Talk:Public Universal Friend/Archive 1

Archive 1

Stepping Down

Concerned fellows and Esteemed Colleagues I am hereby refraining from edits upon this page and subjact on wikipedia.org . It is not because my reporting-allay has been incorrect or unscientific, but I confess that I have become enamored from the legacy, and therefore cannot testify for you of an unbiased account. Therefore, I have regone to an earlier version of this page, from "Kafka Liz" Revision as of 16:51, 7 May 2011.

The following Biography is useful for anyone whom should choose and add something for this page: Wisbey, Herbert A. Jr. PIONEER PROPHETESS PIONEER PROPHETESS Jemima Wilkinson, the Publick Universal Friend. Cornell University Press.

I believe that information I have contributed towards other Biographies has been objective, fair, and balanced. to the underlaying unity of all life so that the voice of intuition may guide us closer to our common keeper (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Seal of the Universal Friend.jpg

Not sure we can consider this image encyclopedic. Apparently, it was drawn by hand, presumably with using free-hand drawing with a mouse, based on visual memory. I am sure we can find some actual reference to this seal in print. Or if we cannot, I doubt it should be depicted on Wikipedia. --dab (𒁳) 11:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jemima Wilkinson. 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/20090215030554/http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ny/county/yates/friendindex.htm to http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ny/county/yates/friendindex.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 06:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

"They" as sex-neutral pronoun

I can accept the use of "they" as a sex-neutral pronoun but it leads to some rather nasty effects on the grammar. It seems that when Wilkinson is referred to by name we say "Wilkinson was..." whereas by pronoun it is "They were..."; this is very jarring in a single sentence or para I don't mind either "They was" or "Wilkinson were" but we should make our minds up.

Unrelated, I have corrected "Wilkonson" to "Wilkinson" which I assume is just a typo. 178.164.132.87 (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry you find it jarring, but this is how subject agreement works: they, like you, takes plural agreement even when its referent is singular, but singular nouns take singular agreement. AJD (talk) 11:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth: According to Adam Morris's 2019 book, "American Messiahs" (W.W. Norton & Co.), Wilkinson her- .. uh, HIMself, preferred masculine pronouns. --FrankMJohnson (talk) 10:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the data point (book). I've seen conflicting information about the matter. The works this article cites by Juster (and Roark) say the Friend rejected being referred to with gendered / gender-specific pronouns, and forbade followers to refer to them with such pronouns. Catherine A. Brekus, Strangers & Pilgrims: Female Preaching in America, 1740-1845 (1998), p. 85, says close followers obeyed: "they studiously avoided using any gendered pronouns to describe her [...] when Sarah Richards recorded her dream of Wilkinson defeating the devil, she used the convoluted, pronoun-free language that passed for standard English among the Universal Friends." However, Moyer (p. 9 & 100) conflictingly says the Friend's followers used "he" (maybe the "generic he"?). (Contemporary detractors and many later writers used "she". Moyer uses "he".)
Interestingly, these aren't the only pronouns I've seen conflicting information about: Wisbey (p. 7-8) says this person was disowned by the Smithfield Meeting in part for not using the Quakers' preferred "plain language" of thou (presumably using you instead?), but if this was the case, it was only temporary because Wisbey has some later quotes of them using thou and Moyer (p. 67) remarks that the Friend and followers used thou like the Quakers. -sche (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Related discussion of how to describe Wilkinson's occupation

A related discussion about how to describe Wilkinson in terms of occupation is ongoing at Talk:Stephen Hopkins (politician)#Description_of_Wilkinson. -sche (talk) 00:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikilinks in article prose

