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

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:85 thechurchofjesuschrist.jpeg

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Look forward to your revision so this can get cleared up.  JRN (talk) 14:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Removing Sources and replacing with  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: You can't become and elder without being ordained one.  JRN (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: That makes sense to me.  Jcg5029 (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: He does cite 3 sources. Have you examined all of them? Snocrates 00:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: (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)

text: 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)

text: So he was ordained....I thought I was right :-). JRN (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, but not necessarily by the LDS Church, which is the unknown fact in question. Snocrates 04:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: (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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Sorry, its me.  Jcg5029 (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're a peach. I like your edits. Snocrates 21:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  May 25, 1851 -- March 10, 1852 

message: 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)
thread_title: Redirect

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. Snocrates 22:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Supposed POV issue 

message: 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)
replies: text: Correct me if I am wrong but the FLDS did not emerge from the 1844 crisis.  Jcg5029 (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Way to jump in after it has been fixed...JRN (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Generally considered to be third largest ... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Big help, thank you very much.  Jcg5029 (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book to Use 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Lovalvo source