Jump to content

Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Requested move, take two

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 → ? — This is related to the discussion Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 27#Category:The Church of Jesus Christ about the category's title. Please see earlier discussions above for this move as well; while consensus did not come around a new name, it's hard to say that there's any consensus for keeping the article here.

As the CFD notes, the current title is just too generic; it's not clear at all that it mostly refers to this specific denomination. In fairness, there is a hatnote to the disambiguation page, but I'm not sure that the leading "The" is sufficient. Suggested alternatives include:

Personally, I cautiously prefer the (William Bickerton) option, but I think that any of these titles is preferable to the current location.

Note to closer: This and the Category discussion should probably be closed by the same person at the same time. While it's not completely out of the question that the category and the article might end up at different names, if this happens, it shouldn't be by accident. —SnowFire 17:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Oppose - this church appears to be the only one with no more or less glyphs than "The Church of Jesus Christ". Reginmund 00:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this church is the largest organization demographically as well as with membership numbers that uses this name. All other organizations in close proximity (see Cutlerites) already disambiguate their name. For those who would actually type the full name of this organization - and would not be looking for this denomination - there is a hatnote which could take any person where they wanted to go. Jcg5029 01:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment This statement is not quite accurate. In the past decade or so, the LDS Church, which is much larger (about 867x as many members), has encouraged its members to refer to it by the same shortened name as opposed to using "Mormon Church" or other shortened versions. I realise that does not mean it's that church's official name, but this is not the largest church that refers to itself by this name, whether officially, unofficially, regularly or intermittantly, without a disambiguator. Ubi Terrarum 05:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - specifically, a move to The Church of Jesus Christ (Headquartered at Monongahela, Pennsylvania), reasoning as follows:
The question breaks down to, (1) is the current name ambiguous, and in need of disambiguating, i.e. are a significant number of users likely to enter this term with something else entirely in mind that they're looking for? And, (2) if it does need disambiguating, what new title should it be under?
The answer to (1) is: yes. It is an ambiguous name. Maybe the best objective evidence for that (outside of the subjective obviousness), is TCOJC's own implicit acknowledgment of the need for disambiguating their name, as indicated in the Comments section below; even the web page on which they explain their official name, also has no fewer than three headings identifying the organization with one or another variation of "TCOJC (headquartered at Monongahela, Pennsylvania)" (see discussion here). And they also have a more explicit disambiguation statement on their website's front page, reading, "As a note of clarification, despite being similar in name, we are not affiliated with the Church of Christ nor with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints - also known as the Mormon Church." (See e.g. here.) Also highly probative is the fact that Church of Jesus Christ, sans definite article "The", has long been used as a disambiguation page, with no one having disputed the need for it as a disambiguation page, that I have seen at least; and I just don't see that even a serious argument can be made that an otherwise clearly ambiguous page title is solidly disambiguated by a "The". So, the current article name is not clearly disambiguated, and is in need of alteration to resolve that problem.
As for (2), a well-settled disambiguating title has long been in use, i.e. "The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)", and there would be no issue now, except for the fact that TCOJC has declared the term offensive, unlike other groups such as The Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite). I don't know when they decided that, or why, if they have held that policy for a long time, it has not been adopted more widely among non-TCOJC sources. It would be interesting to get more information about the history of their policy on how they are referred to. But in the meantime, as mentioned above and discussed in the Comments section below, they seem to have still explicitly recognized the need for some kind of disambiguating term, and the further need for some substitute to be promoted if it is ever to displace the ill-regarded "(Bickertonite)" among outside sources who are unlikely to drop the use of some kind of disambiguating parenthetical. We have at least one example of an outside group, JWHA, going along in printed materials with the new disambiguating term being promoted by TCOJC, as discussed somewhere way up above. There haven't been any other alternative parentheticals used in outside sources (that I have seen), so picking another one as the article title itself, as opposed to a redirect page title, would be original research. In fact, the JWHA reference is key, because it established a third-party basis for a different entity identifier, to provide any potential article name that is meets all conditions of being (1) disambiguated, (2) not OR, and (3) not offensive to the members of the entity. The one article title that meets all those conditions is therefore The Church of Jesus Christ (Headquartered at Monongahela, Pennsylvania). (There are a few variations on this wording on TCOJC's website, but this particular wording is how it is found in the third-party JWHA reference. By the way, I have taken the liberty of creating this as a DAB page for the time being at least.)
It is also important to note that the JWHA reference appears to indicate that the academic, third-party entity identifier for TCOJC is currently in flux; but the JWHA source is also only one reference, and we should be on the lookout for additional reliable third-party sources making reference to TCOJC. We should be prepared to move this article again in the near future if more evidence comes in for third-party primary sources using a different entity identifier, or even showing that they are overall still tending to stick with "TCOJC (Bickertonite)".
It is also a significant issue that users will be unlikely to spell out the entirety of "The Church of Jesus Christ (Headquartered at Monongahela, Pennsylvania)". However, that should not concern the name of the title, given the other criteria discussed above; that's what redirect pages are for. Honestly, whatever the article's title, most people will still probably find this article by searching "The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)", or probably even more likely just "Bickertonite" (it would be interesting to measure and compare the number of hits from each of the different redirect pages), but that fact is, while not irrelevant to the question of what to title the article, also not determinative of it.
ERGO, be it:
Resolved, that I support moving the article to The Church of Jesus Christ (Headquartered at Monongahela, Pennsylvania), resetting the current title back to being a redirect page to the disenarticled disambiguation page Church of Jesus Christ, and moving my own self away from the computer now and out the damn door already. Muchas gracias. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 04:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I see no reason to make the name any longer than it already is. Since this is the actual title of the church, and all other designations are more explanatory than an actual name. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 06:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support : name is inherently ambiguous for those uninitiated into the minutiae of the Latter Day Saint movement. Any of the proposed disambiguators would be fine, but a disambiguator is needed. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 08:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose — The introduction and disambiguation link needs to be made better, but the name is okay as-is. If someone is unfamiliar with the name, then they will be just as unlikely to put the "(Bickertonite)" disambiguation anyway. — Val42 14:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong support — I'm a long-time editor on this page, though I've been away for some time. I've also been a long-time proponent of adding a disambiguator to the name of the article. It originally did have one, but it was ultimately moved to its current position with a fairly flimsy "consensus" (it was like 2 against 1 or something like that). I think "The Church of Jesus Christ" should redirect to the "Church of Jesus Christ" disambiguation page with the list of organizations that use this or similar names. Otherwise, we are treating the "The" in the name as the disambiguator, which is clearly inappropriate. I agree with pretty much everything Reaverdrop has said above and also add that I think whatever the Category:The Church of Jesus Christ is renamed to, the article should be renamed to correspond with to avoid confusion and promote consistency. SESmith 22:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong support: I agree with many of those statements above in favor of adding a disambiguator. I see this name as ambiguous to its core, and there's no way this church should be given exclusive use of this page—it should definitely be used as a disambiguation page similar if not identical to Church of Jesus Christ. My understanding is that (Bickertonite) is the most commonly-used term, but others could be used. Something needs to be used. Ubi Terrarum 05:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong support and incredulous that others can argue otherwise: I find it ridiculous to hear suggestions that this name is not currently ambiguous. Of course it is. Adding a disambiguator is not going to negatively affect the article in any way, but not having one just makes it ridiculously ambiguous. An article's title should make it relatively clear what the article is about without forcing the person to read the first paragraph. Non-Latter Day Saints would have no idea whether this was talking about a church based in America, the ancient Christian church, a church based in England, a generic term for Christians worldwide, or something else. A simply disambiguator would go a long way to clarifying what right now is extremely muddy. My personal research indicates that "Bickertonite" or "Bickerton" is the most common disambiguator, so I think one of those should be used. In any case, it should probably correspond to whatever Category:The Church of Jesus Christ is renamed. Subcategories use (Bickertonite) so may as well use that for consistency. Related articles like Quorum of Twelve Apostles (The Church of Jesus Christ) should probably also be changed to solve the same ambiguity problem. Snocrates 08:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong support a rename to use "Bickertonite" or "Bickerton" or "Monongahela, Pennsylvania" as parenthetical disambiguators (I have strong pereferences for one over the other). A prefixed "The" is not sufficient to clearly distinguish this group from the many other similarly named churches. