name

Folks, rather than going back into the discussion, I'll give my two cents here, but I beleive the way is clear to move forward. I'm not sure why there is so much discussion on this on when it seems clear cut.

We have a few precedences. When we outlined Mormon-ish naming conventions and the style guide on the Wiki in the early days of Wikipedia we decided to use the academic terminology as much as possible. That is why we use the term Latter Day Saint in so many cases rather than Mormon, etc. The academic term used is Bickertonite, I believe (Rigdonites are considered a defunt group by Mormon scholars, aren't they?). The second presedence is Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite). We should adopt the same here. I realize that both the Strangite and Bickertonite appellations may be offensive (as is Mormon to LDS), but we are treating these from both an academic and historical perspective, and the page should reflect this. Therefore, I would suggest (The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite). I would then emphasize that the statetment in the lead paragraph that this appelation is not sanctioned by the church - similar to another presedence at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints where it states "widely known as the LDS Church or the Mormon Church." You'll aslo notice that Commmunity of Christ is also included in some (Mormonism) articles although they do not like it, but it must be from a historical and segmentation view point. That is the job of us historians - to lump them together in groups, even if there are a couple of exeptions here and there.

To be honest, the presedence on Wikipedia is clear, and this should be in line with LDS manual of Style and naming convention documents. I also know this is controversial, but it is the most NPOV thing to do - we follow academic norms. none of the above suggestions are academic, or sourced, so do not pass WP:Verify. We cannot make up our own term, but must use an existing one - and we should stick with the academic name. Thank the non-Mormon scholar Jan Shipps for this, as it is a wise course of action. Hope this helps. -Visorstuff 00:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I would support a renaming to The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite). It is clearer and if you check the literature on the Latter Day Saint movement it is clearly the most common name used there. I realise the name can be offensive to members of the church—yes, I have seen the uproar you created in the archives—but I think it's time such a proposal is put forward. Mind you, a move to The Church of Jesus Christ (William Bickerton) was proposed not long ago and "no consensus" was reached, though only 5 people voted and 3 of the opposed votes were from editors who are membrs of or otherwise affiliated with the church. After examining the archives and previous discussions, it's clear, however, that the page was moved to its current place without consensus, so I don't think it's current name has any claim to appropriate permanence based on past consensus. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 00:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have never divulged any association to this church, but do find it interesting so many people are willing to oppose their membership here. The naming dispute was very recent, as Rich Uncle Skeleton is fully aware. The page currently conforms to the naming policies for Latter Day Saint denominations. An administrator concluded in concurrence with a previous vote that the name should be The Church of Jesus Christ. Other names were demonstrated at the time to be offensive to the organization. We could battle this a long, drawn out time or just respect the organization and keep the name as it now stands. Jcg5029 01:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not opposing anyone, including the membership. Why does this have to be personal? I've never been on a talk page before where every comment is somehow understood to be a frontal attack on a church or its members.

To restate my position: The vote was only participated in by 5 people. That's hardly a representative sample of WP, regardless of religious affiliations or pre-determined opinions. "Offensiveness" to a church is not a good reason to avoid terminology, especially when it's common in academic literature. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 01:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Rich Uncle Skeleton, you made changes previously without concensus and argued back to me that since the discussion opened up after you made the change then you change was valid. I don't understand why you are suggesting a name change now, but I am adamantly against it. I oppose any name change as it has been sourced to be offensive to The Church of Jesus Christ. I don't want to get in another discussion here. There has been no issue with this for months until you brought it up again. As I see now you are the only one who is for any change.

