Talk:Quakers/Archive 3

message: Hello, if anyone is interested, I just started a Quaker WikiProject, which can be found at WP:WQ or Wikipedia:WikiProject Religious Society of Friends (Quakers). Zach 00:33, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The WP:WQ link no longer directs to our project.  It goes to Wikiquette.  How do we rectify this problem? Logophile 16:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Back in July User:Duncharris redirected the shortcut saying: (point this to wikiquette which is where it should go instead of to a silly wikiproject)  If someone wanted a different shortcut I'd suggest either using:  WP:RSoF or just including the template places you want links from.  --Ahc 17:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject notice

message: Last night I went over a printed copy of this article to try to removed some of the reduancy and resolve some organizational problems I found.  I know I've cut some things that people are going to feel were too far, but I don't think I cut anything that belongs in this article.  Some of the blocks below may be better placed in some of the related articles.  I also spell checked the whole thing in Word while I was at it.  The large blocks of text I'm removing as I enter these changes are below, so they can be replaced if other disagree:
From Egalitarianism:
:This equal status extended further into the social realm, and Quakers often ignored the social distinctions of the seventeenth century.  This translated into several behaviours which offended those of high rank:  Friends refused to doff their hat to those of higher status ("hat honor"), and also addressed high-ranking persons using the familiar form of "thee", instead of the respectful "you". 
From Oaths and fair-dealing
:Instead, Friends giving testimony in court, or being sworn into governmental office, "affirm" that they are going to tell the truth; the U.S. Constitution guarantees this option for anyone sworn into office in the United States. As an expression of the Quaker belief that one should mean exactly what one says at all times, Quaker businessmen did not haggle over prices, believing that to ask for a higher price than one was willing to accept was dishonest; this was contrary to common practice of the time.  Instead, they offered a firm, fixed price for their goods or services.
From Testimonies:
:It was John Woolman (1720–1772) who made it his life's work to convince other Friends of the evil nature of slavery. Another example relates to peace.  Although Friends have always opposed violence, a number of Friends fought during World War II, feeling that the reasons for fighting outweighed the Peace Testimony in this instance.  Despite the inner struggles and conflicts that Friends face in regard to living out the Peace Testimony, all Friends believe in peace as an ideal.
From Quaker weddings:
:At the close of worship all of those present at the meeting are asked to sign the wedding certificate as witnesses that the wedding took place and acknowledging their presence at the service.  Often these certificates are hung prominently in the homes of the couple throughout their married lives as a reminder of the vows they took, and the people with whom they shared that moment of their lives.
--Ahc 16:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large Edits [[September 2]], 2005 

message: This is a request for help. I've recently been involved in a discussion on the List of founders of major religions page about the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers). The issue of whether Quakerism is a separate religion from Christianity has been raised. I'm not a Quaker, so don't have the "insider" perspective. Do Quakers think of themselves as of a separate religion from Christianity, or do they think of themselves as representing one stream (a "denomination", if you like) of the Christian tradition ? Any help, particularly from Quakers, would be most welcome. Thanks in advance. WMMartin 21:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted a comment there, hopefully I was helpful. --Ahc 00:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate Religion ? 

message: Logophile asked me what I think the article needs before it could be featured, so I'm answering here. 
#References. Major facts need specific references. (It's a requirement of FA status.) 
#Pictures. The 2 pics are great, but we need more, and need them spread out throughout the article. 
#Some short sections can be expanded or combined. "Quaker organizations" and "Some Quaker organizations" is an obvious choice, but there are other organizational problems. Should "Decision making among Friends" be a part of "Quaker worship", for instance?
#If you list this on Wikipedia:Peer review, you're likely to get tons more useful help.
– Quadell (talk) (bounties) 14:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  featured 

message: Do Quakers speaking languages that maintain the T-V distinction (French, German, Spanish,...) avoid the respectful pronoun for the plainer one or was it just so among English speakers? --Error 02:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Thou

message: I just removed a section entitled RECAST from the Britain YM section of basic divisions.  The text follows:
:There has been suggestions made of a new system, under the name of RECAST, to rearrange the structure and to try to reduce some of the bureaucracy that the current system is prone to cause. RECAST was discussed at Britain Yearly Meeting 2005 were it faced a lot of criticism as well as a lot of support and it is still uncertain whether or not RECAST will be put into practice totally, partially or not at all.
My basic thought here is that until this is a settled issue within BYM is probably isn't something that should be included.  Once the process is done, then it would clearly make sense to replace the description of the YM structure, and in the history section of the yearly meeting.  In my mind while this may be a critical issue to some members of BYM, it is not a critical issue to someone coming to learn about the basics of Quakerism through an encyclopedia article.
--Ahc 19:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  Logophile 08:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I must admit I had some doubts about putting that section in the first place. Although I agree that it may not be of any great concern to someone wanting to learn about the society, I would maintain that it's still worth noting. I'll put in what I hope to be a comprimise. Paul Carpenter 12:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul Carpenter, I could accept the compromise, although I would like to note that Wikipedia generally doesn't include knowledge of what might happen.  Logophile 13:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, but disscusion of RECAST definately has happened. Glad this got sorted. Paul Carpenter 14:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Update I've put detail about RECAST in the BYM article where I hope it'll be more apropriate. Paul Carpenter 21:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job.  BTW, I'm afraid your edit to the Isaac Penington quote was not accurate.  I reverted it and provided a link to verifty the correct quotation.  Logophile 00:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RECAST 

