Talk:Shakers/Archive 1

irrelevant argument
From the article:

"Some have also argued that the very roots of celibacy are themselves misogynistic, in that men were abstaining from sex in order to dissociate themselves from woman’s original sin."

I suppose the truth of the sentence can't be disputed as 'Some' have after all argued just about anything at one time or another. Now I suppose if the purpose here is to just randomly insert theories with an oblique relationship with the topic at hand this has as much a place here as any other (excepting perhaps an article for celibacy particularly).

Although these 'some' are clearly either wrong or misquoted here (or both). To begin with, this statement is predicated on a limited view of christianity, as eastern christianity (and therefore the associated monasticism/celibacy traditions) don't hold to a doctrine of original sin (in the usual sense) anyway. Furthermore, even in the west that interpretation molests the truth as original sin is not theologically identified with the act of eve but rather her joint act with adam. I challenge anyone to find some alternate view expressed either biblically (even in Paul where it's now an unpleasantly common trend to anachronistically read in all sorts of misogynistic tendencies) or in the catechesis of a major christian denomination. Actually I don't, as that really isn't the point here...

My point isn't to rebut this view (as it's practically collapsing under its own weight already and one can hardly resist poking at it a bit) but simply to further illustrate that as an arguable aside it doesn't belong here. The appearance is simply an attempted slander as it's somehow seeking to impute sexism to a group organized by and around a woman with the express intent of sexual (together with racial and every other type) of equality. If we must go out of our way to say 'oh maybe secretly at some other level there is some signification which isn't PC' and that's deemed appropriate, then one presumes this same sort of dilligence (if we'd stoop to call it that) is to be applied to just about every other article on wikipedia. One presumes psuedo scholarly speculation can apply itself to any number of things with equally scant basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.81.251.201 (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Older entries
This sentence appears to contradict the rest of the article:
 * Men and women exchanged sexual partners frequently within the community, while breaking up all exclusive romantic attachments, which were described as "social love", antisocial behavior threatening communal order.

However I don't feel comfortable removing or editing it -- RTC 03:18 Nov 16, 2002 (UTC)

Perhaps they are confusing the Shakers with the Oneida Community (1848-1881). -- RTC 01:22 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

I have no problem removing this obviously false statement. Jmabel 01:56, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I did not see that sentence in the article so I am assuming it has been removed, as it should be, as the Shakers were most definitely celibate.Kcprof 19:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The article alltogether seems a bit unstructured -- only to me? -- till we *) 23:04, Aug 1, 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, it could be helped a lot by better structure. Mkmcconn 23:29, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Victorian
Can we consider this within the frame of Victorian sexual moral?

Maybe somebody could, but Shaker religious celibacy both predated and also goes way beyond Victorian prudery. Victorians did procreate, after all.HollyJack (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Still accepting members?
This paragraph:
 * There remain today a few devoted followers who live in New England in the Sabbathday Lake community in Maine.

was recently removed and replaced with a statement that the Sabbathday Lake community still accepts new members (other edits were made at the same time). Does anyone have any documentation on either side of this factual disagreement? -- Jmabel 04:52, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Not sure this is exactly a factual disagreement. What I've heard from several different tour guides at the Canterbury, New Hampshire Shaker Village is:

1) There are 4 members of the Sabbathday Lake community--2 sisters and 2 brothers 2)  The community still occasionally accepts new recruits, although often they try it out for a while and then leave. The most recent new recruits to stay the course were the 2 brothers, who joined the community in the seventies. --A Brit Abroad 22:40, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There was a decision in 1965 not to admit new members to the order (http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/Shakers.html). It would be useful for the article to explain how the current inhabitants of Sabbathday Lake trace their lineage to the Shakers, i.e., how they overcame this closing of the order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.81.124.61 (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The 1957 or 1965 decision to close the covenant was made by, and apparently limited to, Shakers at Canterbury, NH. The Sabbathday Lake Shakers, who have had a covenant in effect since 1794, still admit new members in 2011. See Stephen J. Paterwic, Historical Dictionary of the Shakers (Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow Press, 2008), pp. 49-50 and 42-43.HollyJack (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Origin of Name
Forgive me as I'm posting this to both [Shakers] and [Quakers]...