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support : A change to The Church of Jesus Christ (Headquarters Monongahela, Pennsylvania). It fixes the issue of disambiguation and is not using the offensive term Bickertonite. It seems the most reasonable proposal to keep a NPOV. JRN 13:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support I've stated my opinion here and elsewhere at many occasions in the presnt and past. I definitely think that the current title is in violation of WP:D#Primary topic. The church founded by Bickerton is not meant "much more than any other" when using the phrase "The Church of Jesus Christ". Google(the church of jesus christ) does not bring up the church sometimes referred to academically as the Bickertonite church. Yes, some have pointed out theat Google(the church) has some interesting first few hits, but no one has shown "much more than any other" referring to the church with it's headquarters in PN. So, I strongly support a move away from it's current position. I would like to add, that the original move to where it is at was made outiside of policy (via deceipt), and beacuse I was trying to follow proper procedure in a restoration to where it was, the lack of consensus at the time made the page remain where it was, which is where it is now. It shouldn't have been moved away from where it was at (The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)) in the first place. So, where should it be moved to? I think back to where it was. Sure, some consider the term "Bickertonite" offensive, but WP:NC states that even in the case of a POV, because it's actually referred to as "The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)" (with the parenthesis!) that is, by far, the best choice. I wouldn't be opposed to consensus to other disambiguations, like "(William Bickerton)", "(Monongahela Pennsylvania)", "(headquartered...)", or anything else really. I just think it should be moved. McKay 16:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Premature. While we might eventually have to find a disambiguator, we don't need to do so now, because there's no other article vying for that name. Any possibility of confusion could be adequately covered by a hatnote at the beginning of the article. I see this situation as analogous to the article The Church, which has no disambiguator.COGDEN 00:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The only reason there is no other article vying for the name is because all other similarly-named articles have not included "The" as part of the name. In other words, "The" is, in effect, being used as the disambiguator in this case. I think one of the points of the nomination to rename both the article and the category is that "The" is acting as a disambiguator and this isn't an ideal situation. Snocrates 02:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. The current name is ambiguous. The fact that there is no other article does not mean we don't need to dab this page. The fact that one other religion uses this name, is justification for disambiguation of this page and creation of a disambiguation page. As far as the target goes, I'll leave it to the closing admin to decide, any choice proposed is better then the current one. Vegaswikian 00:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment You're only right (within wikipedia policy) if "The Church of Jesus Christ" does not mean refer to one entity "much more than any other". Which it doesn't, so you are right. McKay 15:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support change the current name is too generic to be assigned to any one group. Especially one that has few members, and for whom few people think of when they say The Church of Jesus Christ. I would say this page should be a disambig refering to the different ways this term is used by different religious groups. --Trödel 21:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support move to Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite). Seems to be the common name. Many churches have similar names and a "The" is not sufficient disambiguation. We are not in business to avoid being offensive to every group but to use the name that is commonly used. Neither does it need a "The", as Wikipedia naming policy quite clearly states this should only be used if it would be capitalised in running text; I would suggest this is not the case here any more than "The Roman Catholic Church" or "The Church of England" - the fact that it is the "official" name is irrelevant. -- Necrothesp 15:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • CommentCheck out Wikipedia: Naming Conventions (Latter Day Saint) which has made including the article fairly standard when included in the full name of the organizations in the Latter Day Saint movement. Either we really need to do a full scale set of changes - which I personally don't think so, or the article is just fine. Also it should be noted that Bickertonite is not an option because it is in direct opposition to The Church of Jesus Christ's views. An a direct opposition is also against the wiki guidelines. Something with Monongahela is an option, while Bickertonite should remain a redirect. Jcg5029 17:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • Comment - I think The Church of Jesus Christ (William Bickerton) should be ruled out as original research (as well as being unlikely to be entered as a search term, for the same reason). It has not been a standard way to refer to the subject of the article in any outside sources, that I've seen at least. There are at least lots of documented sources for both The Church of Jesus Christ and The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite), as well as for The Church of Jesus Christ (with headquarters in Monongahela, Pennsylvania), including on their own website — see the discussion above. Although, no one is ever going to type all that out in the search field. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 03:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment. OR doesn't really apply to article titles, and especially parenthetical disambiguators, which are inherently part of Wikipedia itself. As a simple example, it does not matter if 1789-1849 is not used as a division of American history by some historian for a Wikipedia article to be titled History of the United States (1789–1849), because, um, that's what it is. There are plenty of articles with Wikipedia-specific compromise names; as another example, Operation Litani got moved to 1978 South Lebanon conflict, despite few people actually calling it that. SnowFire 22:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - TCOJC seems to have a clear policy for disambiguating its own self. I took another look at the official website (here) that has long been cited in this WP article as the reference for TCOJC's name as "The Church of Jesus Christ." Above and below this statement of policy, this very web page in which they clarify their official name has no fewer than three headings identifying their own selves with some variation of "TCOJC headquartered in Monongahela, PA".
The references to their name break down on the web page as follows:
  1. at the very top is a dynamic banner heading that alternates between "The Church of Jesus Christ"... and, "Headquarted at Monongahela, Pa";
  2. below that, the title of the page says, "THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST / Headquarters: Monongahela, PA";
  3. then comes the official statement, "The official name of The Church is The Church of Jesus Christ. The Church... has never been known under any other name" [contradicted by e.g. Bickerton referring to his own church as "the Church of Christ" and "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints", as quoted in this article, but that's not the issue at the moment];
  4. and below that, once again, is another reference to themselves with, "An Introduction to The Church of Jesus Christ (Headquartered at Monongahela, Pennsylvania)".
I don't think they could send a clearer signal about what they at least would prefer to be used when the need for disambiguating their ambiguous name is called for. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 04:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It originally had the longer name, and i'd support that as a second choice, as many academics would find it, however, the simple fact is that Bickertonite is what is commonly used among academics. I've never met anyone offended by this from that group in person at Mormonism related conferences i've attended. I think this is a case of whether or not the term is used academically or not. We have to make the move. we have too much other presedence to let this be disambiguated by an article: the. perhaps a posting on the village pump would also help? -Visorstuff 13:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to my comment at the bottom. JRN 14:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree entirely with Visorstuff. Right now the current name is being almost held hostage to a small group of editors who seem intent on maintaining solely the official name as the article title. This comes at the expense of clarity and common academic usage. I don't understand the argument that the name as it stands now is unambiguous. The only reason it is "not ambiguous"is because every other article about a church that uses this or a similar name has a disambiguator that goes with it. This one should too. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Switching to SUPPORT as per arguments made by Reaverdrop and Rich Uncle Skeleton. cheers Carter | Talk it up 22:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
As long as there is no overlap of names, I think that we should use the name prefered by the organization covered. In this case, this means that it should remain with its current name. However, I agree that it needs a disambiguation link at the top in case someone was meaning to look for something else. — Val42 22:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The only reason there is no overlap in names is because this article has chosen to include "The" as part of the article title, which typically is not appropriate. In effect, the "The" acts as the disambiguator, which is not appropriate. "The Church of Jesus Christ" should really redirect to the Church of Jesus Christ disambiguation page, where the person will then be able to choose the one they are looking for. Having "The Church of Jesus Christ" go directly here probably adds an extra navigation step for the vast majority of users who search using that term. SESmith 22:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • CommentIt should be noted that there really is no clear ambiguity issue. Other organizations that use this name are typically only one congregation and rarely notable. For the notable organizations (Cutlerites), they already disambiguate themselves in their website names, etc. There appears to be no reason to move. Jcg5029 04:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I disagree with that. Other larger organizations, like the LDS Church, encourage their members to use the term, even though it is not the full official name. Look at the list at Church of Jesus Christ—any of these could easily be confused with each other. Perhaps most significantly in relation to this article, Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints) used the name "The Church of Jesus Christ" for a period of time, and this church is not unquestionably the same as that one, even if it may claim to be so. The fact that a wiki article exists usually means a church is notable, so to argue these others are not notable really makes no sense. There's no way this one small church should be given the exclusive use of this name. Disambiguations are meant to help, and having one on this page would be helpful for most readers, in my opinion. Ubi Terrarum 05:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I also disagree. The ambiguity is pretty thick, in my opinion. See my comments in the above section. It's just not at all clear from the title of the article what is being referred to here. Snocrates 08:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - The organization's main reasoning for why "Bickertonite" or "Bickerton" or "William Bickerton" (all basically the same) is offensive is because it is relating to a man and not Jesus Christ. I understand that this is not a theological debate but this was sourced earlier in the year by an official statement made by the church on their website which has since been moved. I think using (Headquarters Monongahela, Pennsylvania) as the disambiguator is the most NPOV and inherenetly logical move. JRN 14:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    • ... inherently logical...?? Except that it is used less often than "Bickertonite" by persons who have no interest in either "protecting" or "disparaging" the church, i.e., relgious studies academics. The word "headquarters" in your suggestion also seems to be superfluous and unnecessary. Snocrates 21:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry I meant "and an inherently logical one"...if you don't like headquarters than (Monongahela, Pennsylvania) is fine but headquarters seems to clarify why monongahela, pa is used to disambiguate JRN 23:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Because it is offensive and in direct opposition to the church in question, as demonstrated in countless discussions above, Bickertonite should remain a redirect. I am opposed to the move in general, but if there was a move it should be to the most recent disambiguation used for this organization. We can find lots of historical sources (that are old) using the term Bickertonite, but it has been a huge push by this organization to use headquarters Mon City or something of the like whenever necessary. Reaverdrop did some excellent research on this matter. If there must be a name change, I would recommend using the most current disambiguation being used today -- which other organizations in the Latter Day Saint movement and their historians have used something to do with HQ:Monongahela. We have very credible and first hand sources supporting this conclusion. Check out the ample research done by Reaverdrop above. It appears other organizations and historians are stopping the use of Bickertonite and applying the headquarter's location. We should be up to date as well. Jcg5029 17:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. As someone who has opposed the move, I moved the page to The Church of Jesus Christ (Monongahela, Pennsylvania) because...

