Talk:Rigdonite

Misrepresentation

This article misrepresents the actions of Brigham Young following the murder of Joseph Smith. For example, the article claims that Young formed a rival faction separate from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and took control of Nauvoo.

Young did nothing of the sort. In conjunction with the other apostles (at least those remaining after a few decided to do things their own way and left the Church), Young followed established procedures for identifying the succeeding prophet. When this process was complete, this governing body felt inspired to present Young as the successor. He acknowledged this calling and asked for the support of the membership. As the new prophet and president of the Church, Young continued to uphold the existing organization and the Church continued forward.

Several of the articles concerning LDS denominations mislead the reader into thinking that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints fell apart after the death of Joseph Smith, and that Brigham Young was just one of several power-hungry apostates who sought to persuade others into forming their own groups. In actuality, Young and the vast majority of church members continued to follow the doctrines and principles revealed through Joseph Smith and had nothing in common with those who chose to disregard them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.17.129.22 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 24 June 2005

Agreed Nrl103 (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Reference

Can you please site the reference in which "Young followed the established procedures for indentifying the succeeding prophet". This is POV and needs to be either cited or cleaned up. Historical records show that Young was elected President under a vote of 5 representatives from the Quorum of 12. The only procedure I have found historically is that the president must be elected under a Quorum majortiy, which would be 7. Please clean up your POV.

The previous paragraph is not mine and was not signed by anyone. Please clean up your POV that Sidney Rigdon was "arguably the most important and influential Latter Day Saint leader after the movement's founder himself, Joseph Smith, Jr. When Smith was assassinated." This is POV and there is no fact in it unless you can cite a concrete source that doesn't cite POV. And in general, the article reads like an editorial. Neutrality? Brettholomew21 (talk) 10:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Bickertonite article

Whoever proposed this merge doesn't have a clue about this Church or what it represents. Yes, William Bickerton converted to Mormonism under Sidney Ridgon's influence, but Bickerton broke with Rigdon in 1846. The Ridgonite Church went on to other parts of Pennsylvania while Bickerton remained behind in Monongahela. Bickerton was largely a self-taught (autodidact) Mormon and founded his own Church completely independent of Rigdon. Therefore, this suggested merge is ridiculous. The two Churches are entirely separate and independent of each other. StudierMalMarburg 16:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Notability tag

If you are going to use a tag (I find almost all of them personally obnoxious), at least discuss what your concerns are on the talk page. Why do you believe this church schism is not notable? Because it was small? Because it was brief? or because the article needs to be expanded and explained in a more comprehensive fashion. Please have the courtesy to explain when "tagging". Thank you. WBardwin 08:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I made mention of it in the edit summary. I'll say it again here -- I do think that Rigdonite is a notable term, but according to the Primary notablity criterion, in order for a term to have an article about it in Wikipedia, it must be the subject of multiple works. While I think that "Rigdonites" have been the subject of multiple works, none of the references currently in this article have rigdonites as the subject of the article. So, I think that the article is notable, but we don't show its notability. I tried looking briefly, but couldn't find anything, so, I put the tag up. If you think it's ugly, find some of the requested sources, cite them, and remove the tag. McKay 23:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I always thought the person who felt so strongly to place a site as not notable would actually think the site wasn't notable. But you don't. So, why not just do some serious research there McKay? Instead of 'brief' - which for you has typically been a google search. If you do not succeed in your research might I suggest the page merge with Sidney Rigdon. Jcg5029 23:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you don't understand, even though I've been saying it for quite some time. My goal here is to make an effective and accurate encyclopedia. I'm not trying to secretly hide the flaws of the articles I think should stick around. Nor do I try to make a WP:POINT by pointing out the flaws of articles I don't like. I'm objectively applying the policies and guidelines of the encyclopedia to anything that I see. Performing brief research isn't that hard, like you mentioned, a google search. But if I really want to do research in a topic like this, I'll likely spend several hours locked up in a library's special collections (like I've done for Church of Jesus Christ and The Church of Jesus Christ). Sometimes, like this rigdonite article, I haven't the motive enough yet to go and do this research. This isn't to say that I won't, just that I haven't. I would encourage others who care about these articles to do some research as well. McKay 16:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, and since no person has stepped forward to complete such research maybe the subject is, in fact, not very notable. Should it be merged with the Rigdonite Page? Please do not take my comments personal and in your response try to address the subject not defend why you haven't researched a subject you claim is not notable (even though you think it is notable and have done little research on it to make such a claim). Jcg5029 01:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess when I look at this page there are three references. There is also a direct citation from an original newspaper. For a smaller article/subject I am not sure how this is not notable. What else needs added? I simply disagree with the tag. The article has enough info to be deemed notable. No information has shown anything to the contrary. Jcg5029 02:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

