This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sidney Rigdon article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
This history within Rigdon's biography portrays him as being excommunicated from the Church and then forming his own faction. Actually, both groups excommunicated each other. The Utah Mormon propoganda does not belong within this article. Both sides should be equally mentioned and addressed. -- Jcg5029 16:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
You are right, it should be mentioned and referenced. The problem I have is the Doctrine and Covenants being used as a historical document. It is cannon for many Latter Day Saint Denominations, but not all of them. Assuming its contents as truth would be the same as another group quoting from scripture in order to justify history. I am not saying the statement is untrue, but it needs a better source. Since the church's history is referenced it looks good. Jcg5029 06:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I recently removed the term "in absentia" from the section on the succession crisis and thought the removal deserved some comment. In removing the term "in absentia" I noted that the term was applied to Rigdon's excommunication by Brigham Young, but not Rigdon's excommunication of Brigham Young, the disparity clearly being biased. Putting the term in for both cases just looked silly, so removal seemed best. I further considered that "in absentia" is a legal term and while the situation in question is very much like a legal proceeding, it is not the same. However, considering that the similarity is great enough to make the term meaningful, it's relevance is brought into question by the understanding that, if taken in a legal sense, he had waived his right to be present at the "trial" as he had been informed of it and refused to come. Per "A Journey to Great-Salt-Lake City", p. 412. See also the Wikipedia article, in absentia for further details.
As it was, the term seemed to be used to imply that the opposite was the case. That is, that his excommunication was the result of some secret contrivance. -- Seanmcox 23:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I expect I will edit it. However, I suggest that you are reading too little into it. As you wrote the phrase in question, I'm not terribly surprised. You must have thought it relevany. However, my assertion was and is that this perceived relevance is a product of bias. How do you support your assertion that his absence was relevant? -- Seanmcox 20:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
"It's relevant because of the nature of disciplinary procedures within the Latter Day Saint movement."
"For starters, refusal to attend is typically ..."
"It's not just me who thinks this is relevant."
"I was just accurately reporting the many sources that state he was tried in absentia."
"The article makes it clear it was a public meeting."
"Next time you might save time by just making the edits and seeing if they stick."
Yawn. Get over it and don't take everything so seriously. Loosen up. – SESmith 21:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
As I said originally, I think too much has been read into the use of "in absentia" and I just didn't feel the need to continue an extended discussion over an individual user's interpretation of an easily definable term. I apologize if I offended you, Seanmcox, but the discussion was venturing into the realm of boring and pointless derivative arguments, which Storm Rider knows that I need to avoid. The best way to avoid being offended on WP is to not take offence, and the best way to do that is to not take things too seriously and just have fun. Perhaps this is impossible after modeling plasmas in the heliosheath. :) – SESmith 05:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I have taken out the following from the section about the Rigdon/Spaulding theory:
This is strikingly claims that must be accompanied by references if they should be allowed into the article. __ meco ( talk) 07:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Sidney Rigdon's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Melton":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I get that Joseph Smith's original name for his group was the "Church of Christ." But it can be confusing, because there are - and were at that time - other groups also using the name "Church of Christ." That's why the name was changed in 1834 to include the phrase "Latter Day Saints" - to avoid needless confusion. We don't do our readers any favors when we insist on using the name "Church of Christ" without any parenthetical phrase - especially since Rigdon was affiliated for a time with a Restoration Movement group. EastTN ( talk) 19:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sidney Rigdon article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
This history within Rigdon's biography portrays him as being excommunicated from the Church and then forming his own faction. Actually, both groups excommunicated each other. The Utah Mormon propoganda does not belong within this article. Both sides should be equally mentioned and addressed. -- Jcg5029 16:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
You are right, it should be mentioned and referenced. The problem I have is the Doctrine and Covenants being used as a historical document. It is cannon for many Latter Day Saint Denominations, but not all of them. Assuming its contents as truth would be the same as another group quoting from scripture in order to justify history. I am not saying the statement is untrue, but it needs a better source. Since the church's history is referenced it looks good. Jcg5029 06:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I recently removed the term "in absentia" from the section on the succession crisis and thought the removal deserved some comment. In removing the term "in absentia" I noted that the term was applied to Rigdon's excommunication by Brigham Young, but not Rigdon's excommunication of Brigham Young, the disparity clearly being biased. Putting the term in for both cases just looked silly, so removal seemed best. I further considered that "in absentia" is a legal term and while the situation in question is very much like a legal proceeding, it is not the same. However, considering that the similarity is great enough to make the term meaningful, it's relevance is brought into question by the understanding that, if taken in a legal sense, he had waived his right to be present at the "trial" as he had been informed of it and refused to come. Per "A Journey to Great-Salt-Lake City", p. 412. See also the Wikipedia article, in absentia for further details.
As it was, the term seemed to be used to imply that the opposite was the case. That is, that his excommunication was the result of some secret contrivance. -- Seanmcox 23:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I expect I will edit it. However, I suggest that you are reading too little into it. As you wrote the phrase in question, I'm not terribly surprised. You must have thought it relevany. However, my assertion was and is that this perceived relevance is a product of bias. How do you support your assertion that his absence was relevant? -- Seanmcox 20:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
"It's relevant because of the nature of disciplinary procedures within the Latter Day Saint movement."
"For starters, refusal to attend is typically ..."
"It's not just me who thinks this is relevant."
"I was just accurately reporting the many sources that state he was tried in absentia."
"The article makes it clear it was a public meeting."
"Next time you might save time by just making the edits and seeing if they stick."
Yawn. Get over it and don't take everything so seriously. Loosen up. – SESmith 21:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
As I said originally, I think too much has been read into the use of "in absentia" and I just didn't feel the need to continue an extended discussion over an individual user's interpretation of an easily definable term. I apologize if I offended you, Seanmcox, but the discussion was venturing into the realm of boring and pointless derivative arguments, which Storm Rider knows that I need to avoid. The best way to avoid being offended on WP is to not take offence, and the best way to do that is to not take things too seriously and just have fun. Perhaps this is impossible after modeling plasmas in the heliosheath. :) – SESmith 05:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I have taken out the following from the section about the Rigdon/Spaulding theory:
This is strikingly claims that must be accompanied by references if they should be allowed into the article. __ meco ( talk) 07:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Sidney Rigdon's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Melton":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I get that Joseph Smith's original name for his group was the "Church of Christ." But it can be confusing, because there are - and were at that time - other groups also using the name "Church of Christ." That's why the name was changed in 1834 to include the phrase "Latter Day Saints" - to avoid needless confusion. We don't do our readers any favors when we insist on using the name "Church of Christ" without any parenthetical phrase - especially since Rigdon was affiliated for a time with a Restoration Movement group. EastTN ( talk) 19:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)