Talk:Agapemonites

Merger proposal

Both this article and Agapemone seem to be about the same organisation or "sect". I came to add some material and a reference, but I am unsure where to add it as the longer page only says that it contains material from Encyclopedia Britanica and has no other references and the shorter article has two references but not a lot of content. I am unsure which article is the correct name and where I should add new material?— Rod ^talk 20:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

In such cases of uncertainty I like to preserve the larger. Flipping a coin would do as well. To my unacquainted mind, the short other article seems a competent summary. Incorporating it, with its refs, into the short lead of this one, omitting repetitions, would approximately double the length of the lead. I intend to do this next week, if dissent or alternative proposals are not offered. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

As there were no objections I have now merged the text and redirected the other article to this one.— Rod ^talk 17:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Good going. It slipped my mind. Jim.henderson (talk) 11:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Agapemonites/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 23:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: — Rod ^talk

Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 23:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

1: Well-written

• a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
• b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

WP:LEAD:

Check for WP:LEAD: Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  Done Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  Done Check for Introductory text:  Done Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO):  Done Check for Relative emphasis:  Done Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN):  Done Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE):  Done Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE):  Done Check for Proper names and titles:  Done Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None Check for Pronunciation: None Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK):  Done Check for Biographies: NA Check for Organisms: NA Check for Biographies of living persons: NA Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  Done Check for Non-English titles: Check for Usage in first sentence: Check for Separate section usage: Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  Done Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER): None

WP:LAYOUT:

Done Check for WP:LAYOUT:  Done Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  Done Check for Headings and sections:  Done Check for Section templates and summary style:  Done Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS):  Done Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  Done Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER):  Done Check for Works or publications:  Done Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO):  Done Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR):  Done Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER):  Done Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL):  Done Check for Links to sister projects:  Done Check for Navigation templates:  Done Check for Formatting:  Done Check for Images (WP:LAYIM):  Done Check for Links:  Done Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE):  Done

WP:WTW:

Done Check for WP:WTW:  Done Check for Words that may introduce bias:  Done Check for Puffery (WP:PEA):  Done Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL):  Done Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL):  Done Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED):  Done Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED):  Done Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY):  Done Check for Expressions that lack precision:  Done Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM):  Done Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM):  Done Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME):  Done Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  Done Check for WP:MOSFICT:  Done Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  Done Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI):  Done Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT):  Done

WP:EMBED:
Done Prose is preferred over list (WP:PROSE): Check for Tables (MOS:TABLES):

2: Verifiable with no original research

• a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
• b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent (Thorough check on Google.)

WP:RS:

Done Check for WP:RS:  Done Cross-checked with other FAs: Chew Valley Lake, Chew Valley, Mendip Hills, Buildings and architecture of Bristol, Chew Stoke, Exmoor, Somerset, Bath, Somerset, River Parrett, Kennet and Avon Canal Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING): (contentious)  Done Is it contentious?: Yes Does the ref indeed support the material?: Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Who is the author?: Does the author have a Wikipedia article?: What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?: What else has the author published?: Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?: Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

WP:MINREF:
Done Check for inline citations WP:MINREF:  Done Check for Direct quotations:  Done Check for Likely to be challenged:  Done Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP): NA

• c. No original research:  Done

WP:NOR:
Done Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  Done Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  Done Check for original images (WP:OI):  Done

3: Broad in its coverage

a. Major aspects:

Done Cross-checked with other FAs: Chew Valley Lake, Chew Valley, Mendip Hills, Buildings and architecture of Bristol, Chew Stoke, Exmoor, Somerset, Bath, Somerset, River Parrett, Kennet and Avon Canal Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources: Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS: Check for Out of scope: Check for The range of material that belongs in the article: Check for All material that is notable is covered: Check for All material that is referenced is covered: Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered: Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge: Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):

b. Focused:
Done Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH): Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

WP:NPOV:

Done 4. Fair representation without bias:  Done Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  Done Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  Done Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  Done Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  Done Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  Done Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  Done Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  Done Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  Done Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI): None Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV): None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images  Done (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license) (PD)

Images:

Done 6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  Done Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  Done Check for copyright status:  Done Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):  Done Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):  Done 6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  Done Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  Done Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  Done Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  Done

As per the above checklist, there are no issues with the article and it’s a GA (A very minor issue – "The church was abandoned before it was bought in 1956 by the Ancient Catholic Church and now is used by the Georgian Orthodox Church." [no inline citation]). The prose quality in particular has been fantastic in all your articles. Thanks, Rod, very much for your diligence in writing such great articles.

Promoting the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 23:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

"Evidence" for Nottidge pregnancy

I've just removed the comment "(evidence ???)" from the article. It is generally better to discuss on the talk page although "citation needed" tags can be added in the article. I've looked in the Evans citation Evans, Roger (2004). Somerset Tales of Mystery and Murder. Countryside Books. ISBN 1853068632, and will continue looking at sources - if no suitable citation can be found the claim can be removed.— Rod ^talk 17:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the wrong source. In Evans, Roger (2006). Blame it on the vicar. Halsgrove. ISBN 9781841145686. on page 26 it says "Agnes was not to be a member for much longer, Prince discovered that she had betrayed him, by contacting her sister and, it appeared, she was expecting a child and not by her spiritual husband." This seems to support the claim made in the article that "Agnes, the eldest of the Nottidge sisters, objected to the spiritual marriage which entailed a celibate life and became pregnant by another member of the community.[11] Agnes wrote to her younger sister Louisa warning her not to come to Spaxton." The test on wikipedia is Verifiability meaning that claims need to be supported by a relaible source and this seems to be the case here.— Rod ^talk 18:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

origin of name

Does anyone have a source for the etymology? as far as I can tell it might mean "state (or condition) of apage (love) but abode? If not, perhaps we should stay "they named A, a word intended by them to mean" etc--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Evans, Roger (2006). Blame it on the vicar. Halsgrove. p. 24. ISBN 9781841145686. uses "The abode of love" and in Evans, Roger (2004). Somerset Tales of Mystery and Murder. Countryside Books. p. 29. ISBN 978-1853068638. says "Soon the Agapemone (Greek for Abode of Love) was being developed." Norris, Sally (1989). Tales of Old Somerset. MRM Associates. p. 119. ISBN 978-1853060649. suggests the name Agapemonites might have come from flowers or fossils but rejects this just saying "followers of two self-proclaimed Messiahs".— Rod ^talk 08:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)