There are three references, and technically, anything mentioned in the article must be cited, so if there weren't any citations the article might need to be deleted because none of the content would be WP:Verifiable. The issue at present is WP:Notability. Specifically, I refer to the primary notability criterion: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." the phrase "significant coverage" refers to how throughly the topic is treated. We must show that the term "Rigdonite" is notable. In order to do that, we must find sources about "Rigdonites" my general rule of thumb here, is whether the topic is referred to in the title of the work. Because none of the articles are about "Rigdonites" none of them qualify for the primary notability criterion. The first reference is about Sidney Rigdon (a different topic than "Rigdonite"), the second reference is somewhat confusing. I'm not sure what it's about, but the only time the term "rigdonite" appears in it, is reference to someone who is a "former rigdonite" this clearly seems like a trivial reference. The third reference is about "The Church of Jesus Christ". So while rigdonites might be mentioned in all three, they aren't the subject of any of them, nor do they receive major treatment in any of them, so they do not assiting the article in passing the primary notability criterion. Any questions? McKay 16:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you misunderstand the policy. See, these sources are legit because the title of Rigdonite is only the first of many criteria in using sources to substantiate a article.

• "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive.1
• "Sources"2 should be secondary sources or otherwise provide objective evidence of notability. The number needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.3
• "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability.4
• "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.5

The sources in this article are reliable and this tag is ludacris. Many of these, yes, are secondary sources. Secondary sources that make this article notable. The Messanger is a newspaper which quotes the term referencing this group of people. I am assuming good faith that McKay means well but is just wrong on this one. I have removed the tag. Jcg5029 01:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop putting words in my mouth. I never said the sources weren't reliable. I never said that these articles weren't Secondary. If you would have actually read the last post I made, I had problems specifically with the first point:

• "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive.1

There are three sources. I will try to explain how NONE of them meet this criterion.

1. Van Wagoner, Richard S.: Sidney Rigdon: A Portrait of Religious Excess.

   This is about Sidney Rigdon. I am not saying that it is not a reliable source. It addresses the topic of Sidney Rigdon directly. It does not address the topic of Rigdonites directly. It is a reliable source and can be used in this article, but it cannot be used to satisfy notability of this subject.

2. Rigdon, Sidney, et al: An Appeal to the Latter Day Saints (1863).

   This paper is by Sidney Rigdon. I'm not saying that it is not a reliable source. I merely mention that it doesn't address the topic of Rigdonites directly. There are other topics that it does address directly. It directly addresses criticisms of at least one Latter Day Saint church. It doesn't even mention the term "Rigdonite" The transciber's comments does, but it most certainly is in a trivial fashion there. Therefore this reference cannot be used to establish notability.

3. William H. Cadman, A History of the Church of Jesus Christ, Monongahela, PA: The Church of Jesus Christ, 1945.

   This book is a reliable source. There are a great many facts in this book that can be used to make Wikipedia better. But this book directly addresses the subjects of: The Church of Jesus Christ, the history of said church. It cannot be used to establish notablity of the term Rigdonite.

It seems very clear to me that the primary notablity criterion has not been met. Please do not remove the tag again. McKay 15:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, these are all secondary sources. There are three of them. If you want to argue how many secondary sources are needed to make an article notable this is not the correct page for you. Please do not add the tag again. May I suggest reading the above references? 71.67.185.72 00:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've stated before it isn't the number of secondary sources that makes an article notable. None of these sources give "significant coverage" to the topic of Rigdonites. The tag stays. McKay 14:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel they do. Maybe you should read them. Jcg5029 03:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I have read most of them. Could you please explain why you think they give substantial coverage? McKay 16:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, First of all the Messanger and Advocate quote gives first hand quotes of the world view of the Rigdonites at the time of the split in the Church. I believe a direct quote of the world view of the Rigdonites is notable.

Second, Sidney Rigdon's biography. It covers his life, including his latter years, when he lead the Rigdonite group and it contains valuable coverage of the Rigdonites.

