Talk:Shakers

message: "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)
thread_title: What the ****

message: >  Due to their belief in not reproducing
Could someone clarify this sentence.  Reproducing what?
:Yep, that was awkwardly worded. . 
: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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  In the third paragraph: 

message: > 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)
thread_title:  Appalachian Spring 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110321081559/http://maineshakers.com/beliefs.html to http://maineshakers.com/beliefs.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  New Shaker convert 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Was Isaac Babbit a Shaker? 

message: I cannot seem to find any references for the shakers being nontrinitarian and none is provided in article. When looking it up on the internet you get almost exclusively regurgitated forms of the wikipedia page. It's only mentioned in WP:LEAD without citation then in the categories as well. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 01:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Skimming Google Scholar and the Maine Shakers website indicates that Shakers are adoptionists, which historically was often tied to being non-trinitarian. However, adoptionism does not necessarily imply a rejection of the Trinity, and academic articles differ on whether Shakers are trinitarian or not. The Maine Shakers site does not denounce or even mention the question of the Trinity. Because of conflicting sources, I've removed the non-trinitarian description (which could be seen as a pejorative/accusation of heresy from other denominations), but will include a section in the theology section on why some sources would describe the Shakers as non-trinitarian. --LatakiaHill (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nontrinitarianism 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I reverted a recent edit by an IP user here because content was inserted in a block of cited text without a source.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit - no source 

message: 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 18:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: > By mid-century, new federal laws were passed denying control of adoption to religious groups.
This has a cite to http://www.shakerdigital.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=40, but that link now just redirects to the top of that site rather than providing more information.  I was hoping to learn what specific change in law this was, but haven't been able to find it anywhere.  This page has a few possible suggestions, but none seem right. 66.220.238.210 (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:   Dead link regarding adoption laws 

message: according to this site published in 2021 (https://www.pressherald.com/2021/07/04/a-21st-century-shaker-story/) there are 3 members, which are listed by name with background information about them. but according to the article, supported by an article by Deseret (published in 2023), there are 2. So which one is it? other Wikipedia articles related to the subject say that there are at least 3 members... — I'ma editor2022 (🗣️💬 |📖📚) 03:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: On a page of their official website (https://www.maineshakers.com/retreats/), three people are listed: Brother Arnold, Sister June, and Brother Andrew. The sourced Deseret article features Arnold and June, but not Andrew. Other recent articles (https://www.pressherald.com/2023/06/14/shakers-begin-work-to-raise-restore-200-year-old-barn/ in 2023 and https://ny.eater.com/2022/4/21/23035623/shaker-restaurants-food-brother-arnold-hadd-interview in 2022) do not mention Andrew either despite having interviews with the two others; the last mention of him in various articles and on the group's Facebook page seems to be around 2021. I think its safe to assume there are only 2 for now. LatakiaHill (talk) 06:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancies between the amount of members