message: Guys you need to put in some info about the oatmeal. Lots of people who visit must be wondering about it and you should probably address it in some way.  Mcasey666 04:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no actuall affiliation between the Quaker Oats company and the RSoF. For infomation on why the Quaker Oats company choose thier name, see there article. I'll try to get some clarity into this article. Paul Carpenter 17:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: On second thoughts, the link to the dissambiguation article should suffice. There'll be no point writing about oats, tyres and parrots when people have come to read about the society. Paul Carpenter 23:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oatmeal 

message: In the "Decision Making", the seldom used (but one used by myself) "standing in the way" is totally excluded but implied.  I'm thinking through a way to not just imply that it happens, but to describe the process.  After all, many Friends have "stood in the way" and either prevented something beneficial or something deleterious to happen.  I know of a Monthly Meeting that was not laid down and its meetinghouse wasn't sold off because of one man standing in the way. Artsygeek 01:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, add something to the article about it ! Doovinator 05:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Doesn't it already state that Friends can express oposition in a buisness meeting? Is that what you were refering to? Paul Carpenter 11:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, that's what I'm referring to, and I'm mulling over a way to express that such opposition can at least "slow down" the process of something happening...At times that expression of opposition can get people to rethink their positions and then move forward in a manner that is more fair. Artsygeek 04:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standing Aside and its Alternative 

message: I've been working tonight on building up the references in this article, so that existing references are formatted properly, and so that other items that should have references get them.
As I find questions/problems that I need help with I'll post them here. --Ahc 08:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't ring any bells, why not just change the sentacne to Burneyet dismissed...? Paul Carpenter 15:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Here are three examples from the journal:
*GEORGE FOX - An Autobiography, CHAPTER V. 
After a while there came a priest to visit him, with whom also I had some discourse concerning the Truth. But his mouth was quickly stopped, for he was nothing but a notionist, and not in possession of what he talked of.
*GEORGE FOX - An Autobiography CHAPTER VII
After the meeting the pastor of the Baptists, an high notionist and a flashy man, asked me what must be damned. I was moved immediately to tell him that that which spoke in him was to be damned. This stopped his mouth; and the witness of God was raised up in him. I opened to him the states of election and reprobation; so that he said he never heard the like in his life. He came afterwards to be convinced.
*GEORGE FOX - An Autobiography CHAPTER VI
Thence I went to Ulverstone, and so to Swarthmore[75] to Judge Fell's; whither came up one Lampitt, a priest, who was a high notionist. With him I had much reasoning; for he talked of high notions and perfection, and thereby deceived the people.
Logophile 01:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Logophile, I forgot to thank you for these the other day.  The research is most helpful. --Ahc 04:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I edited this slightly today.  As it stood, this section was sub-divided into a discussion of the divisions and organization of the Society of Friends in 1) Great Britain; 2) The United States; and 3) Australia.  I'm not sure this geographical approach is the right one anyway, but if it is it seems it should include East Africa, where there are more Quakers than in either Great Britain or in Australia and more than in any single Yearly Meeting in the United States.  Unfortunately, I know only a little about these Friends, so I could contribute only a very sketcy paragraph. I also referred readers to the existing article on Quakers in Kenya.
Note: there are also Quakers in South Africa - a topic I did not feel competent to even begin to address.Richquaker 18:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Basic Divisions and Organization Section

message: Does anyone have good ideas on how to improve the Quaker organizations section?  If so, please try them.  I tried once the other night, but I don't feel like I made a big difference.  To my eye, right now that looks like the weakest part of the article, running well behind much of the rest.  --Ahc 05:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organizations Sections 

