Talk:Shakers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former featured articleShakers is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 2, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 12, 2003Featured article candidatePromoted
January 18, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

What the ****[edit]

"millenarian nontrinitarian restorationist Christian sect " Is the layman expected to know what this means???? Written like a physics thesis for CERN.

I agree that this is technical, yet, also, there are wikilinks to these terms in case someone doesn't know these terms.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Quakers and Shakers connections on WP[edit]

The Infobox on the Quakers says or implies, without any sources of course, as Infoboxes usually do, that the Shakers were separated from the Quakers. But other than that feeble link, I cannot find any other link between them on WP.

Now, this article is not linked to the peace churches article, and I believe it should be somehow linked to it.

That article somehow does not mention the Shakers anywhere. I got to it from the "See also" section on this article, but they are not mentioned anywhere there, and it seems to me that they should be mentioned somewhere there. Does anybody else agree that they should be somehow mentioned there with a link back to this page? warshy (¥¥) 18:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Well. Buried down below there is a mention of this article with a link in the peace churches article. So that 'problem' appears to be 'solved'. As for a possible historical connection between Quakers and Shakers (and this has to be correct chronological order; hence the correction of the section title above), the unsourced link/mention in the Quakers Infobox last line remains the only one.
The only possible connection to Quakers mentioned in this article is the sentence

The first members of the group were known as “Shaking Quakers” because of the ecstatic nature of their worship services.

But if the mention here is indeed to the Quakers themselves, this connection should be made explicit somehow, and with sources. At this point it is not clear at all from any of the WP articles I have consulted, if they had any connections to the real Quakers to begin with. warshy (¥¥) 19:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson (talk · contribs), I see that you are editing this page extensively in the past two days or so. Would you please care to read my observations above in this section and comment on them? I'd appreciate your input into these comments above. Thanks, warshy (¥¥) 20:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

@Warshy:Good points! It seems like there are two issues, if I have this right: Clearly connecting the Shakers to the Quakers and the Peace church connection
  1. James and Jane Wardley and a few other Quakers left the society in England in 1747, and the Shakers were then organized. (1) Frederick William Evans. Shakers: Compendium of the Origin, History, Principles, Rules and Regulations, Government, and Doctrines of the United Society of Believers in Christ's Second Appearing : with Biographies of Ann Lee, William Lee, Jas. Whittaker, J. Hocknell, J. Meacham, and Lucy Wright. Appleton; 1859. p. 20. and 2) Michael Bjerknes Aune; Valerie M. DeMarinis. Religious and Social Ritual: Interdisciplinary Explorations. SUNY Press; 1996. ISBN 978-0-7914-2825-2. p. 105.) Aune, et. al., call it a separation from the Quakers. I'll insert that info into this article -- and add a citation to the Quakers article
  2. The Shakers are identified as a Peace church in the first paragraph of the history section in that article. I'll insert a link to the peace church article and citation by the mention of pacifism in the Shakers article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Does that take care of it?
Thanks a lot for the replies, CaroleHenson. I think your proposals do take care of my concerns 100%, and thanks a lot for all the good work you've done on these pages. Keep it up also! Regards, warshy (¥¥) 12:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, my pleasure!--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

In the third paragraph:[edit]

> Due to their belief in not reproducing

Could someone clarify this sentence. Reproducing what?

Yep, that was awkwardly worded.  Done.
It's about their belief in celibacy - so members of the sect did not give birth to children once they became members.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that celibacy and consequently not reproducing are practices (or habits of life) rather than beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.60.31 (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Er, wut? The practices are a consequence of the beliefs. They forbade procreation ... pretty strong belief there. -- Jibal (talk) 10:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Question purpose for citing all feminist sources[edit]