I've heard that the name actually comes from a part of scripture that mentions an earthquake (started by God) or something to that effect. I'm not sure where in the scriptures, so that is another mystery. Basically the story I heard was that the Quakers' scriptures say quake and and the Shakers scripture says that the ground was made to shake. I know it sounds silly, but I heard this from a relative (who has now passed) that actually knew a lot about both groups and took many vacations in their historical towns. Now that I think about it, I believe she heard this from a guide at a/the Shaker village (in Ohio?). Of course, it's hearsay and could be completely false. If anyone has any more information on this, by all means enlighten us.JoeHenzi 01:04, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It looks like this is coming way too late, but I'll chime in anyway. There's a passage in 1 Kings 19:11-13 that mentions an earthquake, but the names of the Quakers and Shakers have nothing to do with it. Both names were mocking ones given by people who observed the religion. The Shakers were a group that broke away from the Quakers, so the use of Shakers is simply a new insult for a similar religion. DirkLangeveld 22:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the name "shaker" may have come from the way that shaker's used to dance and celebrate, but now they don't because elder's are too old to dance, and shakers believed that everyone should have a part in their community. I think that's how it goes!!! :) Sorceress150 (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Shakers in Connecticut
Regarding the "...at Enfield (or Shaker Station), Connecticut..." line, I've never heard of a "Shaker Station", but the area the Shakers lived in is the present-day Shaker Pines village/district, which contains Shaker Pines Lake. (I'd have to check to see whether it's a village or a district, since they do have their own fire department and mail is addressed to Shaker Pines, CT, but I don't believe they have their own ZIP code or census district.) The Wadsworth Atheneum also has a large collection of period Shaker furniture that's credited as being from Shaker Pines, not Shaker Station. Point is, I believe it should be pointed out what the present name is, since I've only found two sources that use the name Shaker Station, and it clearly hasn't been in use for decades. Beginning 03:39, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * Changing "or Shaker Station" to "then also known as Shaker Station". Could've done this yourself... -- Jmabel 05:44, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * Like most responsible editors, I don't change things I'm not 100% sure about. My apologies for the apparent inconvenience. Beginning 16:49, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

Other meanings
"The Shakers is also the nickname of Bury Football Club in England. I'm not entirely sure whether that belongs in this article, though. Hectorthebat 22:52, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC) I'll add it appropriately. -- Jmabel 23:47, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

another external link
The link to the Canterbury, NH community should be added:

http://www.shakers.org/

There should also probably me more about that community as well, but I'm not sure what, as this is my first contribution. (unsigned, from Prgrmr)

Modern Day Shakers
I have edited the following line "One of Mother Ann's predictions states that there will be a revival when there are only five Shakers left." I had included this in a paper I wrote and asked the Shakers at Sabbath Day Lake to check for accuracy. They told me that Mother Ann never made such a statement. 207.69.137.134 18:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Ann Lee
I have deleted the last sentence of the first paragraph which read: "She left her husband and her children to be the leader of the Shakers." Ann's children had died in infancy and her husband actually came to America with her, but soon left her.Kcprof 18:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Mother Ann had four children. Three died in infancy. The fourth was six years old when she died. Manchester was known to have a high infant & child mortality rate. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.227.58.115 (talk • contribs) 4 March 2006.

