Talk:Primitive Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)

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 4-5 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 16:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're so concerned with notability, start an AFD—let editors decide rather than just yourself.: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) 22:29, 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) 22:33, 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)

Due to real life time commitments, I'm not going to be reading, much less responding to, any of the comments here for some time. Any comments should be directed at the community at large regarding the article and not to me specifically if they are to have any utility. Cheers. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 21:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

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) 23:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the proposal was move. Duja► 07:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

---

It appears that this page was originally named Primitive Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite) and then was changed without discussion—the "ite" was dropped off the disambiguator. In the interests of consistency, I'm proposing that the name be changed back. The category is called Category:Rigdonite-Bickertonite movement and the parent church of this church was recently moved to Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite). I don't think we need to rehash all of the arguments made there about the appropriate name for that article. I simply propose this change as a housekeeping matter of promoting consistency. Snocrates 03:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The parent church was moved without a consensus and will probably be moved to something with Monongahela. Rich Uncle and I has worked together on the name change for this page. If you would like to propose a move feel free, but the term Bickertonite is probably not a realistic option. 67.142.130.49 16:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed a name change--that's what the template at the top indicates. Even if the other one changes, this proposed change should still go through. This church is best known by the proposed name, and the sources that are referenced which I have accessed also use that name. There's not a major 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, connected with the "Bickertonite movement". Snocrates 02:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should wait and see where The Church of Jesus Christ's page goes to first. I would generally like to avoid the term Bickertonite as the existing organization finds it offensive. I oppose any move. Jcg5029 04:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You need to propose a reasonable alternative then. I don't see the utility of "Bickerton" or "William Bickerton", because the church has no immediate connection to William Bickerton. Just because another church doesn't like the term "Bickertonite" is not a very good reason to not use it here. 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 meaningful time for proposal/discussion. Snocrates 06:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I was being bold and removing an offensive term. Its best suppliment was the name of the movement's founder, in the eyes of the former membership of the church here. They do have a historical connection to William Bickerton and since the movement is extinct it would appear historical connection is the best choice. You have yet to explain any reason to move with the only exception being you have Bickertonite on the brain. Historians are avoiding its use. Not good enough. Jcg5029 20:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I've provided ample reasoning, i.e., it's the term all of the sourced references use. It will also promote consistency in category/article naming. You have asserted many things, but provided no real proof of current trends in referring to this org. Snocrates 21:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I support the restoration of the original DAB "(Bickertonite)". It was changed without prior discussion. The sources I referenced in originally writing and naming the article used "Bickertonite". I have never seen the DAB term "Bickerton" used to refer to this sect. I fail to see how adding an "-ite" to a name transforms it from something acceptable to something unacceptable. Let's keep the terms used in the sources to disambiguate. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 08:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think associating with the group's major early leader is ample disambiguation. Jcg5029 20:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Um : haven't we already heard from you above? Snocrates 20:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support since The Church of Jesus Christ was moved to The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite). Vegaswikian 02:22, 12 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.