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:

1. Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  Done
2. Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  Done
3. 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
4. Check for Biographies of living persons: NA
5. Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  Done
   • Check for Non-English titles:
   • Check for Usage in first sentence:
   • Check for Separate section usage:
6. Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  Done
7. Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER): None

WP:LAYOUT:

 Done

Check for WP:LAYOUT:  Done

1. 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
2. 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
3. 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

1. 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
2. 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
3. Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  Done

Check for WP:MOSFICT:  Done

1. 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

1. Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING): (contentious)  Done
   • Is it contentious?: Yes
   • Does the ref indeed support the material?:
2. 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?:
3. Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  Done
4. Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

WP:MINREF:

 Done

Check for inline citations WP:MINREF:  Done

1. Check for Direct quotations:  Done
2. Check for Likely to be challenged:  Done
3. Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP): NA

• c. No original research:  Done

WP:NOR:

 Done

1. Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  Done
2. Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  Done
3. 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

1. Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources:
   1. Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS:
   2. Check for Out of scope:
2. Check for The range of material that belongs in the article:
   1. Check for All material that is notable is covered:
   2. Check for All material that is referenced is covered:
   3. Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered:
   4. Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge:
   5. Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):

b. Focused:

 Done

1. Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH):
2. Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

WP:NPOV:

 Done

4. Fair representation without bias:  Done

1. Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  Done
2. Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  Done
3. Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  Done
4. Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  Done
5. Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  Done
6. Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  Done
7. Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  Done
8. Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  Done
9. Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  Done
10. Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  Done
11. Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  Done
12. Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI): None
13. 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

1. Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  Done
2. Check for copyright status:  Done
3. Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):  Done
4. 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

1. Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  Done
2. Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  Done
3. 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)

References in popular culture

Why no mention of the television play about the Agapemonites and their founder? "Beloved", 1976: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0740019/reference/?ref_=ttep_ep_7 ~2025-33637-37 (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2026 (UTC)