1) It is a commonly used term by modern historians, other groups in the Latter Day Saint movement, and The Church of Jesus Christ itself 2) It includes the full name of the organization which follows the Latter Day Saint naming conventions 3) It appeared to be a more accepted consensus than Bickertonite

= I would also suggest we move the category page according to this move. Jcg5029 02:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Wha...? You just defeated the whole purpose of having this discussion. If people can't respect the decision made by consensus and enacted by an administrator, what is the point of even having the discussion? I think it was probably inappropriate for you to make that move, so I have reverted it back. You need to make another proposal for discussion, not just move things unilaterally. (I say this entirely out of self-interest, because I had just finished fixing all the links so they didn't inappropriately go to the DAB page, and then someone changed the article name. Bleech.) Snocrates 02:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There was no consensus for Bickertonite. Your only reason for moving the page to Bickertonite was that Categories use the outdated term. I think they should also change to the most current term in common use. See my comments above.Jcg5029 04:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a consensus had been reached for any of the proposed DAB terms, though I do think there was a strong consensus to move it somewhere, so making it conform with the category names seems like a good idea to me. At least we have consistency across the category now, which is a step forward. Snocrates 04:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment (post-close, since the debate seems to continue). While I have no particular preference between the various parenthetical disambiguators... it does seem that the leading "The" is part of the official name. If this church prefers to be addressed with a leading "The," then I don't see a reason to not let them have it. (That said, I definitely respect Kbdank's decision on this somewhat tricky issue, so I'm fine without the The as well too; just bringing it up because it didn't seem to be debated much earlier.) SnowFire 15:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree that "The" could and probably should be used. I don't agree though with the name change for 2 main reasons:
    • 1. There was no concensus to a name change. The proposal should have included a name instead of just a change. I think there was good concensus for The Church of Jesus Christ (Monongahela, Pennsylvania) and very good reasoning and citations for why that name would work best.
    • 2. The current name is rather archaic as well as offensive. I think it is just poor that this was the best name that could be "decided on". 157.182.98.156 15:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the consensus?

The article has undergone a few name changes since the recent straw poll closed, and it appears that nobody is sure what the consensus was. There were three alternatives posed:

  1. The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)
  2. The Church of Jesus Christ (William Bickerton)
  3. The Church of Jesus Christ (Monongahela, Pennsylvania)
  4. The Church of Jesus Christ (with Headquarters in Monongahela, Pennsylvania) (An alternative posed in some of the comments)

Presently, the article is named something else: Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite) (without the The), which was not one of the options. Moreover, the church's official name contains the The. If that's how we treat The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, The Church, and The Cure, that's how we should treat this church.

So, while there was probably a consensus to disambiguate, I'm not sure there was a consensus as to what the new name should be. I'm going to add the The, since there's no consensus for its removal, but I think we still need to discuss what the best disambiguation name should be. Here's the issue as I see it:

  1. The parenthetical "Bickertonite" after the name has been most common historically, but that fact is probably changing, since it is offensive.
  2. The parenthetical "with Headquarters in Monongahela" has been used by the organization itself to self-identify. It's also non-offensive.

Under the principles of Wikipedia:Naming conflict, I'd say that we should give preference to self-identifying terms, and should not use a parenthetical that is offensive to the organization. Any comments? COGDEN 21:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add that members of the organization in question have said that 'any' parenthetical disambiguator is offensive (they specifically mentioned Monongahela as being offensive). Also, they have used both to refer to themselves, though only the location officially. I don't think "Monongahela Pennsylvania" 'is' better than "Bickertonite". McKay 22:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know, though, because of the discussion above, where there is evidence that the church was okay with the use of a "Monongahela, Pennsylvania"-type disambiguator during a recent Latter Day Saint movement conference of several denominations. (See above.) COGDEN 00:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with COGDEN whole heartedly. There is evidence of church usage and I would fully support a move using the disambiguator "Monongahela, Pennsylvania" or "Headquarters: Monongahela, Pennsylvania" JRN 00:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the "The" for any organization's name is entirely superfluous in the name of an encyclopedic article, but that is probably a larger discussion about WP naming conventions that is much broader than this article. As for the disambiguator, "Bickertonite" is much more common and probably has wider recognition, which is one reason I favor it. The relevant categories also use "Bickertonite" and consistency in these matters is usually a good thing in WP, especially for a relatively obscure org such as this. As for it's "offensiveness", it seems to be a limited theological issue and it is not widely acknowledged by non-members to be offensive. The page originally used the DAB (Bickertonite) and it was moved without consensus, but that was a long time ago. Snocrates 02:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