An editor has repeatedly removed wikilinks to other articles, e.g. the link from "worship meetings" to Meeting for worship, the link from "abolition of slavery" to [[Abolitionism in the United States, the link from "people held in slavery" to Slavery in the United States, and the link from "Native Americans" to [[Native Americans in the United States. I invite the editor and other editors to discuss for these removals here. Should this article link to other articles, as other Wikipedia articles do? -sche (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course it should include wikilinks. But they should not include links to simple words and concepts, such as "worship meetings". What reader is going to ask himself "what's a worship meeting?" Seriously. Just use common sense in the links; they should point to articles that will expand upon a reader's understanding of this article and closely related topics, not to American Indian history in the United States or the history of slavery or even the definition of the word slavery. And before someone cries out in wrath against the term "Indians", it is once again important to stick to contemporaneous terminology as much as possible. —Dilidor (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

How should Wilkinson's clothing style be described

An editor recently changed "Wilkinson dressed a manner described as being neither masculine nor feminine, but often perceived as masculine" to "Wilkinson dressed in the masculine fashion of that time". Which description is more accurate?

• Hudson (p. 106) says Wilkinson "dress[ed] after a fashion [...] which resembled neither that of men or women", with a "coatee dress similar to a lady's riding habit", a cravat, and robes over everything, and a black beaver hat (when outdoors).
• Brekus (op. cit. in article) describes Wilkinson's "peculiar and, to many eyes, distinctly 'masculine' [...] Wilkinson may have intended her clothing to appear neither male nor female, but according to contemporary witnesses, she usually dressed more like a man than a woman".
• Moyer spends several pages (pp. 90-93) on "the clothing worn by [Wilkinson] and his disciples" and quotes several contemporary accounts of Wilkinson's beaver hats and robes or cloaks, "the fashion entirely her own" (in the words of one contemporary), and says "observers analysed the Universal Friend's clothing as a way of understanding [...] gender identity—whether [Wilkinson] was male, female, or some mix of the two"; Moyer quotes a few contemporaries who described Wilkinson's dress as a "man's"/"masculine", before saying "still others asserted that the Friend's dress conveyed, not simply a masculine identity, but a more complex blending of the masculine and feminine", quoting another contemporary as saying the clothes "conveyed the same idea as [Wilkinson's] external appearance of being neither man nor woman."
• Only Wisbey (p. 25) deems it exclusively masculine, saying "clothing emphasized [Wilkinson's] masculine appearance. It most resembled the gowns worn by the regular clergy to the pulpit [...] loosely flowing black robes with a man's white kerchief or cravat" and a hat "similar to that commonly worn by Quaker men".

(All these sources also mention that the robes were usually black but sometimes white or purple, as does Brekus; an editor dropped the mention of this as too trivial - eh, OK.)
Based on this, I think the description as "neither masculine nor feminine, but often perceived as masculine" ,or something like "not exclusively masculine or feminine, but often perceived as masculine", better reflects the sources than the recently-introduced ("masculine"-only) one. I invite other editors to weigh in or suggest yet other wordings. -sche (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't like either wording. I think the original is confusing and the new one is inaccurate. I would go with "dressed in a manner intended to be gender-neutral but which was often perceived as masculine". I think that gets across what was going on a lot better than to say it was "described" one way but "perceived" as another without saying who is doing either of those things. LokiTheLiar (talk) 06:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

My only concern with saying "intended" is that only Brekus seems to discuss what the person's intent was, and she qualifies it as "may have intended". I suppose we could adopt that qualifier ("dressed in a manner that may have been intended to be gender-neutral, but..."); what do you think? Or should we fall back on something like "dressed in a manner described as masculine, or as neither masculine nor feminine", or "...described as masculine or gender-neutral" (or "...or androgynous", if a paraphrase of the sources were permissible)? -sche (talk) 06:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

How about: They dressed in a manner that contemporaries perceived to be either androgynous or masculine. WanderingWanda (talk) 07:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe shorten "perceived to be either" to just "perceived as", but otherwise, sounds good. :) -sche (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 1 June 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved. See general agreement below to rename this article as requested. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  00:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

---

Jemima Wilkinson → Public Universal Friend – Conform closer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Gender_identity as the subject of the article states clearly what gender and pronouns are to be used. jrabbit05 (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