Visorstuff, maybe you cuold clear up for me what your suggestion is. I had a hard time understanding your comment. Are you for or against a name change? JRN 01:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't propose it, Visorstuff did. Maybe you didn't get that as you found it difficult to understand. I point out that a lot of name changes have occurred here without consensus, so I don't think any name for the article has a valid claim to one chosen "by consensus". I understand you are opposed to the name change because the one I mentioned offends you or members of the church, but that's typically not a good reason to avoid the name. There's probably a lot of stuff on WP that offends a lot of people, but it doesn't stop things from going forward. This being said, the name change has not been formally proposed yet. We are merely discussing the possibility of so proposing. When proposed, you'll have ample opportunity to present your view. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 01:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Visorstuff has corrected the discussion and is right, though. Compromising between standard academic terminology and a private entity's PR agenda is not seeking consensus, it is waffling, and it doesn't have a place here. The academic standard is well-grounded and needed, simply because the currently official name of the church has a high tendency toward confusion, and runs counter to Wikipedia's mission to provide useful information. It is typical for the phrase "church of jesus christ" to be used in many applications that have nothing to do with the subject of this article. This isn't anything against this church; the same reasoning applies equally to any other subject, as Visorstuff indicates with reference to the LDS church. The proper course is to move the article to The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite) as Visor indicates. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 01:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

(P.S. To Visorstuff's comment "(Rigdonites are considered a defunt group by Mormon scholars, aren't they?)", it seems they are indeed as a factual matter, since Bickerton started up his group with a substantial break in continuity in time and place after the disintigration of Rigdon's group, while Bickerton laid claim to continuity through the Rigdonite group. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 01:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there is ample precedence (as cited by Visorstuff and Reaverdrop) to proceed. Merely arguing "it's offensive" or "we don't like it" are not good arguments to oppose, and I have yet to see a convincing argument against changing the name of the article. I also know "The Church of Jesus Christ" is the org's official name, but it's so ambiguous as to be practically useless for a layman, especially when the name used here in WP differs from the name used in academic sources. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 01:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

See the discussion above which lays out all the points as to why this page will not be moved. It is perfectly in accordance to all wiki policies for naming. Bickertonite is an offensive term to many in this organization. Using that term would result in a direct opposition against that church and would be clear POV - as stated in the naming convention section. Feel free to review and understand how this came about. Jcg5029 01:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have seen it, thanks. But I would not claim that (1) using a name that's inherently ambiguous and (2) using a name that is different from the name used in academic literature to refer to an organization would be considered "perfectly" in accordance with WP policies for naming. I would be interested on opening it up and getting more input. Specific policies, as the one found at WP:LDSMOS, can change, particularly when they're not terribly consistent with what's used in the rest of the world. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 01:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with Jcg5029. I would also remind all involved with this discussion that there has also been a Wikipedia administrative decision regarding this issue. Please refer to the above archived discussion if you have any questions regarding this decision by the Wikipedia administration. This article is in compliance with all wiki policies regarding naming. POV is not a part of that decision by the administration, it was simply a matter of being the most compliant with these existing policies. CSG 01:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by CSG091006 (talk • contribs)

When a decision is made it doesn't mean it can never be reopened again. You guys need to brush up a bit on your WP policies and rules. It seems there are some fundamental misunderstandings here about the "permanence" of WP. Things change here—it's the nature of the beast. If you don't like change, buy a copy of Britannica. :) Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 01:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Rich is correct; policy and earlier decisions are hardly written in stone. I find this current situation to be POV. There is not factual history of being a sect of the 1830 church, rather there was/is a desire to return to it. I strongly support following academic standards while clarifying the church's position. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ditto - appeal to higher authority is, to say the least, not the most effective form of debate in Wikipedia. Besides the fact that User:Visorstuff is just as much a WP administrator as your man behind the archive curtain (which doesn't mean much of anything), and he doesn't seem too keen in your defense. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 02:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There has been work done to change that page's policy. It has been very difficult. If I remember my interaction with the administration, they made the decision they did so that the current policy could be followed. Until the policy changes, this site is in compliance with wikipedia policy. CSG 02:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CSG091006 (talk • contribs)

There is anothter issue with all of the naming issue. The LDS church wants the word "The" capitalized in refererring to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for doctrinal reasons (see quote below).

We declare it to all the inhabitants of the earth from the valleys in the tops of these mountains that we are The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- not a church but The Church -- and we have the doctrine of life and salvation for all the honest-in-heart in all the world. JD 12:173.