This clearly has been rewritten recently. It now reads as a feminist celebration of the Shakers. There is an over abundance of discussion of female role in Shaker society. While I appreciate and celebrate gender neutrality and egalitarianism, I question the decision to largely use feminist and gender studies sources in discussion of a historical religious order; even one that was truly way ahead of its time in regards to egalitarianism.173.48.76.98 (talk) 11:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. I looked to see what changes have been made since I did some editing - and there's nothing that could in any way fit your description of the changes... except possibly the addition of some {{main}} templates to women's articles.
Regarding the changes that I made, I can assure you that I absolutely did not seek out feminist sources. I just followed the information from sources and updated the article accordingly.
I don't think I added much in the way of content... I did some clean-up and added some info about art and music... and I think some early history. So, I'm not sure if your concerns are perhaps from before I made edits. I guess I'm lost about what the issue is and how you came to "There is an over abundance of discussion of female role in Shaker society."
Do you question content about Ann Lee, Lucy Wright, or the gender roles section? Something else?--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I've been trying to sort this out to better understand this issue. So, backing into statements by what might be a broad definition of "feminist" sources by the use of "woman" or "sister" in the title:
  1. at a time when the Quakers were weaning themselves away from frenetic spiritual expression. = Women and Redemption: A Theological History
  2. Ann Lee joined the Shakers by 1758 and then became the leader of the small community. - "Women's Life in Utopia: The Shaker Experiment in Sexual Equality Reappraised – 1810 to 1860". New England Quarterly
  3. Gender roles section -
    1. Starts out: Shaker religion valued women and men equally in religious leadership. - Sisters in the Faith: Shaker Women and Equality of the Sexes
    2. Starts out: In their temporal labor, Shakers followed traditional gender work-related roles. - O Sisters Ain't You Happy?": Gender, Family, and Community among the Harvard and Shirley Shakers
  4. Brethren grew the crops, but sisters picked, sorted, and packaged their products for sale, so those industries were built on a foundation of women's labor in the Shaker partnership between the sexes - Sisters in the Faith
I don't see the content as feminist or inflammatory. And, it seems to me that women's studies often lead to discussion about gender roles, but these statements don't seem to me to express anything other than a neutral point of view. What do you think needs to be done here? --CaroleHenson (talk) 04:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I do not see a problem. Most historians write about theoretical essays and manifestos on women, but here we have an actual society in a male-dominated era that made a genuine effort at gender equality as part of their way of life. It deserves the attention it gets from scholars. Rjensen (talk) 07:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Appalachian Spring[edit]

> though Copland often said he was thinking of neither Appalachia nor Spring while he wrote it

The title of the work refers to a source of water, not the season. It might be better to say "neither Appalachia nor a spring" or something to that effect.

128.12.252.4 (talk) 01:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shakers. 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:

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

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 18:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Shaker(s)[edit]

Now that there's only one left, should the page be renamed to Shaker, singular? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.106.147.201 ([[User talk:77.106.147.201#top|talk]]) 17:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


No, obviously not, any more than "Dinosaurs" should be changed to "No dinosaurs". -- Jibal (talk) 10:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

On a related note, the intobox states that there is one member left, whereas the Modern-Day Shakers section implies that there are two left. El Capitan del Landr0ver (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

New Shaker convert[edit]

I made some edits to the page updating the number of Shakers. This was challenged, reasonably, because there are no published reports of this. My information comes from my capacity of an employee at Hancock Shaker Village. The correspondence and visitations of that museum staff with Sabbathday Lake Maine has confirmed that a new convert has joined. As far as I can tell, this has not been published.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

It would need to be published and sourced to be included on wikipedia. SMBisbee (talk) 01:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

There is a reference to Brother Andrew in the latest Shaker newsletter. I have updated the article to reflect that.3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Shaker (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Was Isaac Babbit a Shaker?[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers#Economics states "Shakers won respect and admiration for their productive farms and orderly communities. Their industry brought about many inventions like Babbitt metal". I can find no other internet source that confirms that Isaac Babbit, the inventor of Babbit metal was a Shaker. His mode of dress and profession, goldsmith, suggest otherwise. --Michael James Burrows (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)