Jesus
Does anyone have any idea why "Jesus, born of a woman, the son of a Jewish carpenter" became "Jesus, born of a woman, the son of a Jewish tectov (or handworker)"? It was an uncommented, anonymous change. My inclination is to revert, tempered by the suspicion that the person who made the change may just know something I don't. Explanation would be welcome, otherwise I am inclined to revert. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I gave it a day, no one's spoken up, I'm reverting. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Several years ago, I heard that bible translators had discovered that older editions said Joseph was a tecton (builder). This may have been behind the change.  I can't change it to "tecton" since I don't have a good source. Furthermore, the referenced section is associated with 1847, so it should stay "carpenter" unless it can be shown that the people in 1847 regarded Joseph as something else.   206.53.197.24 (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

New Forest Shakers
Would it be appropriate to add a section about the New Forest Shakers (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/southampton/faith/philip_hoare.shtml) here? They appear to be an offshoot of the Shakers originally in England, but the connection is obscure. Nonetheless, theirs is an interesting story and deserves to be featured somewhere, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by World Pumps (talk • contribs) 10 Feb 2006


 * If the connection is obscure, I suggest that you give them a separate article, and just mention it here in a "see also". - Jmabel | Talk 05:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat incoherent addition cut
I cut the addition bolded below: "Membership in the Shakers dwindled in the late 1800s for several reasons. People were attracted to cities and away from the farms. Shaker products could not compete with mass-produced products that became available at a much lower cost.  Shakers could not have children, and although they did adopt, this was not a major source of new members.  Also, adoption homes transferred into the control of the state, thus ending the practice.  which Some Shaker settlements, such as Pleasant Hill community in Kentucky, have become museums."

There may be something to this, but it didn't make clear sense. It looked like at least partly a typo. If someone can write this coherently, and cite for it, great. - Jmabel | Talk 23:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I edited this further for accuracy; Shakers did not run orphanages or adoption homes.HollyJack (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Massive deletion
User:Rjensen recently made massive cuts from this featured article with only a minimal edit summary, and with no comment here on the talk page. His edit summary suggests that this was cut for being undercited, which it was, but it was also, I believe, entirely accurate, and I further believe we should be seeking citations for it instead of just removing it all. Quite possibly some of it could be shortened, and possibly some traces of this remain in the rewritten article but, for example, as it now stands, there is nothing in the article even to tell you that the Shakers somehow derived from the Quakers.

[Begin cut material]

The first documented use of the term comes from a British newspaper reporter who wrote in 1758 that the worshipers rolled on the floor and spoke in tongues. These speakings are referred to as Shaloamien


 * Wardley predecessors

Derived from a small branch of English Quakers who had adopted some of the doctrines of worship followed by the 'French Prophets,' as Londoners called the Camisards, who had been driven into English exile from the provinces of Vivarais and Dauphiné. Under the leadership of James and Jane Wardley, husband and wife, the group became known for their intense, ecstatic rituals. The Wardleys' followers, when "wrestling in soul to be freed from the power of sin and a worldly life," writhed and trembled, purportedly under the influence of the Holy Spirit, so that they won the name Shakers; their trances and visions, their jumping and dancing, were like those of many other sects, such as the Low Countries dancers of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the French Convulsionnaires of 1720–1770, or the Welsh Methodist Jumpers. Followers quickly adopted the derogatory nickname, Shaking Quakers, which had been given to them by their many detractors.


 * Ann Lee

Under the leadership of Ann Lee, beginning in 1774, the work ethic and rejection of marriage for which they have ever since been known began to typify the movement. She joined the Wardleys in 1758.

Although a believer in celibacy, she had, at her parents' urging, married Abraham Stanley (Standley, or Standerin), and bore him four children, all of whom died in infancy. She was miserable in marriage, and by 1770 had begun to insist that the institution was not compatible with the Kingdom of God. Like many others in the Quaker tradition, she believed in and taught her followers that it is possible to attain perfect holiness. Like her predecessors the Wardleys, she taught that the demonstrations of shaking and trembling were caused by sin being purged from the body by the power of the Holy Spirit, purifying the worshiper. Distinctively, the followers of Mother Ann came to believe that she embodied all the perfections of God in female form.

She rose to prominence in the movement through her dramatic urging of the Believers to preach more publicly concerning the Kingdom of God, and to attack sin more boldly and unconventionally. She was frequently imprisoned for breaking the Sabbath by dancing and shouting, and for blasphemy. While in prison in Manchester for 14 days, she said she had a revelation that "a complete cross against the lusts of generation, added to a full and explicit confession, before witnesses, of all the sins committed under its influence, was the only possible remedy and means of salvation".