And incidentally, it would be nice if those who move the article from here to there would fix the redirect pages to avoid double redirects. I've been trying to keep up with doing it but the frequency of it being moved kind of discourages one from doing to over and over. It is the mover who should be doing it. Snocrates 02:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, given the two choices, I would think that the one preferred by the organization itself should be the one used. That would, by the discussions above, be the one with the location of their headquarters. — Val42 03:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the page along with all of the categories should be moved accordingly to either (Monongahela, Pennsylvania) or (Headquarters: Monongahela), or something like that with PA also. I think the categories - plural because many were created under a poor name choice directly before the category and then this page was subsequently recommended to be moved - should be moved to the same disambiguation as the page itself. Categories are made to support the articles and help flow, not some twist the other way around. Jcg5029 20:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC) 04:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Given two choices, I think the one that is most well-known / well-recognized should be preferred, not necessarily the one preferred by the organization. The main purpose of disambiguators is to assist readers of WP in recognizing topics and their meaning, not to conform to how an organization prefers to present itself. All things being equal, we may be able to favor the one favored by the organization, depending on the situation, but in this case, "Bickertonite" is far more helpful to readers in identifying the specific church being referred to by the article title. All the references I can find use "Bickertonite" (with the exception of those produced by the church); some mention the location of the headquarters, but most do not. Snocrates 03:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Then I guess you'll be starting a heavy lobbying to change The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Mormon Church. I look forward to your consistency. — Val42 15:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would be happy to see (Mormon Church) used as a disambiguator to the name of that article. The "The" is also superfluous in an encyclopedic article. Ideally, it could be "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church)". I don't work on that page, however, and my suspicion is that such lobbying would be met by resistance from members of that church in a manner similar to the resistance here. In any case, WP:WAX arguments are not terribly helpful and I prefer not to get into debates about other pages when discussing this one. Snocrates 21:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ has currently been placing a stronger emphasis for historians to refrain from using terms like Bickertonite. In response, many historians have actually complied -- and begun to use the location of Headquarters Monongahela, Pennsylvania. The John Whitmer Historical Association, for example, refers to this organization as The Church of Jesus Christ (Headquartered in Monongahela, Pennsylvania). This name was recognized by all churches who attended the conference, which included the Community of Christ, The Church of Jesus Christ (Cutler), Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strang) , Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Independent Restoration RLDS Branches, and Principle Voices - part of the Mormon Fundamentalist group. It could easily be argued that The Church of Jesus Christ is much more commonly associated with a disambig of (Monongahela, Pennsylvania) than any other disambiguation. I am not arguing Bickertonite isn't popular, but it is outdated, unprofessional, and certainly not proven to be common use -- anymore. Jcg5029 19:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I am referencing this. Jcg5029 19:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia has generally recognized a distinction between common terms and proper terms. Articles about common terms are almost always given the most easily-recognized name. However, proper nouns referencing organizations or people are treated differently when there is a significant conflict between what people normally call them and how they self-identify. For example, as Val42 pointed out, the LDS Church article is not called Mormon Church, despite that term being by far the most common reference. We also have Unification Church rather than the far more common Moonies, and Religious Society of Friends rather than Quaker. Any confusion or searching problems can be handled by redirects, or by a separate article that discusses the pejorative or unwelcome term. Bickertonite can be a redirect (like Mormon Church and Quaker), or perhaps a short article explaining that the term refers popularly to the church, but the church discourages its use (like Moonies). COGDEN 21:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Where can we read the WP policy on this helpful information? Or is it just done ad hoc? Snocrates 21:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Snocrates, I went and looked up the Wikipedia policy that you referenced above:
The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or do not exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. Although these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; so an entire comment should not be dismissed because of a comparative statement like this.
This means that what you have cited bears some weight, but it is not a deciding factor.
I realise that, which is why I included a brief description of my thoughts on the issue, just to indicate that I agreed with your suggested need for consistency. thanks. Snocrates 23:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
In response to your questions, "Where can we read the WP policy on this helpful information? Or is it just done ad hoc?" I would like to refer you to the link provided above, just before your question. So that you will have another link to it, I provide it here, again, for your benefit. — Val42 21:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks—sorry, I overlooked COGDEN's provided link. Snocrates 23:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Hm—that wasn't really what I was looking for or expecting based on COGDEN's comments. I was more interested in reading WP policy on a situation like this, where a commonly-used descriptive term is not used by an organization—like COGDEN's examples of Moonies/Mormon Church/Quaker. This policy excerpt deals with descriptive terms used by an organization, but not with descriptive terms applied by outsiders over the protest of the organization. If there is no WP policy on this specifically, it looks more like it has developed in an ad hoc way to me. Snocrates 23:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, then, with the lack of a policy, then consensus should be the deciding factor. The current consensus is currently going against your position. However, since it has been less than six months since this consensus was decided, I will personally oppose a change of the name (by consensus) until the six months have expired. (This is because in another article, the same person brought up renamimg less than a month after the previous renaming attempt failed, then did it again after that failed.) Until then, I will still look for a definitive Wikipedia policy.
However, I would support the renaming if the consensus of the given Wikipedia policy interprets it to apply to the naming of articles as well. — Val42 00:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I interpret Wikipedia policy as I described it above, based on the page and longstanding practice. But Wikipedia:Naming conflict page has been under a bit of flux, and the standard right might be a bit unclear and mushy. In the past, the policy page had a chart balancing three factors: (1) the official name), (2) any self-identifying name, and (3) the most common name. This is probably not the best formulation, and it was changed and made a bit more flexible. (If the old rule were applied, it would be a 1:1 tie, since there is no disambiguator in the official name) Now, there are a number of factors, including what the organization wants to be called, but no clear guideline on how to weigh them. Despite the unclarity of the present policy page, however, we can always look to precedent, which is why I refer to the Moonies, Mormon Church, and Quaker examples. Plus, when there is ever any doubt as to Wikipedia policy, the interested parties can always just make a decision, hopefully one that nobody is particularly opposed to and will not lead to edit wars. COGDEN 01:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that explanation. It's clear to me now what you were saying and what it was based on. Snocrates 05:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
But there was no concensus on where the page was to be moved to and there was no WP (that I know of) that showed where the page should be. In fact the page title that was decided was not even one of the discussed choices and the rationale was that it just "made sense" to put this page at the same title of the category, yet there is no policy that states that is the way it should be. I just feel that the admin made a poor change and I think now there is a good concensus for a name. I don't see why the change should not be made. JRN 01:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
From what I've seen of the current consensus in this discussion, I think that the renaming that you are (implicitly) proposing would pass. However, you are free to try to convince me that this rename doesn't go against my personal policy about times between attempted renames. — Val42 01:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand that you have a "personal policy" regarding name changes. And for all intents I agree with your policy, which is why I asked the closing admin on his talk page how long I should wait for proposing a name change as I felt his decision was poor (he never gave me an answer). I think that on an individual basis it is quite clear that the name change was made without concensus and after what I thought was a good discussion and a concensus was made, the closing admin made his own decision. So even though you have a personal policy, I think that you can see it is clear this is not a case of "rename wars" but merely correcting a poor decision. JRN 01:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The personal policy is a pretty good one, I think generally it should be applied. Technically this page was decided to be The Church of Jesus Christ in May. If we all do the math that is less than six months. Now I am not saying it should be moved back, but this page was moved to a location without consensus. There was a consensus to move, but not where to move it. The administrator making the move has self admittedly used discussion from another page in making his decision. I think we can see that there may have been some issues in what possibly was a rash decision -- which is why this discussion is here. The previous discussion stated that there needed to be a move, but many mixed views about where. Most people in the earlier discussion just wanted the page moved more than anything else. This discussion brings out more of the reasons why to move where, drawing on policies, wiki history, historians past and present, etc. I don't see it as to rash to propose a change with all the reasons previously discussed. So, I agree with the personal policy in general, but I think there are a few extemporaneous and strange events that make this situation and this page expressly unique. Jcg5029 01:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I would like to hear more of people trying to convince me that this is an exception to my personal policy, for personal reasons. However, this is not benefitting the article. I participated in the discussion to remove "The" from the article name (this article), but the consensus went against me. I also remember that there was no consensus on what it should be renamed to. So, if I don't count that move, then I'll be willing to not vote against a move if we wait until November, six months from when the prior move was. When was that first move anyway?
Also, I know that that prior move was done by a single person without consensus, but since it is only a month away, let's wait until then. This will allow a cool-down period, and allow people to firm up their arguments for and against.
I also suggest that there is no need to reply to agree with my proposal, but only to establish the date to next bring up this move. However, if anyone disagrees and wants to try now.... You may not like the discussion that results.
I don't have any more authority than any other editor. I'm just making some suggestions that will benefit everyone interested in this article. — Val42 02:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I think your personal policy is level headed and I think it is reasonable to wait one more month. I guess I'll talk to you again in november when this is hopefully reopened. JRN 17:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm neutral on the recently-discussed "now or wait" proposal, but I support the current use of "Bickertonite" as a DAB term. It's far more helpful than using the location of the headquarters as the DAB. Using the name of the HQ location makes it sound like the article is about a church building that is located in Monongahela, Pennsylvania as opposed to an organization that is international in character. I believe DABs should be more helpful than that and to me at least, "Bickertonite" is most helpful as a descriptor of what exact organization is being referred to. (By the way, we should really archive some of this page. My Commodore 64 just can't handle loading it anymore.) Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 08:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

And the use of "Bickertonite" makes the church seem relegated to one man and is out of date and there are better terms used by the organization itself. hmmm JRN 17:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen any "better terms" used by the organization if "Bickertonite" and the location of the headquarters are both seen to be problematic. All th proposals I see either incorporate the name of Bickerton or a derivative or incorporate "Monongahela". Snocrates 20:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If you would like to see better terms please re-read Reaverdrop's multiple examples above (which I am not going to restate) from the church's official website. Use of "Headquarters: Monongahela, Pennsylvania" or some variation is in widespread use by the organization itself as a disambiguator. JRN 14:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Monongahela is not problematic. Some editors just prefer the offensive term. JRN 01:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It is problematic (or at least less than ideal) in the eyes of some editors, which was my point — that there is no magic bullet term that doesn't have its own problems. Please don't characterize my opinion (or others who disagree with you) as "just prefer[ing] the offensive term"; that's a gross mischaracterization of the opinions which have been set out above which happen to be different than yours. I don't think anyone's intent in this discussion is to offend anyone else, so let's assume good faith on this matter. Snocrates 02:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Please take your own advice and assume good faith. The term is offensive. I made no statements accusing anyone of using the term just to offend, so again try to assume good faith. I merely stated that there seems to be few "problems" with Monongahela, yet some people prefer to use "Bickertonite" (the offensive term). JRN 14:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The whole heart of the matter is that I disagree that the term is objectively offensive. You appear to be assuming that it is, and by so doing you are mischaracterizing the views of those who support using it. It's difficult not the take that position when you maintain without caveat that "the term is offensive". Perhaps it is to you personally, but that's a wholly subjective opinion that's not supported by many (if any) objective views of the matter. That is all I meant. :) Snocrates 20:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think "objectively offensive" exists. Offense in itself is a subjective matter. Why would you be offended by something that you have no involvement or association with??? Your arguement is extrememly illogical. The fact that there organization made an official statement on their website saying that "Bickertonite" is considered offensive (it has since been replaced) means that it is offensive. Whether you agree or not. JRN 21:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
By "objectively offensive" I meant usages for which there is a general consensus among knowledgeable, neutral observers (i.e. not those individuals who are being "labelled") that the term is offensive. I'm not interested in debating the matter further. Snocrates 21:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well then you don't consider the John Whitmer Historical Association, Community of Christ, The Church of Jesus Christ (Cutler), Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strang) , Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Independent Restoration RLDS Branches, and Principle Voices - part of the Mormon Fundamentalist group, as knowledgeable and neutral observers?! I disagree. Jcg5029 20:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to see any statements from any of those that the term is offensive. As I said, I'm not interested in this debate any further and won't be reading / responding to future posts on this specific topic. Sometimes you just have to accept that others may view things differently and move on. Snocrates 20:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Its just a matter of having as much respect for The Church of Jesus Christ as the historical societies and churches listed above. We should show some respect on wiki and not use an offensive term that is outdated. You don't have to have the last word either, if you want to drop it drop it, but I feel it is important enough to properly represent organizations on wiki. Jcg5029 21:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's my reasoning that seems very sound to me. Silly arguments abound in this discussion. I present this as a fairly complete description of the situation at hand.

