Talk:Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Notability

I've put the notability tag back up here and it will stay until notability has been met. As of now I don't think 1 cited source and 3 references amounting to a couple small paragraphs worth of information is notable. Notability guidlines say that "a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and I don't think what is included proves significant coverage. This does not mean that this article cannot be notable but as of right now it does not display meet notability guidelines.

However I would be in favor of merging the 2 schismatic articles into a broader article such as Schisms (The Church of Jesus Christ) that could include both church's and more information. I think it would be better to do that since there seems to be a link between the 1907 and 1914 groups. JRN 16:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're so concerned with notability, start an AFD—let editors decide rather than just yourself. You're interpreting the word "signficant" in the guideline in a way that confirms your pre-existing biases (if any). Generally, 4 reliable sources satisfy the notability requirement. If you don't think so—start the AFD. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
If you are right and the article is not notable, then the logical solution is to include the information at The Church of Jesus Christ. You seemed opposed to that when I first suggested it, which is why I made the separate article. You can't have it both ways, my friend. :) Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I never opposed including the information. Get your facts straight and stop making assumptions. A WP:CIVIL tone might help you out also. JRN 18:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy might help yours. Your comment from Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ#Schisms:

From the restoration up until today many people have left the church and tried to either found their own church or joined with another organization. I don't think it's necessary to cover all of the "schisms" just because people disagreed and left. You seem to be making a big deal about everything and trying to find faults with the church so that you can feel substatiated in your arguements that we have "glossed over" because it would hurt our faith too much to know that someone who lead the church was a man and had faults. It's your assumptions and not mine that are detrimental to the discussions here. I hope you can see the hypocrisy in your arguements.

Yes and you do very well taking it out context to try and make me look bad. I was referring to the uproar and accusations of "glossing over" because those were not covered, even though the history didn't include that time period. I never was opposed to additions of that information but was responding to accusations made against other edidotrs and I. Again please be WP:CIVIL. This is your second warning. JRN 14:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm just going to sit here and soak up the irony of your comments. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 08:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to be reading, much less responding to, any of the comments here for awhile due to real life duties, so any comments should be directed to the community at large regarding the article if they are to have any utility. Cheers. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations tag

I've added the template {Template:Citation needed}, which from your original edit summaries seemed to be your concern and what you were getting at. The article has sources to establish notability, but there are no specific footnotes yet for most of the individual sentences. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NAME

What should we move the page to in order to avoid using an offensive term. Howabout just (William Bickerton)? I am making the change now because the term is offensive and I am bold. We can discuss the final location -- I am open to it being something else but this just eliminates the offensive term. Jcg5029 05:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It would appear some have offered to change this page to (Mon City, PA). I would generally be opposed for this, but probably could be convinced, because the two breakoffs did not have headquarters in Monongahela. Just some thoughts to ponder while we decide what to do. Jcg5029 06:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Using his name is fine, but there's no need to use the first name "William" since there is no other person with the last name of Bickerton that is related to the development of a similarly named church. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

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

The result of the proposal was move Duja► 07:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm proposing that the name of the article be changed back to having the "Bickertonite" DAB, mainly for the purposes of consistency for articles in Category:Rigdonite-Bickertonite movement. We don't need to rehash the discussion that recently took place at Talk:Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite) about whether or not the term is or is not offensive. Right now, the term is used in categories and articles, so I'm proposing this as more of a housekeeping issue than anything. Snocrates 03:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the move as the parent page will probably not still have bickertonite as its disambig very long. 67.142.130.49 16:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Even if the name of the parent changes the change should still go through. This church is best known by the proposed name, and the sources that are referenced which I have accessed use that name. There's no real significant difference between "Bickerton" and "Bickertonite", except that "Bickerton" is not terribly helpful as a disambiguator because the church really had nothing to do with the man William Bickerton. It is, however, part of the "Bickertonite movement". Snocrates 02:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Bickertonite movement organizations recognize the authority of Bickerton, so it is perfectly acceptable as a disambig. As far as other organizations/people recognizing this church by one name or another -- that is simply speculation. Its defunct and was never large to begin with. It should be here, but it certainly tests the notability limits. No historians even use the term Bickertonite movement that I am aware of, so I would leave it be. Jcg5029 04:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not speculation when all of the references cited use the term "Bickertonite". I challenge your suggestion that "no historians even use the term Bickertonite"—it's widely used by historians of the Latter Day Saint movement and all of the cited sources use it. Perhaps you should refer to the sources and you could see for yourself. In any case, the onus is really upon you to show why it should not be "Bickertonite", since that was the name and it was moved without any proposal/discussion. Snocrates 06:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
By the way, this is not an AFD discussion. If you have issues re:notability, don't talk about them in this discussion—you may nominate for AFD. Snocrates 08:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I suggest we merge the pages in question and figure out an appropriate name for the merger. I suggest Primitive Church of Jesus Christ. No other organization has this name on wikipedia so there would be no naming conflict. Jcg5029 02:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Just a reminder I did not say no historians use the term bickertonite, I said no historians use the term Bickertonite movement, because they don't. Jcg5029 02:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If you'd examine some of the referenced sources you may discover otherwise. Snocrates 08:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Support - I support returning the article to the original DAB of (Bickertonite). It was changed inappropriately without discussion beforehand. "Bickertonite" was used in the sources I referenced; "Bickerton" as a disambiguator was not and I have never seen that DAB used in reference to this organization. I fail to see how adding an "-ite" ending to a name transforms it from something acceptable to something unacceptable. Ultimately I don't view it as a big deal, but it's safest to use the disambiguating term used in the sources. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 08:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Using an early group founder is ample disambiguation. Jcg5029 20:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Um haven't we already heard extensively from you above? Snocrates 20:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Proposed Merge

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 result of the proposal was no consensus to merge.