However, Wikipedia overruled this for the church's page in favor of naming conventions. I realize that it was controversial, but it is the easiest way to navigate. I'd even be willing to compromose and have an appelation on every latter day saint movement denomination article to help disambugate through the succession crisis - including (Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints (Brighamite), even though most LDS will find this more offensive than the term Mormon. This context could be helpful.

I've read through the discussion above, and the poll was of six people, and not a clear consensus NOT to move, but a small consensus not to move to The Church of Jesus Christ (William Bickerton). I also agree that it shouldn't be moved to that page, but that does not prohibit it from being moved to something that is more in line with style guides (such as this specific one), etc. I'd be more than willing to have another vote opened properly with the style guide used. -Visorstuff 18:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a fantastic decision. We can finally get some consistency throughout WP by avoiding the use of articles on the names of organizations. This just creates all the more reason to have the name of this church include a disambiguation -Bickertonite, since there are many "Church of Jesus Christ"s out there. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 22:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[I must have misunderstood what you've said. I see no change to the naming conventions here. Where can we find where "WP overruled [the church's wishes] for the church's page in favor of naming conventions." Isn't the article still at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 22:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)]

Please review the above discussion. This is the largest organization that specifically uses the title The Church of Jesus Christ without any disambiguation. Please review the above discussion. 146.186.44.191 12:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what "the organization" uses when seemingly everyone else in the academic world does otherwise. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 21:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have regulations against directly opposing the view of any organization. While I am sure the use of the B-word has been used by many historians in the past -- The Church of Jesus Christ has made strong efforts to explain that the term itself can be offensive to its membership. That being said, using that disambiguation term would be against Wikipedia policies. That was why many people have requested the new editors to review the discussion. The only person opposed to The Church of Jesus Christ before was one individual who sought it to change to another name. SESMITH has previously also desired it to move, until he understood it was in direct opposition to The Church of Jesus Christ. I would kindly ask all editors here to refrain from using an offensive term on the talk page. Jcg5029 01:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That's simply not convincing when it's in wide usage by neutral academics. There is no consensus among them that it is "offensive", and I have yet to see a neutral source (or any source, for that matter) state that it is an offensive term. It's no more offensive than "Mormon" when applied to the Mormon Church, or "Josephite" to describe the Community of Christ, or Hedrickite for the Church of Christ (Temple Lot). If you are personally offended by the term, that's your prerogative, but we're not going to stop using it or suggesting its use as a term of disambiguation when it is in such wide usage with the neutral sources that do exist. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 02:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Long-dormant editors coming out of the woodwork

As a side issue——why is it that these editors keep popping out of the woodwork on this page to make comments. They haven't made any edits since May, and then when discussions pick up here, they are suddenly keen to register their vote. ... Hmmm. Assuming good faith—Assuming good faith. But it is kind of funny. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 02:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

So, speaking of assuming good faith, where did you come from too? Watch what you are willing to claim.CSG 02:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by CSG091006 (talk • contribs)

What do you want to know? I edited as an anon for a few months until I realized I had no credibility until I registered. So I did. Now I'm registered, and I continue to edit on a variety of articles. Not just this one when the talk page kicks up. Anything else? Now it's your turn. :) Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 02:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It is so nice that this server is incredibly slow! Just watch what you are willing to claim. Remember Wiki:Civ is all I'm saying. CSG 02:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CSG091006 (talk • contribs)

I was being civil. I just thought it was funny. If your lack of editing variety is a sore spot with you, I apologize. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 02:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Being civil means not accusing. Rich Uncle feel free to assume good faith. 146.186.44.179 11:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I only edit on topics that I have a good base of knowledge for. I've been working to improve this page for a while and being a graduate student in college I don't have time to devote hours to different topics so for now I'm limited to what I can edit and this page is what I'm sticking to for a while. JRN 12:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I am also curious as to which editors you are referring to as "coming out of the woodowork">User:Rich Uncle Skeleton? JRN 15:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