To clarify this request is because the redirect exists in the reverse of what it should be and can't be done on my end jrabbit05 (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support per sources and guidelines. Over the last month I've looked through every RS about this person I could get my hands on, and (a) most sources include both names, with modern biographies (both Wisbey's from the 1965 and Moyer's recent one) use both names repeatedly (perhaps for the sake of reducing the monotony of using only one name), so WP:UCRN would not preclude a rename. And, perhaps unusually for a historical person, this person made more than enough explicit statements (about their gender = genderlessness, about their name and the birth name they rejected as a literal dead name, and about pronouns) for the MOS to clearly apply (although I suspect the MOS may only be guidance on what name to use in the article, not on what to title the page). I think the comparison made in a section above to how we use many people's atypical names even in situations unrelated to gender (e.g. for the musician Sting) is also helpful in allaying any concerns about this name's atypicality. -sche (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • -sche: Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that Moyer's recent biography doesn't switch back and forth between the two names randomly, but rather uses P.U.F.'s birth name when discussing their early life before they changed their name, and uses their chosen name thereafter. WanderingWanda (talk) 21:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
    • That's broadly the case, yes; Moyer does use "Wilkinson" in a few places for the person post-change, but upon review I notice they're places where he's summarizing (even though not quoting) what someone else (who presumably used "Wilkinson") thinks. -sche (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment MOS:GENDERID gives advice about the use of pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman"), but seems less relevant to the problem of article naming. I think the more relevant policies here are MOS:BIO#Names and MOS:ID which say roughly the same thing. The former says the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known. The latter says When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by reliable sources. If it isn't clear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses. So it seems like the determining question is: is one name clearly used more commonly than the other in RS? Colin M (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

  In my experience, most RS mention both names, but the number which go on to mostly say "later, [Jemima] Wilkinson did X" (with occasional "then the [Public] Universal Friend did Y" for variety) is higher than the number that go on to mostly say "later, the [Public] Universal Friend did X". So, it becomes relevant to consider (a) whether WP:UCRN is based on how many RS use a name, or how many times it occurs, and (b) whether any other issues should be weighed, like what name someone identified with (the MOS:ID part).
  (There's also a wrinkle: because "public" is recognizably a word, earlier sources often use the spelling "publick" that the word also had in other situations in the past, while more modern ones often use the spelling "public" that the word has today. A comparison might be made to how, when deciding whether to title an article "Color vision in dogs" or "Chromatic vision in canines", we'd probably accept that sources using "colour" and "color" both supported the first title and not the second title. But momentarily omitting the part with variable spelling, this Ngram compares "Jemima Wilkinson" to "Universal Friend".)
  -sche (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support changing the title to reflect the subject's preferred name. (Though I suggest adding a "the": The Public Universal Friend.) Practically every reliable source that mentions the name Jemima Wilkinson also mentions the name The Public Universal Friend, so either name could be considered a commonly recognizable name. Even if it's true that reliable sources mention the subject's birthname more often overall, WP:COMMONNAME says that When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. It also says inaccurate names are often avoided and Neutrality is also considered. The title Jemima Wilkinson is neither accurate nor neutral. It negates P.U.F.'s gender identity, going against the common sense guidance of MOS:GENDERID (and WP:GENDERID). The fact the only recent full-length book about the P.U.F. (Moyer's 2015 book titled The Public Universal Friend) chooses to give precedence to the Friend's chosen name is a strong clue that we should as well. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I can't help but wonder if a good reason for the title being that, was the 'draw' or 'hook' potential. That is, commercial reasons would militate against a mere personal name, and greatly towards something that would make people pick the book out of a shelf to answer "What?". Hey, why was the book "The Right Stuff" named that? Shenme (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Shenme: Well, putting the title aside, the author seems to primarily use the P.U.F.'s chosen name in the body of the book. (Primarily but not exclusively: the author does use the Friend's birth name when talking about the time period before they came out with their new name, and also occasionally uses it when paraphrasing sources that use their birthname.) And while the book is just one source, it is the only recent, in-depth study of the Friend. Society's views on gender and identity are always evolving, so this book may give us a better idea of how to refer to the P.U.F. in a respectful/neutral way than older sources. WanderingWanda (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support because as sche said above "perhaps unusually for a historical person, they made more than enough explicit statements (about their gender = genderlessness, about their name and the birth name they rejected as a literal dead name, and about pronouns) for the MOS to clearly apply". LokiTheLiar (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME in the titles of the very sources used for this article. MOS:GENDERID relates to the prose of the article, and is much more often applied out of consideration for WP:BLPs. The MoS guideline does not override WP:TITLES policy, which is what we are directed to refer to in the header of this RM. At best, "Public(k) Universal Friend" is more akin to a WP:STAGENAME used for evangelical work, but its still not the COMMONNAME. -- Netoholic @ 19:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support as per sche and Wandering Wanda. Markus Pössel (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose on WP:COMMONNAME grounds. A quick survey of titles of cited sources shows that 1 uses just Public Universal Friend (Indescribable Being": Theological Performances of Genderlessness in the Society of the Publick Universal Friend), 8 use Jemima Wilkinson, and 3 use both. I think it's also telling that of ~30 mainspace articles that link to this one only two do so via the Public Universal Friend redirect (though some of the links may be piped). I appreciate WanderingWanda's point about the most recent full-length book on the topic giving preference to PUF. If this is a trend that continues in contemporary RS, then a title change may become appropriate at some point, but for now it seems too soon. (Also, I agree with Netoholic's reasoning for MOS:GENDERID not applying to this problem.) Colin M (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  FWIW, many of the links from other articles were added by me in the last month, and they (and probably most of the ones added by other people) link to this article's current title just because it's where the article is; they would be trivial to change if the article moved. -sche (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support. It's clear that both names are common in the high quality sources, we might as well go with the one she used when she became historically notable, and that she preferred.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Re "pioneering" and "fraudulent"