  • In a one article wikipedia, "The Church of Jesus Christ" would be the proper title for this article, but it isn't a one article wikipedia. It has been ruled that the article can't be at "The Church of Jesus Christ" (with the article). There are several different reasons for this. This is no longer the place for that discussion. If you have further questions about that ask me.
  • WP:DAB (under "Specific Topic") provides 3 options:
    1. "When there is another word ... that is equally clear ... that should be used." That would be Bickertonite. That is probably the best according to WP policies and guidelines, but the term is offensive. Should this be used? Wouldn't that be a violation of PoV? WP:NCON is the guideline for this kind of discussion. It talks about POV in a few places, but never does it say that POV terms should not be used, except in the cases of descriptive names (like September 11, 2001 attacks). It does say "The most common use of a name takes precedence" Now, I'm not sure, but I think that the term "Bickertonite" is the most common usage of the name besides "The Church of Jesus Christ". The term is completely clear. I would not be opposed to moving the article to Bickertonite. I can see that some people don't like this, and I'm not saying that it's the only place it could go, but it is a compelling option. I should probably add that the LDS project does have a standard of "<offical name> (disambiguator)". It's not official, but it is common.
    2. "A disambiguating word or phrase can be added in parentheses." It specifically mentions that we should use "class", "subject", or "context", this would be things like "(church)", or "(Latter Day Saints)" Which don't help at all. The context "Rigdonite" could technically apply, but it is misleading, and I think it's a bad idea.
    3. "Rarely, an adjective describing the topic can be used, but it's usually better to rephrase the title to avoid parentheses." This is where something like "(Bickertonite)" or "(Monongahela)" would be used. The WP Guideline doesn't like this option, it prefers to rephrase. The rephrasing would be Bickertonite. Which is another reason why I think it's such a great choice. But, like I said before, some people don't like it because it's offensive. I don't think that they have any Policy or Guideline backing them up in that regard, but they do have the Latter Day Saint Project tradition on their side. If we were to do something like this, why not add "(Bickertonite)" to the end? It so neatly closes everything up for a number of reasons:
      1. It sticks with the LDS Project traditions
      2. It adds the phrase, which is not unfamiliar to people to the official title.
      3. This phrase also has the added benefit of being exactly how this particular church is commonly referred to academically. I've read through numbers of lists of churches that refer to the church as "The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)" Parenthesis and everything!

If I had to pick a title, I'd either pick Bickertonite or The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite). I think the members of this organization would substantially prefer the latter, though they might claim that it isn't acceptable, and might be aiming for a different one, but I haven't heard a good argument for it yet. McKay 22:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, maybe you have not read the previous arguments. Currently there are five to six organizations which currently recognize this organization with its full name and a disambig for a location of the headquarters. If you can find something more recent than the 2006 Conference with many organizations in the Latter Day Saint movement, maybe Bickertonite is the correct and most commonly used term. Currently, with the sources presented in this argument, the most up-to-date name for this organization is its full name with the headquarters location. Do you have any evidence to the contrary??? Jcg5029 03:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The JWHA is one organization. It also appears to be the only one that uses this alternate method of disambiguation, and from what I have seen it is not consistent in its use of one over the other. (Your samples of their usages were very selective.) It's hardly authoritative when determining current widespread practice. A simple google search reveals about 375 usages of "Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)", with only 10 for "Church of Jesus Christ (Monongahela)" (some of which are from WP pages or its mirrors) and only 2 for "Church of Jesus Christ (Headquarters in Monongahela)", one of which is the church's own website, and about 8 for "Church of Jesus Christ (with headquarters in Monongahela)". It's not hard to figure out which one of the options is more widespread. Snocrates 04:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Your comment is wonderful because it just proves that the people who use Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite) have very little if any knowledge on the subject. Church of Jesus Christ was not at any time the name of the church. It is The Church of Jesus Christ. Yes (Bickertonite) was a commonly used disambiguator for the group, but is offensive. Of course I guess these knowledgeable people and organizations who use Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite) would know that the official name is The Church of Jesus Christ and not just Church of Jesus Christ, after all they are the ones that can determine "objective offensiveness" because they are all SO knowledgeable. While the organization itself and organizations and people who obviously know little prefer to use The Church of Jesus Christ (with some Monongahela associated disambig). hmmm JRN 12:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Sure, that's recent. Recent means nothing. In fact, it's a great reason not to choose it. Wikipedia doesn't choose names because a new group of people started calling it that. Once it becomes an established or official name (offical, if the church started calling itself offically "The Church of Jesus Christ Monongahela" wikipedia would probably honor that, but that church hates such disambiguators), Wikipedia will refer to the standard, common usage. McKay 04:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason I left off the "The" is so that the search would find all usages of the phrase, whether or not the "The" was included. It is fairly standard in most encyclopedic or reference works to omit leading articles from the names of organizations. Leaving it off the search would find all usages, whether or not "The" was included. I didn't think I would need to explain this fairly basic google-searching methodology, but ... Snocrates 02:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

EWWW Cheap Shot. Civility warning #1 Soncrates. I suggest you try and stay civil from now on. It helps everything go a little smoother around here. Plus it's just good manners. JRN 21:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Is failing to refer to a user by his proper user name also a civility issue? (And what's with the "warning #1"? Have you been anointed the civility cop for this page or something? I obviously haven't read enough of the archives...) Snocrates 22:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Somebody loves cheap shots. Again you could try to be WP:CIVIL. JRN 23:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
They wouldn't be so enjoyable if you didn't set yourself up for them so perfectly. Humor is an important aspect of civility, and I enjoy engaging in it. In other "wordS", it's just a joke. I'm just razzing you. :) Snocrates 23:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, luckily for you I'm a dog and I don't care. JRN 23:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
What an uncanny (or uncanine) coincidence! Snocrates 00:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
As as for your WP:NCON arguement Mckay please read this from WP:NCON:
A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or official usage:
Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations) Yes our friend above found numerous usages of TCOJC with a Monongahela disambig
Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution) yes the official name is TCOJC
Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term) Yes it is used on their official site to disambig themselves
Now if you apply (Bickertonite) to that it would only fulfill 2 of the 3. DING DING I think we have a winner! JRN 12:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
What are you saying? That we should use "The Church of Jesus Christ"? Sorry, that has been ruled as invalid. We must choose a disambiguator. McKay 04:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Except that the other usage ("Bickertonite") is far more common (hundreds of goodle instances vs tens), and the official name of the org. does not include any "Monongahela" disambiguator, just as the official name does not include "Bickertonite". Strictly speaking, both uses of the disambiguators could be said to fulfil only 2 of the 3, but "Bickertonite" is far more commonly used than "Monongahela" and is therefore more recognizable; thus it is the better choice—that was the whole point of McKay's post, I believe. Snocrates 02:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's look at the google search again, this time pedantically including the "The", as it was suggested above that those who "really know" what they are talking about will include the "The". This doesn't, as I suspected, make a huge difference in the results trend:

"The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)" "The Church of Jesus Christ (Monongahela)" "The Church of Jesus Christ (Monongahela, Pennsylvania)" "The Church of Jesus Christ (William Bickerton)" "The Church of Jesus Christ (with Headquarters in Monongahela, Pennsylvania)"
329
[2 from WP, 1 from church website, multiple from JWHA] 		6
[2 from WP] 		4
[1 from WP; one from church website] 		3
[1 from WP] 		6
[2 from WP]

Based on these results, I find it hard to believe that we're even debating which one is most commonly used and recognized. Excluding WP pages and the church's website, Bickeronite appears to be more than 27 times more commonly used than all of the other proposed options combined. Even when WP and the church's own website are considered, "Bickertonite" DAB is still used 17 times more commonly than all the other options combined. Snocrates 04:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Case closed? Does anyone have any rational (i.e. haven't already been ruled against by the policy of consensus) arguments in favor of anything besides Bickertonite? McKay 04:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately there was no concensus as the name the editor chose was not even one that was voted on. That would be a non-concensus decision. See you in november McKay JRN 20:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Kbdank71, an admin, closed the move discussion. He said, "It is apparent that this needed disambiguation" That is the consensus I'm referring to. That's his ruling on the subject. He also said "The question was just To what?." (I added in punctuation). since he said that we have been having a discussion on that very question -- "To what article title should the article be at?" We've shared opinions, and then some data. Snocrates then said "Based on these results, I find it hard to believe that we're even debating which one is most commonly used and recognized." the parenthetical remark mentioned in my previous post was specifically targetting the title "The Church of Jesus Christ" Consensus has ruled that that not be used. So, unless someone has better data/arguments to support something besides "The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)". Now would be the time to present it. McKay 22:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not wasting my time on this anymore. See you when it reopens in november JRN 01:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

When was previous rename?

BTW, either I missed it or no one looked it up, but when was the rename in May? Can someone please provide a reference? Now that I've made a stand on this ground, I want to know where the line is. However, if someone tries to sabotage the rename to get me to vote against it, I'll take that into account. I can look up other modifications, but I just don't know how to look up renames. — Val42 16:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to look them up either, but I remember about when they were. I'll see if I can find them for you. McKay 18:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. 31 Dec 2003 created as "Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)" (I think this is how it was created. That is unless I missed a move)
  2. 10 Apr 2007 to "The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)" added definite article (consensus)
  3. 18 Apr to "The Church of Jesus Christ (Monongahela)" change of disambiguator (no discussion)
  4. 19 Apr to "The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)" changing disambuguator (I'm not sure but I don't think there was consensus)
  5. 23 Apr to "The Church of Jesus Christ - with Headquarters in Monongahela, Pennsylvania" changed disambuguator (consensus under claim that this was the official name of said church)
  6. 24 Apr to "The Church of Jesus Christ" removing hyphenated disambiguator (mover was told there was consensus, request was made to mover without consensus, [long discussion ensued with little input and no consensus reached, so page remained])
  7. 5 Oct to "The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)" Adding disambiguator (admin, closing discussion, consensus to add a disambiguator)
  8. 5 Oct to "Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)" removing definite article (admin, thought there was consensus)
  9. 5 Oct to "The Church of Jesus Christ (Monongahela, Pennsylvania)" changing disambiguator (Jcg, no consensus)
  10. 5 Oct to "Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)" revert
  11. 5 Oct to "The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)" Adding article (consensus)
If anyone has any questions about what was happening with each of the moves, feel free to ask me. McKay 19:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I checked out the links, and it does appear that the move to "The Church of Jesus Christ" happenned on 24 April. This means that six months will be 24 October, but I suggest that we give a little buffer time and wait until 1 November, one extra week. — Val42 16:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, what are you saying? What's happening on 1 Nov? McKay 17:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
We're going to start an official rename-this-article process. — Val42 05:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:85 thechurchofjesuschrist.jpeg

Image:85 thechurchofjesuschrist.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

May 25, 1851 -- March 10, 1852

Some discussion in the past and recent edits - one unsigned by myself - have been trying to correctly write what occurred with The Church of Jesus Christ and, particularly, William Bickerton between the above dates. At March 10th I just added an official statement of those Latter Day Saints meeting at Elizabeth, PA where all who signed, including Bickerton said 'we have left off all connection whatsoever to the Utah LDS Church.'