Third, The Church of Jesus Christ's History. This group separated from the Rigdonites and detail concerning why is included in the History which includes a lot of valuable information about the Rigdonites at the time.

Fourth, Rigdon's appeal. Haven't read it. May I assume it is his response to the LDS Church? If so, then it also includes the world view of the Rigdonite group. Jcg5029 18:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You're not addressing the issue that I'm asking. Take a look at the sources. You've referenced four. You've done a great job in identifying how reliable, and how attributable those sources are. Let's put that aside for a moment. Could you please outline what each of those works is about? McKay 19:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Does the page need a lot of work? YES! Could it have more sources and references? Yep! Is there enough secondary coverage about the Rigdonites and their world view/history for this page to be considered noable. Absolutely. Jcg5029 18:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the page could use some work. Yes, it could have more sources and references. NO, the article does not have enough sources that give substantial coverage to the topic at hand. What would you say each of those references are about? What are the subjects of those works? McKay 19:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

My argument is that within those works there are sections with significant coverage of the topic. Here is my serious problem with the tag right now. Most of the sources that I come accross on this subject are identical in nature to the three current references. They have subsets within themselves that I feel is significant coverage of the term Rigdonite, but none that I find would have it as their main subject in the title. So this would not be satisfactory to you in our argumentative discourse this week.

So I am stuck in the middle of our pickle. No research giving me a title that would be satisfactory to you, nomatter how many pages have info concerning (directly) the missionary statements and history of the term in question. So here I stand, quite probably wrong. There is no book with the title Rigdonite that I am aware of. All the sources will be similar in nature to these three. Clearly then no reference will satisfy your interpretations. I suggest therefore that the page be merged with Sidney Rigdon to avoid all of this hassle. I would ask that you not assume anything on my behalf but Good Faith, as I am serious with my suggestion. I do NOT suggest something in hopes of reaching middle ground somewhere else. I do not play politics with wikipedia. Jcg5029 02:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think I understand you better. I've brushed through History of The Church of Jesus Christ, and I'ven't read at all the Sidney Rigdon book. I mentioned before that my "title" check is just a way of quickly discerning what subjects the work treats in greater detail. Your statement of "within those works there are sections with significant coverage of the topic". I claim that neither the Messenger and Advocate reference nor the Appeal to the LDSaints have significant coverage of the Rigdonite topic. What about the other two makes you believe that there is significant coverage of the Rigdonite topic? Are there chapters in those books that are titled "Rigdonites"? Please, elaborate.

I mentioned below that I don't think a merge with Sidney Rigdon is appropriate, sure Rigdonites should be mentioned, but Rigdonites are a sub group within the Latter Day Saint Movement. So if a merge is to occur, I think that a merge to the movement page would be more appropriate. McKay 15:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Move

If McKay still does not accept the sources on this page, should the page be merged with Sidney Rigdon? I feel it is notable in and of itself (and so does McKay but he still applied the tag). But maybe I am wrong and the page should be merged. Just figured I would throw it out there. Jcg5029 01:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, both Jcg and I think that the topic is probably notable. I'm unsure, but, according to WP:N, the article doesn't properly assert it's notability. I think there should be enough references out there to satisfy, but we don't have them yet. In any case, a merge with Sidney Rigdon doesn't seem like the best course of action. Maybe in part. I think a better choice would be to merge with Latter Day Saint movement, as the Rigdonite churches are a subset of the Latter Day Saint churches. McKay 17:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed changes and merge unless/until some further sources come to light in the future. Jcg5029 01:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I am basically of the same view—ideally I don't think any merge is appropriate. Maybe we should wait to see if anyone can come up with any sources? I say this being unsure of how long you've already waited, however. -SESmith 06:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI, it's been about a month. McKay 16:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not opposed to waiting it out awhile, whatever everyone agrees on. Jcg5029 20:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. Everyone involves accepts that the topic is notable; the fact that the article does not or did not assert its notability means it needs to be improved, not merged when no one actually thinks it should be merged. Policy exists to support the encyclopedia, not the other way around; this would be an ideal time to ignore all rules. Atropos 08:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rigdonite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071026160327/http://patriot.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=%2FNCMP1820-1846&CISOPTR=7229&filename=2340.pdf to http://patriot.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=%2FNCMP1820-1846&CISOPTR=7229&filename=2340.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)