After this, she was chosen by the society as "Mother in spiritual things" and called herself "Ann, the Word" and also "Mother Ann". Another revelation bade her take a select band to America. Mother Ann arrived on August 6, 1774 in New York City, and in 1776 the Shakers settled in Niskayuna, New York (then in the township of Watervliet), near Albany, where a unique community life began to develop and thrive.

[End cut material] the unsourced material tells little about Shakers and should be deleted. it is not massive I added a new bibliography that was missing  Rjensen 19:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * We could argue aimlessly about whether it was "massive", but I would certainly never make an edit this substantive to a featured without mentioning it on the talk page.


 * You say it "tells little about Shakers"; I presume that means you think this article should give no indication at all that the Shakers were, in any way, connected to the Camisards and Quakers, nor should it give a clue who the Wardleys were. I certainly disagree; I'll take it to WP:3O. - Jmabel | Talk 00:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand the need for citing sources but it seems to me the material that was cut is the only well written piece in the article. What remains is poorly written, unorganized, and some of it is just wrong. I agree the quotes need citations but I cant see what is wrong with the rest of it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.236.253.170 (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion
WP:V is pretty clear here:

"Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor."

"The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it."

If it can be sourced, it looks like it would most certainly belong in the article. I advise that the material be reliably sourced, if it is possible to do so, and its readdition discussed at that point. As it stands now, however, the material was unsourced and therefore removed as such, and should remain removed until verified. Seraphimblade 15:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

There's lots of ignorance about the Shakers, including among "academics". I'd be fascinated to learn who your editors are on this subject. Why not let disputes be resolved by Brother Arnold, a very erudite, succinct scholar and leader at Sabbathday? I also challenge whether secondary sources substantiate very much, especially since there is such an extensive classical Shaker literature.

I believe every serious student of our EBM Ann, would agree that outsiders basically view the subject through a foggy window darkly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.42.156 (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I need...
Info on shaker funerals... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.217.198.164 (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Don't know if this will be helpful several years after your post, but see this article: Barbara Rotundo, “Crossing the Dark River: Shaker Funerals and Cemeteries,” Communal Societies 7 (1987):36-46. Also, if you have access to Newsbank or another online database of historical newspapers, try searching Shaker + funeral, which should turn up a few newspaper articles about Shaker funerals.74.70.242.162 (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Correct official name?
The article calls the Shakers the "United Society of Believers in Christ's Second Coming". Can anyone cite a reliable source for this? My understanding was that the name was "United Society of Believers in Christ's Second Appearing". Google shows about 10,400 hits for the version of the name ending in "Appearing"; 23 hits for "Appearance"; and 131 hits for "Coming". Richwales 05:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right that there's a lot more for "appearing". And yet there are some sources that look somewhat reliable that use the other.  So maybe both should be mentioned? While making clear that "Appearing" is much more frequently used? — coe l acan  t a lk  — 05:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

POV and a comment on/question about Shaker practices
First, it seems to me that while well-written and interesting, there are still a number of sentences that should probably be edited or removed for violation of POV rule. I'll give examples if I need to, but most of the ones to which I'm referring are pretty obvious. I'm inclined to edit/delete but I want to give others (who might have been working on this longer) the opportunity to do it first, eliminating POV but keeping relevant facts, if citable.

Too, the reason I looked up this article in the first place was because I wanted to confirm something I've heard lots of times, for years -- that Shakers, as an official group, no longer officially exist; in part (I've heard) this is because the Shakers practiced absolute chastity (i.e., no sex at all, regardless of marital status) and thus relied solely on recruitment of adults. Can someone provide more info about this, if possible? As far as I've been able to tell it's a pretty commonly held belief and it'd be great to know for sure whether it is/was true.

