Talk:Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Latter Day Saint movement WikiProject, an attempt to provide comprehensive and detailed information about the Latter Day Saint movement and Mormonism on Wikipedia. To participate in the project, edit this article, visit the List of articles about the Latter Day Saint movement, the project page, and/or join the discussion. For writing guidelines about contributing to the project, you may want to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints)
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

[edit] NAME

This page should be changed to their actual official name with a inclusion of what others and themselves commonly refer. aka Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerites).128.118.246.192 20:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure whether or not the article should be capitalized. I know that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints really wants the article capitalized, I know that The Church of Jesus Christ (the one with headquarters in monogahela pennsylvania) really want's their article capitalized. It seemed logical that The Church of Jesus Christ (the ones commonly called "Cutlerites") would want theirs capitalized too. Their website has their "The" capitalized, but it's an ambiguous case. religious tolerance.org shows the cutlerites with a capital "The" also, but it is also an ambiguous case. I couldn't find a reliable source anywhere, so I just went with what the other churches with similar names are doing. I don't think that 128.118 really has a better reason than mine. McKay 21:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
You are right McKay, there should also be a link to The Church of Jesus Christ like on The Church of Jesus Christ to the Cutlerites

Jcg5029 22:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article or no? Capitalized?

  • [1] Yes present, yes capitalized, but ambiguous case.
  • [2] No article present, in some cases but they remove the article on the LDS church, and that church the same name that has its headquarters in monogahela pennsylvania, so we know the source is unreliable for this case
  • [3] Yes present, yes capitalized, but ambiguous case.
  • [4] No article present, but they remove the article on the church with the same name as this one that has its headquarters in monogahela pennsylvania, so we know the source is unreliable in the case of articles.
  • [5] Yes, Yes, They even have some cases where the articles are gone, but I think the data is user-submitted.
  • [6] yes present, no not capitalized, but they also drop the cap on the LDS church as well, so they can't be trusted in this matter.
  • [7] yes, yes, ambiguous
  • [8] no, but others have removed articles as well, unreliable.
  • [9] no, unreliable
  • [10] no, unreliable
  • [11] Yes but not bolded, similar presentation of other Latter Day Saint sects
  • [12] yes, yes, ambiguous
  • [13] No, unreliable[14]

So really what I'm saying is that asking for a reliable source is nearly impossible. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that they'll be similar to the other Latter Day Saint sects. McKay 21:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked at all these websites, but I think the most authoritative source is the church's own publications. They have cut back on their website recently, but using the Wayback Machine as far back as 2001, you can see that they pretty consistently capitalize the initial article. They also use the disambiguator "Cutlerite", as in "The Church of Jesus Christ, Cutlerite". I'd go with their preference, which will avoid confusion (except of course put "Cutlerite" in parentheses). COGDEN 22:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree.Jcg5029 01:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Why are the above sources unreliable, just because McKay thinks they are?? That seems a poor distinction even though they may perfectly well be unreliable I do not agree with not allowing editors to properly determine the reliability of the source.Jcg5029 16:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
This wikipedia is all about the editors. The editors are really the only people who can determine the reliability of a source. We should use established guidelines (I.e. follow the rules) to make the decision. The relevant guideline here is WP:RS:
  1. "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; " None of these have a reliable publication process. Some more reliable than others.
  2. "In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors." which is why we're using what's on their website. It's the most reliable.
  3. The guidelines at WP:RS are good. If anyone thinks they can find a better source for this subject, please bring it forward. McKay 18:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No article

The Harold B. Lee Library at Brigham Young University has a large collection of Latter Day Saint documents. I've seen more of them than I can remember. But I did find one book, published by their church, that refers frequently to their church as "Church of Jesus Christ" sometimes it's got an article, and usually when it does have an article the article is at the beginning of the sentance so it's ambiguously capitalized, but I found a few occasions where the article is mid-sentence and not capitalized, and even a few occasions where the definite article isn't even present. Wikipedia guidelines therefore would put it at Church of Jesus Christ, but since that doesn't uniquely refer to the church known as the Cutlerites, so WP:D policy must be applied. I believe that because the term "Church of Jesus Christ" doesn't refer to the cutlerite church much more than any other, it shouldn't have the article with that title, and so therefore it should remain as a disambiguation page. Also, this church doesn't have a problem with disambiguating it with other churches with a similar name, and frequently refers to themselves as "Cutlerite" or "Cutlerites". So, this location, it's historic location is where I decided was best. If you have any questions about this, feel free to ask. McKay 01:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Awesome research, sounds good to me. This same effort would be great with the Rigdonite page to help it become notable to your approval. Jcg5029 00:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)