This is a very small and defunct group in the Latter Day Saint movement. I propose that it be merged with the Primitive Church of Jesus Christ because they, in fact, merged with them. I feel it would add depth to the pages themselves. Jcg5029 02:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Support (by nominator) - I would support Bickertonite being part of the name of Primitive Church of Jesus Christ in the merge. It is the best way to disambiguate. Jcg5029 03:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - One problem is, the sources aren't really clear what the combined church was called, so naming the combined article might be slightly problematic. For that reason and because the schisms were for entirely different reasons, I support keeping the articles separate. No other defunct or existing Latter Day Saint organization articles are combined in this way, with the exception of Mormon fundamentalism, but even then separate articles exist for the different sects. There's no apparent reason this should be any different. I'm also interested in expanding both articles in the near future using further sources, so there's little point in merging them when they can be expanded, after which point separate articles will again be justified. Snocrates 05:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Does this section really begin with a proposal and then initial response from the same user?! I'd have to agree with Snocrates here, on his conclusion and his reasoning. (By the way, I added these headers above for clarity, following regular merge debate format) - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 07:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'm probably biased because I started the two articles, but I too oppose merging them for essentially the same reasons as outlined by Snocrates. I would love to be able to develop these further too but unfortunately my WP time has been severely cut back lately, and my schedule doesn't look like it's going to let up anytime soon. I don't really see any good reason to merge the articles, even if they remained in their current state. Sure, they are both stubby, but there are far shorter articles that remain unmerged throughout Wikipedia. Notably, many of the stubs in Category:Latter Day Saint denominations are much shorter than these. The fact that these two churches merged is not good enough to justify merger, because all of the available information from reliable sources deals with the organizations pre-merger. There is virtually nothing (that I can find) about the combined church post-merger--as Snocrates indicates, even the name appears to be a bit of a mystery. If far more information post-merger could be identified than currently exists pre-merger, my opinion might change. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 08:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Rich Uncle Skeleton, your WP:WAX arguement that there are other stubby articles that haven't been deleted is really not appopriate and doesn't hold any weight in proposal, so I don't even need to refute that one. I suggested merging the two articles together to the creator to which I was suggested to nominate for AfD along with some other great accusations. I feel like the two articles are good but not notable enough for a single article. I would support something like Schisms (Disambiguator). I feel this also refutes Snocrates arguement that a reasonable title could not be decided upon because both of these sects split from the same church and ultimately joined together before becoming defunct. It also would create some notability as there is no real sourcing on number of members or geographic location, or even anything outside the fact that they split of X reason and later become defunct. Definite merge JRN 18:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment : Having been involved in numerous AfD discussions, I have little doubt that both the articles would pass a notability review in AfD, considering there are multiple independent sources. Proposals of merger should not be used to remedy notability, because if they are not notable separate they are not notable together, especially since no sources exist for the post-merger state of the church. The reluctance of those who object to these articles to nominate them for AfD seems to suggest that notability is not really at issue here. Apart from notability, no decent rationale has been put forward to justify merger, and it's not being supported by consensus, so I don't think it's likely to happen. Sorry. (By the way, WP:WAX arguments are not as completely irrelevant as you make them out to be; they are given limited weight but not no weight. Anyway, to me it sounded like RUS's main arguments were based on mine above, and the WP:WAX argument was made in passing.) Snocrates 03:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment if all that is mentioned about the churches is they split from X church for X reason, I really don't think that displays "significant coverage" just because 4 references say the same thing there is nothing significant about that, or at least the author of this page has not proven it. Also merging and making a broader title WOULD help notability because the topic would not be as narrow in scope and thus it would be easier to find more references and maybe show "significant coverage". Which is something these pages are lacking. JRN 16:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
We don't change the article name to establish notability. People can use categories to find what they are looking for. Snocrates 21:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Merging isn't changing the article name...I guess I thought you understood the difference between a merge and a name change...JRN 23:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
That's what I was referring to, along with your statement that "making a broader title" would help notability. My point was that a merge wouldn't do anything to resolve concerns of notability. In general, combining two "non-notable" articles does not make the merged one notable. If notability is the main concern, you can rest easy. I've ordered a book that contains more information about these schisms which I will be using (when it arrives) to expand on both these articles. Snocrates 00:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Well if that's the case then excellent. I never pursued an AfD for these articles because I thought they were notable but it wasn't displayed in the article, and I thought merging and expanding would allow more information to be added under the broader title "Schisms (TCOJC)", which would then help notability. You misunderstood me, I didn't say merging would solve notability but it would go a long way to help it if more information could be added. By the way, what is the title of the book? I would be interested in finding a copy for my library. Thanks JRN 11:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I would also love to read the book, maybe you could even use it as a citation after the pages merge. Jcg5029 23:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.