So, my question is for all who are interested researching with me - what happened during those ten months? Are there good credible sources saying indeed Bickerton was ordained into the Aaronic Priesthood as an elder of the Utah LDS Church? I have reviewed the current source citing this claim. It says the following:

"William Bickerton, who never knew Joseph Smith, had joined Sidney Rigdon's church in 1845. Left without a church by the disintegration of Rigdon's following, he joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints congregation at Elizabeth, Pennsylvania, in which he became an elder." - Encyclopedia of American religions by Melton, J. Gordon.

It should be noted that this author has been criticized by many scholars for having a Conflict of Interest in reporting some groups in this publication. I am not drawing any conclusions on whether or not this Conflict of Interest involves The Church of Jesus Christ or not, but it is notable enough when examining credibility of sources. He lists three references for his articles. His three sources are...

1. Cadman, W. H. A History of The Church of Jesus Christ. Monongahela, PA: The Church of Jesus Christ, 1945. 2. Cadman, William. Faith and Doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ. Roscoe, PA: Roscoe Ledger Print., 1902. 3. McKiernan, F. Mark. The Voice of One Crying in the Wilderness: Sidney Rigdon, Religious Reformer, 1793-1876. Independence, MO: Herald House, 1979.

The first two are well documented sources on this page already and make no mention of Bickerton being re-ordained an elder. If fact, early documents of The Church of Jesus Christ record West Elizabeth as being led by William Bickerton on all counts and his leadership and preaching there eventually led to the organization of The Church of Jesus Christ. It records Elizabeth as the first branch of the church. The recorded statement of 1852 is found within this first history book as well. The third reference does not mention William Bickerton.

Any thoughts, comments? It seems strange to include a statement that Bickerton was ordained into the LDS Church if we cannot find any confirming evidence for it. Anybody with any information on this time period would be very helpful. Jcg5029 20:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

As of now this will be acted upon like all unsourced material, with a citation tag. If it is not properly cited in a reasonable amount of time, it will be removed. simple enough 71.61.235.138 20:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Rather than removing a completely valid citation with useful information, it seems far more reasonable to adjust the wording of the statement. Since the reference implies but does not use the exact wording of "ordained", just change to "he became and elder in the LDS Church". This completely gets around the problem of whether he was re-ordained in the LDS Church, which may be insoluble through reliable references. Snocrates 21:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
It is NOT a valid citation as the works it cited for it's sources make no mention of the claims. Hence it is INVALID. Just because someone makes a claim and sources it does not make it valid, especially when the claim and it sources don't agree. It will be taken done until a proper source can be found and any more reverting will be vandalism. JRN (talk) 14:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I plan to rewrite this paragraph incorporating new sources I just found which are really old newspaper publications that include writings from both William Cadman and William Bickerton. It sheds some light on the subject. This will probably get done next weekish. Jcg5029 (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Look forward to your revision so this can get cleared up. JRN (talk) 14:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Removing Sources and replacing with {{fact}} tags is right out. If you don't like the source, find another one. If the source doesn't actually say that, state what it is it actually says. Adding sources is NOT vandalism. Removing sources usually is. McKay (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with McKay here. It's a valid source — a highly respected reference book on religion in America. As has been demonstrated it does not say he was ordained an elder in the LDS Church, so this has been changed to he became an elder in the LDS Church, which is what the source says. No reason at all to remove it. Snocrates 21:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I have to disagree. Yes it says he became an elder, but the sources he used for his claim make no mention of him being ordained or "becoming" an elder (the same exact claim-different wording). I don't see the issue. If I made a claim and sourced it using information that did not back it then my claim would be incorrect. It is being removed. JRN (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
So rather than deleting it altogether, why don't you adjust the wording to match what is in the source? But your complaint is misguided—the source says, "...he [Bickerton] joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints congregation at Elizabeth, Pennsylvania, in which he became an elder" (emphasis added). Do we need to use the exact quote, or what? I've included the phrase "of the Elizabeth congregation of the LDS Church" following "became an elder", so now there can't be any reasonable complaint about the wording, since it is virtually identical in content to what the source says. You say "yes [the source] says he became an elder" but then you immediately claim that it "make[s] no mention of him being ordained or 'becoming' an elder". "Ordained" and "becoming" are two different words which can mean different things and it does little good to try to equate their meaning here. Snocrates 02:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
You can't become and elder without being ordained one. JRN (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
You can if you were ordained in a church and then you join another church and the second church accepts the ordination of the first church. You've "become" an elder in the second church without having been ordained in the second church. Bickerton's first ordination in the Rigdonites is undisputed and not in question. We don't know if he was "reordained" or not, which is why we are saying he "became" an elder in the LDS Church. Snocrates 00:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I guess I need to break it down for you because you obviously do not understand. Yes Melton claims he was an elder, and Melton uses secondary sources to back his claim. I happen to own all three sources Melton uses to back his claim and none make ANY mention of him being or being ordained an elder. Therefore I am calling into question Melton's statement because he makes a claim with incorrect sourcing. So no, adjusting the wording to fit what Melton said is not the answer, since what Melton said is incorrect. That is why I put a citation needed tag there, because a claim has been made without a proper citation. If you don't like it too bad, but you can't make claims without proper sourcing. JRN (talk) 13:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. Jcg5029 (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
(Sigh) You (both) seem to misunderstand how WP works with respect to the use of citations. We don't do WP:OR, which is what you are engaging in. To say "what Melton says is incorrect" is blatant WP:OR, which cannot be used to justify deletion of a reference unless you have another independent source which explicitly says Melton is incorrect, in which case both could be presented as alternative positions. Simply stated, we report what sources say and don't use our own "personal knowledge" to edit WP, even if we in fact know more about the subject that the source. You may see that as unfair, but it's a basic principle here and if you dislike it you may start your own website with more "accurate" information. See User_talk:Artbulla for another recent incident where someone felt cheated by WP because it was "misrepresenting" what he personally "knew" was correct, even though all that was happening was reporting of what the sources says. And yes, you can "become" an elder without being ordained one — for example, the LDS Church congregation may have deemed his previous ordination as an elder in Rigdon's church as valid and just let him slide into the leadership position in the LDS Church congregation based on that previous ordination. In so doing, he has "become" an elder in the LDS Church congregation but has not been "ordained" by the LDS Church. It's a possibility that takes a bit of nuance to see, something that's needed here. Snocrates 06:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
So he was ordained, right??? I mean I'm not a genius but you did say "his previous ordination", so that means he was ordained at some point. I mean I just want to make sure I'm right here. JRN (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, in Rigdon's church per what the article already says. We don't know if he was "re-ordained" in the LDS Church, but we do know he was ordained to be an elder in the original Rigdonite organization. That's the whole issue—was he "reordained" by the LDS Church. We don't know, and apparently neither does Melton, because the source just says he became an elder in the LDS Congregation in West Elizabeth. That may have been permitted based on his previous ordination. Snocrates 00:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally if you were to read about WP:OR which I'm sure you did, you would find that "If there is a source, but the source or claim is disputed, that is not original research but rather of a question of reliable sourcing or undue weight". But of course I'm sure you read WP:OR thouroughly before making any ridiculous claims. Again if you would read what I said before trying to argue everything, I AM CALLING INTO QUESTION MELTON'S CLAIM HE HAS NO SOURCES FOR HIS CLAIM. I believe I'm allowed to do that since in the world of academia making a claim without any sources is somewhat frowned upon. JRN (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
He does cite 3 sources. Have you examined all of them? Snocrates 00:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, when you delete the Melton reference outright, you are wrecking all the future citations in the article that also refer to it. If you're going to change something, at least learn to do it without f'ing up the rest of the citation formatting. Snocrates 07:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
(Sigh) You seem to be missing the point. Melton has no citation for Bickerton's ordination. Nowhere besides Melton's book is this mentioned and the sources he sites for his claim don't mention it. There is no WP:OR conflict unless you are calling into question Melton's claims which would fit under WP:OR since what he is saying cannot be cited and is not common knowledge. None of this has anything to do with how I feel personally, as long as there is a citation for what is being claimed. Therefore until one is found it will remain tagged. Have a nice day friendly friend :-) JRN (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
No where does Melton claim Bickerton was re-ordained in the LDS Church. It's undisputed that he was originally ordained in the Rigdonite organization. That is the whole point, which you demonstrate you don't understand by your second sentence. But Melton DOES provide references for his claim that Bickerton became an elder in the LDS congregation in West Elizabeth — they are listed above at the top of this section. Have you examined all three? Snocrates 00:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
So he was ordained....I thought I was right :-). JRN (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but not necessarily by the LDS Church, which is the unknown fact in question. Snocrates 04:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I own all three sources. I said that before and in all your angry ranting you must have missed it. This goes all the way back to the original question. Melton claims that he was an elder and had a congregation in the LDS church yet none of his cited sources say that. That is why I want that source removed. It makes a claim without any supporting evidence (also called WP:OR, which you accused me wildly of with no logical reason). I don't see why you are throwing a fit about removing a source and trying to find another one. Instead of trying to argue with me what don't you just read back to the original question and try to find a good source since this one will be removed. Constructive editing is always better than waging an edit war friendly friend. JRN (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
And subsequently why are you arguing when you haven't tried to read Melton's references???? Wouldn't that just make sense if you are going to try and wildly argue against something??? JRN (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
(1) I'm not "throwing a fit". Don't know what that's about; sounds like your own projection to me. (In any case, I'm not writing in all caps or using four consecutive question marks.) (2) I didn't say I hadn't read the sources. I asked you if you had examined them. I can find information in the sources that supports Melton's statement. (Yes, I have read them.) (3) I have logic behind my reasoning, you just fail to see it sometimes. (4) Constructive editing does not involve unilaterally removing sources. (5) You never said explicitly that you had examined the sources — you merely said you "own" them — which is why I asked if you had examined them. Snocrates 01:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You all seem to have strong feelings for the Latter Day Saint movement and this group in particular. I would like to bring this back to the original reason for the season. Do we know what actually happened in those ten months? Anybody with sources who would like to help me here would be great. That was the reason for the post. I think there is good info out there if we look into it on what happened, etc. Jcg5029 (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Lets just stick to the original question. Since you have read all three sources you can tell that it is not clear in any of them that Bickerton's was 1. an elder in the LDS church and 2. headed a branch of the LDS church. So Melton's source will be removed. If you would like to be a constructive editor you can try and find a source to cite the statement. Have a good day friendly friend. JRN (talk) 12:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the bottom line is that I disagree with your assessment of Melton's references and the information they provide. As I said above, I can see support for Melton's statement in the sources. I believe we are interpreting these sources differently. Since there is no clear "correct" view, it seems fair enough to include both the citation and a {cn} tag behind the statement until there is a larger consensus about what to do. Snocrates 21:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
It makes no sense to cite something and then put a citation needed tag next to it. That's completely illogical. It will stay removed as none of Melton's sources say what he claims. I invite you to try and prove me wrong, but it would probably be more constructive to find a correct citation. JRN (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
It's called "compromise" — I was trying to find one. You interpret Melton's sources as not saying this; others (incl. me) may disagree. You don't own the page. Wait consensus to develop before removing a source. I'll wait for consensus that the Melton source is sufficient before removing the {cn}. Snocrates 00:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, your edits are still mussing up the Melton references. I suggest you don't edit them until you figure out how to work them properly. Snocrates 00:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I will try to make it right before reverting so I don't "muss" it up anymore. Also I will discontinue reverting your edits until you can mount some logical arguement to clarify why you disagree. JRN (talk) 12:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to compromise something that leaves no room for compromise, either the source is right or wrong. JCG made a very logical arguement as to why Melton's source is wrong. I checked the sources and agreed and removed the source. If you are going to continue this I suggest you come up with some sort of arguement as to why Melton's sources agree. Since you own and have read all three sources you should be able to cite easily where you feel Melton's sources verify what he has said. If I am wrong and you make a good enough arguement then the source will stay. Just saying that you disagree without any logical arguement is weak and is no reason to continue your edit war. I have asked you numerous times to try and prove me wrong. JCG made a very logical arguement and I agreed and removed the source. You have made no logical arguement and continue to disagree and revert my edits. Just saying "I disagree" is not an arguement and holds no weight in any good discussion. JRN (talk) 12:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
If you read my posts above, I've presented argument, which have been outright rejected by you, so it's not worth the effort, because you've already made up your mind. That's why I'm heading towards compromise and waiting to hear from other voices. I'm simply not interested in discussing it with you. Snocrates 21:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I think how it reads right now describes, to the best we know, what happened during those ten months and it includes all the sources appropriately. Does The Church of Jesus Christ view West Elizabeth as its first branch? Yep, it definitely was after its official organization in 1862, and most of its members make strong disassociation with the LDS Church as early as 1852. The extra citation is a newspaper publication in St John, Kansas, which helps to clarify what went on -- remember Cadman is writing this after Bickerton had been excommunicated from The Church of Jesus Christ. Does the LDS Church also probably view this as an early branch that eventually fell away? It definitely appears so. I think how it reads right now includes all sources and does not have POV issues on who was ordained what because we don't know. 71.58.63.246 (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, its me. Jcg5029 (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
You're a peach. I like your edits. Snocrates 21:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