CSG, specifically. I was not referring to you. See discussion above. S/He seemed to know I was referring to him/her as s/he responded to my comments. It was a side observation and I considered it closed between me and CSG. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 20:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well then please use this page as a discussion board to improve the page and not to make general statements and accusations of people. You are just detracting from the discussion. JRN 20:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, O noble swami/boss of the talk page. Somebody piss in your cornflakes? As I said, the issue was closed until you brought it up again. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 22:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Material from new sources

I'm trying to gather some material from new sources, to move beyond theoretically discussing the possibility of gathering new material. It's worth noting the first Google hit on William Bickerton is to the Government of Ontario's religioustolerance.org website, under the heading... "The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)". It starts by explaining the need for the naming convention: "There are at least 20 different religious bodies in the U.S. which have adopted the name: 'The Church of Jesus Christ.'" It also includes several sources - including Cadman '45, and some apparently non-ingroup sources.

I also, on Google Scholar, found a PhD thesis on "The Mormons" from 2002, from an Italian university, in Italian... we'll come up with better sources as we keep looking. But it's worth noting this PhD student introduces us to some heterodox takes on the info so far presented in this article, in a few paragraphs on "The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)". Pardon my Translator - as I said, we'll find more sources, I am just starting - but it's worth contrasting what our Italian friend reports (emphases and interjections added):

"Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)

"Origins: William Bickerton was between the Mormons that, to the dead women of Joseph Smith, the authority of Sidney Rigdon accepted and they followed him in Pennsylvania. Because of the continuous trsferimenti [?] and of the rather inconstant behavior of Rigdon - notwithstanding his abilities to theological reflection - Bickerton was found again in Pennsylvania lacking in a point of reference and therefore he joined, even if for short time, to the Mormon Church, [!] that congregation to West had one Elizabeth [?]. Refusing some doctrines, among which polygamy, and after a divine vision, Bickerton in July of 1862 founded a new church which they joined a good number of followers of Rigdon. Bickerton subsequently moved to Kansas; although that very soon emerged of the contrasts inside of the congregations of the new church fate is in Kansas that in Pennsylvania [?]. Bickerton was removed from the church he founded [!] (was riammesso single in 1902 [?]), while William Cadman had been elected president (a position that would occupy until death, sopraggiunta [?] in 1904). In 1907 and 1914 the Bickertonites endured ulterior schisms, that they had only a short life.

"Doctrines and organization: The Bickertonite Church has its center puts into effect them [?] to Monongahela in Pennsylvania, and missions in numerous deliveries [?] of the world. It is the only minority denomination mormons to have completed an effective effort missionary in Italy, where it has succeeded to establish but one small active congregation. Polygamy always it has refused; the characteristics of the bickertonite creed send back to the doctrine of Joseph Smith with some peculiar interpretations that derive from Sidney Rigdon: celebration weekly magazine of the supper of the Getlteman [?], practical [?] of the lavender of the feet and the “kiss of the peace”. The church is governed from a president, two councilmen, a secretary, a secretary financial and a treasurer. A Conference Anniversary elects several the leaders."

Like I said, more information needed. This is from just one (poorly machine-translated) PhD thesis, but if anything it reconfirms the need for more, independent sources. Working; - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 02:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added a tag as a note that third-party sources are needed for the article since almost all the footnoted cites are to sources affiliated with TCOJC. For the love of Pete, let's not have an edit war over this. It's just a tag. It's just a helpful tag. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 03:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

More sources:

• About a page on the church in The Cultic Milieu: Oppositional Subcultures in an Age of Globalization by Jeffrey S. Kaplan & Heléne Lööw, 2002, Rowman Altamira, p. 84. ISBN 075910204X. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 03:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• The Encyclopedia of American Religions, Vol. 2, J. Gordon Melton, ed., McGrath 1978, has an entry on "Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)" beginning on p. 19.
• Handbook of Denominations in the United States Frank Spencer Mead, Abingdon Press 1990, ISBN 0687165725, discussion of William Bickerton starting p. 134.
• The Latter-day Saint Experience In America, Terryl L. Givens, Greenwood Press 2004, ISBN 0313327505, discussion of William Bickerton starting p. 249
• Kansas; a Cyclopedia of State History, Embracing Events, Institutions, Industries, Counties, Cities, Towns, Prominent Persons, Etc., (Slow down partyboy!) Frank Wilson Blackmar, Standard Publishing Co. 1912, discussion of Bickerton & St. John, Kansas colony on p. 735

