This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This edit seems to be accurate to the cited source. I'm not impressed with that source in any case and support removing the entire sentence. I don't want to see edit-warring over this, so discuss. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
"There are Quakers who describe themselves as conservative, whose theology, worship and way of life remain much closer to that of early Friends in 17th century England. These Friends (mostly in the USA) represent 0.03 % of the membership, but they might well feel that they are true to the original guiding principles that George Fox proclaimed, and that many of us in Britain have lost our connection to the roots of Quakerism."
Is that really the source of the confusion? Because "conservative" Quakerism avoids evangelism... it's avoidance of the practice was rather one of it's defining characteristics in the early days of Quakerism. Marteau (talk) 01:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
@NisJørgensen: I've reverted you. Please read WP:BRD. Others were already bold, were reverted, and now it's being discussed. Reach consensus before editing. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: the cited text is, "Other Friends have moved further along the theological spectrum to become evangelical Quakers. These represent 40% of the world Quaker membership, but that is an underestimate...". Where is the confusion? In any case WP:BRD, which you cited, directs us to go back to the status quo and discuss, which was 40%. Feel free to explain why you are proposing a change to 0.03%, and attempt to gain consensus. It would be helpful if you could provide a source that supports this much lower number. VQuakr (talk) 07:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: I apologize for stepping on toes. It seemed the discussion had died out, with the conclusion that the cited source says 40%(+). Since this seemed like a question of fact, rather than opinion or interpretation, I decided to do the change right away. While I agree that the source is not great, it is certainly better than nothing. I have found an alternative source here:
I hope that this source will lay the question to rest, even if it too is less than perfect. If you still hold that 0.03% is the correct number, I would like to know how you reach this conclusion.
Unfortunately, this new source has a different percentage for the Conservative Friends (0.003%), which lead me to do my own calculations, giving a third number - roughly 0.4% (based on total number of quakers from this source and number of conservatives from this one. I will replace that number, since Wikipedia:CALC seem to allow it, even if the numbes are from different sources. NisJørgensen (talk) 09:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I've been bold once more :-) I moved the numbers to the end - surely the most important thing about Evangelical Friends is not how many they are. Furhtermore I removed the disputed source, inserted a new one, and recalculated the percentage. This is less than satisfactory, but I opt for transparency rather than simplicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NisJørgensen (talk • contribs) 10:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘@NisJørgensen, VQuakr: I had reverted that change because the .03% number is accurate to the cited source. Further, discussion had not resulted in consensus (in my opinion) and the in-line note that discussion is underway should also have been retained. What you're doing is WP:SYNTHESIS. Regardless, this issue isn't worth drama so I'll leave it alone. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
In paragraph 2, it is mentioned that about 49% of Friends practice 'programmed worship' and about 11% practice 'waiting worship', what type or types of worship do the remaining about 40% practice.Duncan.france (talk) 03:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
The cited work mentions Evangelicals as being "Perhaps more than 40%" of Friends". The work is unclear, but they seem to consider Evangelicals neither programmend or unprogrammed (aka 'waiting'). Marteau (talk)
A recent mass edit by Pablo.paz has a number of issues. Foremost issue is that he says he has used reference works and "the most respected histories of the Quaker movement", however, not one of his edits includes a citation, and not one of his removals of existing text is given a reason. Such amounts of unexplained and uncited edits may have been acceptable in the past. But with the encyclopedia becoming more mature and with higher standards for editing work being increasingly expected and required, additions of large amounts of uncited entries and unexplained removals of existing text is in my opinion, unacceptable. I am highly tempted to revert the entire edit. Marteau (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Pablo, I suggest you propose any changes here and, above all, you must provide decent references. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 21:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
N.B. I find WIkipedia incredibly difficult and frustrating. The interface is not just user-un-friendly, it is anti-friendly. I have been dealing with it for several years, trying to contribute information and every experience ends in bitter frustration. ANd i started using computers in 1968… As a writer/editor/researcher i do not have time to deal with the barriers this system sets up. SO i just write what i know and try to make it work. For example, when i was reading this article and trying to find this forum, i could not get to it. SO here you are, the gryphons at the gate. FIne. I've done the research. I tried to enter footnotes, but none took. The previous authors, some of whom were beating hobbyhorse theories and some of whom have biased agendas --not that my biases are not inherent-- managed to put in ideas to your satisfaction. THis is like criminal court where the truth is not acceptable -- only what the judge lets the jury hear. Fine. Do what you will with the adjustments i made -- assign them a fact-checker and i will share my sources. They can add the footnotes if they can deal with the technical impediments. But do not pretend that the WIki article that was there meets high encyclopedic standards of accuracy if it represents only outsiders' hasty perceptions and not the results of 100 years of accurate Quaker history writing and research. Pablo.paz (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah, the gryphons at the gates. I have just reviewed the changes i proposed and am prepared to argue and defend every one of them. I am interested, as a Friend of the Truth (Quaker), that your reversion of the article now means that the Wiki is propagating some outright falsehoods. Is it really in your powers to hide the truth and make decisions about what is or isn't factual? Maybe we should all just go back to reading the Britannica. Pablo.paz (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
If you cite your changes from reliable secondary sources and keep them neutral you will not have any problem. Making extensive changes without source or explantion and then calling those who question them "gryphons at the gates" is not helpful or collegiate.Charles (talk) 08:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)