There's a bunch of articles that link to Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite). You can see which ones link there by this link: Special:Whatlinkshere/Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite). If someone else wants to help me move them, that would be helpful. No need to move the ones outside of the english wikipedia namespace (i.e. don't worry about ones on talk pages...). McKay 06:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Like the tag says, trivia sections are not encouraged at wiki. Does anybody have a special connection to the section who would like it to stay? Jcg5029 (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The section should go, but not the content. Since there is only one entry right now, it would be easy to simply rename it "Prominent adherents" or something like that and retain the content. Snocrates 21:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree the content should stay -- I was thinking more along the lines of shifting it over to the Other section, which doesn't have much as it is and because Cooper was never actually a member he just has family ties. If enough famous people are members I would lean more for its own section. Just one guy and the Other section could use the beef. Jcg5029 (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Snocrates 22:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

History Page

Certainly one of the longest and most detailed sections of this page is the history section. I attribute this detail and excellent improvement to the page in general to those associated in one form or another to the Latter Day Saint movement (although many editors may not be as well and their edits have also helped). I had made this suggestion before and because so many other heated debates were going on this got shut down without much discussion.

I am all for having a separate page on the history of this organization. This history section has gotten quite large, which again I credit all editors involved for their excellent work, but I feel it deserves its own page. I recommend leaving the early history about transition in leadership from Smith to Rigdon to Bickerton because thats what everybody looking at the page would likely be interested in. This would allow much more recent history to be added on the other page.

I would like to hear everyone's thoughts before proceeding. Thanks, Jcg5029 (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'v been considering that for a while myself. I think that it's an excellent idea. I would love to help edit and refine one if you would create it. I agree that the history section is greatly detailed and almost a little bulky for just this page. I think it would help this page out a great deal to take some of that bulk and move it to a history page where it would be better suited. Go for it. 71.61.235.138 (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok great I'm glad you think it is a good idea also. Jcg5029 (talk) 02:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Supposed POV issue

An anon has made a couple recent changes to the page that s/he claims are POV and should be removed. S/he made a good change to the first pov issue (although I think it was fine how it was) and s/he has blanked a whole section based on alleged POV. IMO there is not POV issue because it is the church's stated mission. The anon seems to disagree with what is said and seems to have an agenda to remove what s/he disagrees with, according to his comments in his edit summary. I've made changes that I feel remove the alleged POV problems. How does everyone else feel? JRN (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In cases where it's the church's stated mission, including the material in quotations with a citation should be enough to resolve the problem. It can be seen as problematic if it is stated without quotes as it makes assumptions about things that are not uncontroversial, like Jesus being the Son of God, etc. Snocrates 23:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Generally considered to be third largest ...