@Colin M: to answer this question, with apologies for longwindedness:

• Some early writers, e.g. biographer David Hudson (who other sources call notably hostile to his subject) spread—and condemned the preacher as fraudulent for—stories that Wilkinson took followers' property or tried to raise the dead (stories the article mentions and notes are unsubstantiated, though not in the same section as the tagged line). For example, Hudson on p. 54 calls Wilkinson "this canting hypocrite [...] maturing new plans of imposture and fraud" and on p. 187 says Wilkinson's "whole scheme of religion was a mere system of imposition, fraud and avarice"; on p. 88 repeats the claim Wilkinson tried to take some land "but the marriage of this person effectually frustrated her schemes, and placed the property forever beyond her reach, unless she could invent some new fraud" and on p. 160 repeats the claim that Wilkinson tried to raise the dead which he calls an example of the preacher's "fraudulent enterprize"; in appendix p. ix he describes what he calls Wilkinson's "fraudulent conduct [...which] has been discovered by so many persons, and so much has been said against it, that it is difficult to account for her having had any adherents at all, even for a short time."
• In turn, some other biographers and historians have considered Wilkinson a pioneer for taking up positions of spiritual and worldly leadership that were often reserved to men, while founding a religious movement and community and several towns in the then-frontier wilderness (which the article also mentions, though again not in the same place as the tagged verbiage). Wisbey's 1965 biography is even titled "Pioneer Prophetess", and Brekus and Juster have comments on the topic, although I don't have time to relocate them at the moment.

If anyone can suggest how the tagged sentence could be made clearer, ideally without duplicating too much content from elsewhere or moving it out of the chronological-ish sections it's in, please do! :) -sche (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@-sche: Thanks for the explanation! I think much of my confusion came from interpreting "fraudulent woman" as "someone who fraudulently claims to be a woman" rather than "a woman who commits fraud". Also, I find it a bit confusing to put the contrary adjectives "pioneering" and "fraudulent" right next to each other, without elaborating on how such a split of opinions came about. What about something like Some early writers called Wilkinson a fraud, accusing her of manipulating her followers. Later observers have considered her a pioneer for taking up positions of spiritual leadership that were, at the time, reserved for men. ? (Just spitballing - it might require some edits for accuracy. For example, not sure if the contrast between early/later writers is actually supported by RS.) Colin M (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, I reworded the lead to "...a woman, and either a pioneer or a fraud" (since it's s'pposed to be concise), and reworded the body like this. -sche (talk) 22:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