Sugarbat 21:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Shakers are still there at Sabbathday Lake, in New Gloucester, Maine; see their website. Also, many of their historic publications are in Google Books, and are replete with justifications for celibacy. HollyJack (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The Shakers still exist, I e-mailed one of them and he e-mailed me back. However the only Shakers left are in New Gloucester, Maine. They do indeed practice celibacy.--T. Anthony 15:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Close2theflamex3 removed about half of this article!?!
Close2theflamex3 removed about half of the text of this article a few days ago, with no explanation except "removed false information". Can Close2theflamex3 or someone else please provide more details to defend this editing? If not, I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone decided to consider this edit to be vandalism and revert it. Richwales 21:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

citations...
Although this article contains three specific references, most of the article is without citations. Citations are necessary so the reader can see which reference is being used for which claim. Does that make sense? If not, let me know, and I can try to explain it differently. Kingturtle (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect reference by revert bot
I am listed as the "possible vandal" who inserted a string of garbage (without an account) after I made two valid edits. The revert bot, when it removed this vandalism, listed ME as the possible vandal, rather than listing the IP of the vandal. I am ALWAYS logged in when I make edits. I'm NOT a vandal. --Grndrush (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This article does not seem balanced.
Having read most of the article I have found that the history section is somewhat positively biased perhaps a change could be made to make it read more like an encylopedia article than a glowing advertisement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.237.250 (talk) 09:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

ehdshfs
The second paragraph begins with: "The 17th century was fraught with religious turmoil due to constant ehdshfs ...". That is probably a typo. Emmenjay (talk) 09:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Not only were the ehdshfs by no means constant throughout the 17th century (by most accounts, they seem to have stopped altogether between 1674 to 1687), there is also no reason to see them as the cause of religious turmoil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.72.57 (talk) 05:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism
Theres some vandalism on the page at the end of one of the paragraphs, but I can't reverse it because it's locked. 84.13.17.47 (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * fixed. thanks, Kingturtle (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

A Holy, Sacred, and Divine Roll and Book
I noticed there is no mention of to the text known as A Holy, Sacred, and Divine Roll and Book. Any thoughts on a short section related to the Shaker book? Surv1v4l1st (Talk 23:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that would be an interesting para added to the section on Revelations, as long as the source is cited. It's in Google Books. HollyJack (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Historicity
With only four alive members as of 2008, this article is going to become historical soon. We should be prepared to reflect it on the text when the moment comes.Againme (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

True. But be aware that newspapers have been publishing "last of the Shakers" articles since the 1870s. Amazing how tenacious this celibate sect is.HollyJack (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Introduction
Have enlarged the introduction a little (mention of orphanages, decline in numbers, modern cultural contributions and possible connection to Quakers (these choice of given names were related in that belief) as salient points) still needs a mention of geography (concentration of this group in the United States) JIM 23:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Chronology question
I have 2 problems with this passage: ... penitents accepted Mother Ann's teachings and organized in 1787 by Aleksus Jagminus (before any formal organization in Niskayuna) the New Lebanon Society, the first Shaker Society, at New Lebanon (since 1861 called Mt. Lebanon), Columbia County, New York. The Society at Niskayuna organized immediately afterwards, and the New Lebanon Society formed a bishopric. The Niskayuna Shakers, as pacifists and non-jurors, had gotten into trouble during the American War of Independence.
 * 1st I question the info on "Aleksus Jagminus." I have queried 2 Shaker scholars & neither has heard of him; will ask others before editing.
 * 2d  The Niskayuna/Watervliet group was the first Shaker enclave; they recruited a new proselyte there in 1778, two years before anyone at New Lebanon had heard of Ann Lee. Unless someone can cite a verifiable source for this (mis?)information, I propose replacing it with verifiable information.HollyJack (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * nobody ever heard of Aleksus Jagminus (not an English name) -- it might be a student adding his own name to the article! Rjensen (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Works of art
Shouldn't works of art be a sub-section under Artifacts?HollyJack (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that we add more artwork in the article, such as the furniture shakers made, their clothes, their style, etc. thank you, Sorceress150 (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Uncited passages
This article has been tagged as uncited since 2008. Even after three years, there remain vast swathes of uncited material. If sources are not obtained for these passages, they are subject to immediate removal. --Nonstopdrivel (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)