More on the way. Working... - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 03:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to help all of our editors as they review and search for sources - Bickerton did in fact visit the LDS and some other groups of the Latter Day Saints at the time of Rigdon's abandonment of the church. It was at this time in which he received his experience. He never joined another organization of the Latter Day Saint movement even though he visited the organizations. Hence why he states, "I found myself alone." In fact, Bickerton was kicked out of a L-dS meeting because he opposed re-baptism and polygamy. The 1855 meetings included a mix of Latter Day Saint people. It was a time when many weren't sure where to go or what to do. Bickerton was in that situation. I thought this was fairly well explained and cited, but should some of this be added, etc? Jcg5029 01:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Another useful-looking source found:

• Dale L. Morgan, "A Bibliography of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Bickertonite)", Western Humanities Review, IV (1950), pp. 45-70

- Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 02:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The Inscrutably Controversial "More Sources Needed" Tag

I love the sources you guys are comming up with but I removed the tag. Until a consensus is reached do not apply the tag again. Your friend, 146.186.44.179 11:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm okay with the tag because it means we are making progress on this page which is what we've been working at for quite some time now. I just am a little confused at WHAT kind of information we are looking for. I think the page has enough information historically on it right now, so are we just looking for more 3rd party sources to back up the information. Just as a note of warning, if we are looking it will be extremely difficult because little has been written by people outside of the organization who really understand it. I am still all for looking to improve this page however we can. JRN 12:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It is simply an objective fact that almost all the sourced material on this page is from sources within the church - for example, the first 8 listed references include six in-church sources used for 23 citations.

Beyond that, there are pretty clear indications, as covered above, that additional, highly relevant facts are known that are not adequately covered by the current article - so this is not just a matter of picking out a few independent sources to confirm what is already there.

This is just a tag for more sources. It is needed. It does not mean we won't consider whatever other sources and information we come up with with due care. Finding more factual information should not be a source of controversy. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 15:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

JRN warns: "... little has been written by people outside of the organization who really understand it ..."

Isn't this just another way of saying that writers who are not part of the organization don't conform to my/the organization's POV on the issue? If an academic is writing on something, I think we generally trust that they have done their homework and know what they are talking about. Otherwise no one could be cited as an outside commentator on anything that they were not intimately involved with. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 22:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The research will greatly help the page, but the tag is not needed. The sources are credible. 146.186.44.208 14:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The sources tag casts no aspersion on the credibility of the existing sources. It merely reflects the need for additional ones. Once the sources tag is up, there should be a presumption that sources need to be added or consensus otherwise reached that it's no longer needed before it's taken down, not a presumption against it being up. This really should not be an issue. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 15:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll be the fist to admit I opposed the tag, but part of that was previous experience with editors who have applied tags to pages I have worked on. Sometimes those editors would apply a tag and then ignore the page (which obviously did not help to resolve any of the issues). I am in favor of the tag so long as we all work to getting more sources on the page. It appears those who placed the tag are working diligently to view and add sources which I think is great. As far as editors quoting and misquoting other editors. I believe that JRN's comments should be taken with good faith. I believe his intent was to explain how a randomly published website, or something of that sort might not fully understand the actual history of this church. I think it was a good reminder to be sure the sources which we are trying to dig up are in fact both recent and credible. I am sure nobody would dispute that observation. Jcg5029 01:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all the concerns you express here, Jcg5029, except for the need for sources to be "recent" - primary sources may be old, yet deemed credible and valuable after careful evaluation, and indeed may be more valuable than only relying on recent sources to document long-past events. - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 02:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

/Archive 1 is redlinked

Archive 1 of this talk page is currently red-linked. Is this intentionality or an oversight? -- 159.182.1.4 00:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This was my fault. I was learning how to archive and that was part of the result. It didn't delete any discussion that I am aware of -- I just was learning how to archive the old discussions. Jcg5029 01:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)