(Relatedly, I may add some lines about the higher frequency of women-led households in the Friend's Settlements vs surrounding areas later, per Moyer.) -sche (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

-sche I'm wondering if the pioneer/fraud dichotomy should be separated out from the woman/transgender dichotomy. That is, perhaps this: Though the Public Universal Friend identified as genderless...writers have often portrayed the preacher as a woman should be seperated from this: [writers have often portrayed the preacher as] a fraudulent schemer who deceived and manipulated followers, or a pioneering leader WanderingWanda (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hmm... I wrote them together because the pioneer/fraud and woman viewpoints seem to be connected, with many people either (especially since e.g. the 1960s) casting the Friend as a pioneering woman accomplishing things in an era when women were not allowed to, etc, or (mainly before, sometimes well before, the 1960s) viewing the person as merely a woman and schemer and dismissing the claims of genderlessness along with the alleged claims of divinity or powers, etc. Perhaps there should be a threefold dichotomy: a fraud / schemer, a pioneering woman who did things in an era when women usually couldn't, or a person who was transgender / outside-the-binary. -sche (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Italics

-sche: you asked, in an edit summary: is the birth name in the body (in the "refused to answer" sentence) better in italics or quotation marks or nothing?

So a little while back I proposed adding the following language to MOS:GENDERID:

While former names may be judiciously mentioned, they should never be used, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. (See: use-mention distinction.) Use italics to indicate that you are mentioning but not using a name.

This language hasn't been adopted (at least not yet!) but ever since, I've been quietly following my own proposed guideline wherever I can, and have been putting trans folks' birth names in italics. I think it works well, though I admit it's kinda nonstandard: I don't know if I've ever seen a source put someone's former name in italics. The idea comes from the Use-mention article, which says:

In written language, mentioned words or phrases often appear between single or double quotation marks (as in "'Chicago' contains three vowels") or in italics.

As for why italics and not quotation marks: in the Wachowski RfC, I proposed putting The Wachowski Brothers in quotes, but one editor objected, citing WP:SCAREQUOTES or a similar guideline. When they were put in italics, no one objected. WanderingWanda (talk) 00:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I see! I appreciate the explanation, and the goal, but I struggle to think of a comparable sentence where such a name (that wouldn't otherwise be italicized as e.g. the name of a book) would be in italics. Biographies of other people I checked use no markup, and pages with e.g. "answer to the name ___" seem to either mention the name with no markup, or use quotation marks. I think the mention in the first sentence is best with neither markup (italics actually draws attention to it, especially on top of the bold, and seems nonstandard compared to other pages). If markup is desired for the mention in the body, I think quotation marks might be better. I admit the body-text mention in that sentence ("refused to answer to...") is a gray area, though, and still don't feel sure enough what markup is best to change it (I did previously put e.g. the mention of the solidago species' name in italics rather than quotation marks, following MOS:WAW, although quotation marks would also look OK IMO). -sche (talk) 07:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, I don't have strong feelings about the formatting, and wouldn't oppose switching to quotation marks or even leaving the former name unadorned. WanderingWanda (talk) 07:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 23 September 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Closed by nominator. WanderingWanda (talk) 04:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC) WanderingWanda (talk) 04:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

---

Public Universal Friend → The Public Universal Friend – Sources almost always include the "the" See: [1], [2], [3], [4]. WanderingWanda (talk) 03:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - Fails WP:THE as uses of "the" in the middle of a sentence is dominantly (always?) lowercase.[5] -- Netoholic @ 12:22, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Looking at the guideline, I must admit Netoholic is completely correct. Withdrawn. WanderingWanda (talk) 04:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)