message: I removed this sentence once today. A third editor replaced it:
:The Peace Testimony has also motivated many Quakers to have a pro-life view-point. 
I do not think this view, a minority view in most meetings as the cited source makes clear, is appropriate in a one-paragraph description of the Peace Testimony.  I think it should be either removed or supplemented with this sentence which accompanies it in Peace Testimony:
:The vast majority of Quakers are pro-choice, believing, e.g., that consciousness and mental accumen beyond that of a newborn is necessary for meaningful communion with the Spirit.
::I completely disagree with this statement. I would say that many of the more progressive Quaker groups might mostly be pro-choice, but that isn't very descriptive of the conservative branches. (I mean, is "vast majority" more NPOV? My original sentence didn't say anything about majority/minority status of pro-life/choice among friends, but instead my statement was merely pointing out that it was used by many pro-life Quakers as motivation for their view.) Robotbeat 06:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the proposed amendation. — goethean ॐ 23:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I say keep it out.  The Peace Testimony blurb does not need to become a pro-choice/life debate.  I'm concerned about the same issue in the main Peace Testimony article, let alone here. --Ahc 14:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this section needn't be an abortion debate. I was just trying to show a different use of this testimony other than pacifism, etc. (I agree that this is much more appropriate in the Peace Testimony article.) Robotbeat 06:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It is worth considering the diversity of opinions there are, both within the US but also the rest of the world. In Britain most Quakers seem to be pro-choice (but in the UK as a whole abortion is not so much a controversial topic as in the USA). I agree with Doovinator - since Quakerism lacks creed or religious doctrine no reference to Quaker stance on abortion is necessary, since it varies so widely, and is usually left to individual interpretation. JFT 11:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Doovinator that it would muck up this article.  An editor could put it in Peace Testimony, but for it to belong in Wikipedia, both sides would need to be presented--with sources.  I doubt that it is possible to determine what most Quakers believe about abortion.  Logophile 14:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, too..Quakers differ extremely vastly on abortion.  I also have serious issues with the labels "pro-choice" and "pro-life"...but that's neither here nor there..Artsygeek 22:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro-life blurb in The Peace Testimony section 

message: I gave this matter of "afterlife" (and similar issues) another thought.  I think we should agree not to use the phrase "most Quakers".  It isn't really possible to determine what "most Quakers" believe.  As long as we try to present one view as normative, then we will always be stuck with POV and a potential for edit reversions.  We can say "some Quakers," "many Quakers," "several Quaker organizations," and such things, but let's strive for accuracy and NPOV.     Anyone willing to pledge to avoid "most Quakers" along with me?     Logophile 09:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, excellent suggestion. I would even suggest refraining from using "many Quakers", as experiences of what "many Quakers" agree at a local (state, country or regional) level are not necissarily the same as what Quakers in other parts of the world think, and whilst we may each know what the feeling of our local or yearly meeting is, it is not always reflected worldwide. Of course, if the article relates to a specific geographical area (for example, Britain Yearly Meeting), then this will be less of an issue as the parameters of people holding the opinion are clearly defined, but in other articles, especially in the Religious Society of Friends one, where the views are for the whole Society, it might be better to not use "many Quakers", or preface it with "In Britain many Quakers believe..." or "Within Friends United Meeting many Quakers think...". JFT 16:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JFT, you make a good point.  I suggested "many Quakers" as an option because we also need to avoid giving the impression that a particular view is held by a tiny minority.  For example, it is true that many Quakers believe in a literal heaven, but it is also true that many Quakers do not.  We will never know exact numbers on any of these issues.  I definitely agree with the geographical and organizational qualifiers.  So if no one objects, I would think that we could use "many" judiciously--when it is demonstrably true.  Logophile 01:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This seems like a good suggestion, although also a signficant challenge.  Hopefully it'll bring greatly clarity to the article. --Ahc 00:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Proposal 

message: Recently, the  and similar userboxes, such as  have been deleted.  Should we respond or is it best just to redo them individually on our userpages with a note that we disclose our points of view in hopes of obtaining a more neutral encylopedia? --James S. 01:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like the issue of Userboxes is quite the point of discussion outside the 2 mentioned here.  I think this is a better question to raise as part of the larger discussion, not as part of this article (and project. --Ahc 14:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure there is even a need to raise any objections at all.  The userboxes may clash with the testimony of plainness. --James S. 19:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we respond to the deletion of userboxes? 

message: I have converted the article to use the new footnotes.  The advantage to this is that the text of the footnote is kept with the text where it is used.  This makes it easier to maintain adding and deleting footnotes.  I used cut-and-paste of the actual footnote, so there shouldn't be a problem, but you might want to make sure. Ted 19:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for updating to the new footnote format.  Just after I converted this article to the format you replaced I saw people start using the better format.  I've never taken the time to fix it. Thanks for stepping up. --Ahc 20:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You did all the hard work.  It took me all of 15 minutes to change it. Ted 18:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Footnotes 

message: An editor just went through and changed all references from "Quaker" to "Friend".  Is "Quaker" such a big deal?  I've noticed in my own usage, that I tend to say both "Quaker" and "Friend" to other Quakers and only "Quaker" when I talk to non-Friends.  For one, there is sometimes the confusion between "Friend" and "friend", while "Quaker" is nearly instantly recognized.  I really don't care which way we use, although, I guess, I personally use "Quaker" -- "Quakers for Lunch" sounds somehow better than "Friends for Lunch" when refering to my weekly lunch with Quakers.  It does raises a red flag when someone makes editorial changes like that (similar to people who simply can't let British/American spellings go unchanged). Ted 19:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Should have been discussed first; "Friend" is ambiguous, "Quaker" is not. Doovinator 17:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quaker ''vs'' Friend