I added a "citation needed" tag to the following statement in the lead: "Generally it is considered the third largest of the organizations emerging from the 1844 succession crisis,...". It was removed by an editor, saying something like "just look at the membership totals". The issue is that this statement is phrased as if it is "generally considered" by some sources to be the third biggest. Also, the membership number of the FLDS Church are disputed, and some say it has more than 12,000 members once the Canadian members are included. I think we need a reference for this "generally considered to be the third largest" claim; otherwise it should just be deleted from the article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong but the FLDS did not emerge from the 1844 crisis. Jcg5029 (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
That's true enough in a direct sense. The sentence in questions could be interpreted that way, or more broadly to mean any Latter Day Saint denomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of whether or not which churches resulted from the succession crisis, if it is "Generally considered" then there should be someone somewhere who has said it. If not, remove the text. We need attributability. McKay (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Way to jump in after it has been fixed...JRN (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Pls, WP:CIVILITY. I don't think comments like that are appropriate when directed at an in-good-faith expression of opinion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have re-added the sentence that I took out because of JCG's comments. It is correct in context since the FLDS did not arise from the succession crisis. Also no source is needed because I have removed the "generally considered" wording and made it a statement of fact that can be quickly verified by looking at the membership totals. JRN (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the straightforwardness of the "emerging from the succession crisis" statement was disputed by me, as above, so it's not entirely fair to simply place it back in with no questions asked. It's fine if you want to include it, but like anything said in a WP article that is stated without citation, it's also OK to place a "citation needed" tag on it. Even something like comparing membership totals constitutes WP:OR unless we can cite a source that has done the comparison for us. We can't really have it both ways — either we can include it and request and seek out a citation, or we can just delete it entirely. If it's an important enough fact to include in the lead, then surely there's a source somewhere that states it. Since you seem intent on including, I'll add in the tag, which seems like a reasonable compromise. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
How much more straighforward can "emerging from the succession crisis be"? There is no wiggle room in that statement. Of all the churches emerging from the succession crisis it is the third largest. As for your compromise, I will look for a citation for that source. I suggest you do to since most times it is easier and takes less time to find a source that to argue over or add a tag. 157.182.87.253 (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you want to consider wiggle room, just start considering how close temporally does the emergence of the sect have to be to the time of the succession crisis? and how close a connection to the actual leaders that emerged after the crisis? If I started a sect tomorrow with the claim that Sidney Rigdon visited me as an angel and said I was to start a church which would continue with me as his rightful successor, would I be making a church that emerged from the succession crisis? Taking the strictest form of the definition, it could be argued that even this church would not qualify, since it was (re)organized in 1862, which is a ways off from 1844. But these issues are irrelevant to our purposes, really — the point is that we need a citation for the claim, we can't just make up stuff from our own ideas, research, or ways of looking at things. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
You would have to consider what historians regard, which is TCOJC emerged from the succession crisis where as the emergence of th FLDS church was later temporally AND had nothing to do with the succession crisis. So there is no wiggle room. I never suggested it was an issue of chronological signigicance. Of course you can continue to argue if you feel it necessary but I would suggest you do some more research first. 71.61.86.100 (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The real issue is that all I'm asking for is a citation from some source that says it's the third largest. The other issue that you seem to want to come back to is irrelvant, but in any case you seem to confuse me making an argument in favor of an alternative interpretation (which is not implausible) with some sort of "truth-claim". I know Latter Day Saints are into truth-claims, but this wasn't intended to be one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
You are making yourself look like a fool by assuming that I am a latter day saint. I am not, but that is neither here nor there. The problem is a citation is not needed because the facts stand that of the groups that arose from the split the TCOJC has the thrid largest membership. You can see the totals and there is your citation. If you want a citation with the membership totals I can give you one. Other than that you are just making a completely illogical arguement. I mean anyone can look at membership totals and arrange them from largest to smallest...71.61.235.138 (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Where did I assume that you were a Latter Day Saint? I don't know anything about you apart from your IP address. The comment was made in the context of this being a Latter Day Saint church, not in any context of what you personally may believe, which I think is irrelevant. You must have just misunderstood the comment as being directed at you specifically, but it wasn't, so sorry if you got that impression. Still, it's best to avoid saying others are "making fools of" themselves; it's not particularly WP:CIVIL. A simple, "I am not a Latter Day Saint" would have accomplished the same thing. As for you argument that anyone can arrange the membership figures, see WP:SYN — it's pure case of WP:OR. Unfortunately, WP is not about "logic" or what you can deduce from numbers, it's about reporting what has been reported elsewhere. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh ok, I see, you were taking a shot at later day saint churches and not me. That's much better. 71.61.83.14 (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
No, it was not "a shot" at all. Why is saying someone is "into truth statements" a shot? It's not. It was simply a convenient way of differentiating what I was doing to what some Latter Day Saints are prone to do. You seem to have coloured my intentions with your own shades of looking at or treating the world. If you haven't started to, I suggest you begin to WP:AGF instead of assuming every comment is an attack on you or others. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I have a complicated question. Since we are looking at splinter groups from the 1844 succession crisis we have essentially Stangites, Temple Lot, CoC (then RLDS), L-dS Brighamites, and The Church of Jesus Christ. No question the Utah Mormons have the largest group and the Church of Christ #2. Temple Lot has 5,000 members, less than half of The Church of Jesus Christ. Who else emerged from this time period with more membership today? This argument seems silly. Undisputed, The Church of Jesus Christ has the third largest membership base. Could we just include a citation for the Temple Lot membership total and The Church of Jesus Christ total?

Problem solved and according to Arnie, boom goes the dynamite. Jcg5029 (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You just engaged in classic WP:OR. Yes, you are right that it's probably correct to state what the article states about its relative size. It's in the article now. However, this does not obviate the need for a WP-style citation for this fact. That's why there's a {cn} tag on the statement. As you know, WP is all about verifiability and the reporting of what others have already reported; it is not about reporting everything that is true. If being the third-largest of the succession crisis denominations is significant enough to include in the lead few sentences of the article, then surely there's a source out there somewhere which states this. That's all that's being asked for. A few editors sound quite defensive (even aggressive, with snarky comments to others "do some more research first") about the {cn} request, which really is probably simply a symptom of the knowledge from someone who has done research knowing that such a citation does not exist. Oh well. The citation tag can and should remain until one is uncovered. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree haha it is classic original research -- I just like a few round about citations for a true fact than an ugly need for a citation mark. By the book you are definitely correct. Jcg5029 (talk) 04:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Book to Use

Morgan, Dale L. "A Bibliography of the Church of Jesus Christ Organized at Green Oak, Pennsylvania, July, 1862." Western Humanities Review

Does anybody know where I could purchase this book? I couldn't find any online and figured someone on here may have a good idea. Sorry, its unconventional. Feel free to answer on my page. Jcg5029 (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Western Humanities Review is a journal. Does that help at all? My local academic library carries it, but I'm not sure how widespread their circulation is to academic libraries. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Big help, thank you very much. Jcg5029 (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Lovalvo source

"However, it is also the belief of The Church of Jesus Christ that this restoration experienced some difficulties. After it was organized in 1830, the Church adopted doctrines that cannot be substantiated by either the Bible or Book of Mormon. Consequently, in process of time, God used a man named William Bickerton to again establish the church in its restored purity in 1962, at Greenock, Pennsylvania."

This contains nothing of Polygamy, and doesn't specify whether it was Joseph Smith, or Sidney Rigdon's church which introduced these doctrines. Find another source if you want to say that. McKay (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, this source does use the placename "Greenock" but it does not say that it is the same place as Green Oak. That would be OR to say it is. (very minor issue) McKay (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
They are the same, shouldn't be an OR issue its common knowledge. Also, I have every edition of the F&D will use 1897 edition to clear things up. Thanks for all your help. Jcg5029 (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I've been gathering some sources that seemed much more appropriate. Thanks for being so a'cute' in your readings;)Jcg5029 (talk) 02:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, from what I've seen, the new sources are better. Good job. There's still a couple more I want to get in and read, but I'm still looking. McKay (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Succession Crisis quotes

I have re-added the quotes for a few reasons.

  1. It was said that the quotes are silly. That's not really a great argument.
  2. On the contrary, I think quotes give a more encyclopedic feel.
  3. the version that it was changed to could be considered plagaristic, as the entire first part of the sentence is a direct quote.
  4. I think it is general consensus not to have that sentence in there to begin with. It is wrong. The church mentioned in this article did not originate from the 1844 succession crisis. But it has been the opinion of a single editor or two to insist on putting it in after it has been removed several times. Now it's actually got a source, So while I think that the statement is false (or rather relies upon incorrect assumptions, specifically that the church in question did not actually result from the 1844 crisis, but later), Wikipedia isn't about truth, it's about verifiability. So if somehow there's a source stating it. We should state exactly what it does state, and not elaborate any further, no synthesis of information, no rewording. Sure, succession crisis is what is meant? That change doesn't seem too far off. In order to remove the quotes, we'd have to reword the sentence, and I don't think that we should do so.

So, that's my opinion on the subject. I think it's a better one than "silly". McKay (talk) 04:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with keeping the quotes, and I agree that it should be clarfied that the "break" is the 1844 successions crisis, so I ultimately like the changes that you have made. However your assumption that the sentence is incorrect on the basis that the church did not result from the split is wrong. It did result from the split. I believe you are assuming that to result from the split the church had to be formed in relative chronological proximity to 1844 (such as 1844-1845), but that is incorrect. The church resulted from the split for a number of reasons:
1. Ideologically one of the reasons for the split was polygamy which both Rigdon and subsequently Bickerton denounced and which was one of the reasons Bickerton never went back to the LDS church.
2. Realistically if the split never occured there would be only one church today. Hence because the split occured there are dozens of church's under the restoration banner.
3. Bickerton was baptized and ordained an elder and evangelist under the church of Rigdon which, when Rigdon went wrong, was ultimately continued on under the leadership of Bickerton.
So truly it did, on a number or levels, result from the 1844 succession crisis JRN (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it should stay the way it is now. The previous quote excluded 1844 and did not include anything about the succession crisis which was why I said silly, funny I was misquoted. I think it looks great right now. Jcg5029 (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_(Bickertonite)/Archive_4&oldid=1085541038"