Talk:World Gathering of Young Friends

	Christianity portal 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) (assessed as Low-importance).

Copyright problems

I had begun editing this article to make it more neutral and more encyclopedic. Then I discovered that it was lifted wholesale from the Website. Thus, it could be a copyright violation. Logophile 11:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you can track the link down again, we could check. Mostly likely that's a problem. --Ahc 06:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and marked this page as having a potential copyright problem. As best I can tell tonight, the material seems to be have been pulled from two sources: The world gathering's web site, and [www.warwickquakers.org.uk/wgyf_booklet1.pdf a booklet hosted elsewhere]. The mission statement may be fair game, but the epistol most likely isn't. We should get this cleared up. --Ahc 07:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon the epistol should be axed. It's not encycolopedic and if it's going to be cauising copyvio issues then what good is it doing? Paul Carpenter 15:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I was at this Gathering, and I believe the use of the material from our website and booklet is fine, including the epistle. I will check in with the organizers to see what they think of that. I do think it needs to be edited to be more encyclopedic, but it sounds like Logophile was about to do that. --shadowfax37 0:49, 14 January 2006 (EST)

I'm about to create a proposed replacment article. The epsitol isn't really encyclopedic anyone, if whatever organization is left from that gathering is willing to release it under the right copyright it might make sense in wikisource, and it of course would then be link to this article. Further details about the gathering will of course be needed, what I'm about the write up will not be sufficant in and of itself. --Ahc 03:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in support of putting up /Temp, it's a lot more encyclopedic as well as avoiding the copyvio issue. Paul Carpenter 19:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did check with the organizers, and they're fine with you putting up whatever material you think is appropriate. I edited the Temp page, adding some detail. Great work, Paul--this is much better! Epistles from Quaker organizations are generally reprintable as desired. I am sure no one would object to having it reprinted in Wikipedia. --shadowfax37 5:04, 16 January 2006 (EST)

Oops. Misread the comments. Great work, Ahc! What other details are needed? --shadowfax37 5:06, 16 January 2006 (EST)

I've gone ahead and copied in the new version into place. shadowfax37, if you want to include the Epistle in wikisource I think that would be entirely appropriate (assuming everyone's okay with the copyright issue). Just make sure to link from here, or at least mention it in the talk page, so one of the rest of us can link it in. --Ahc 14:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm...how does one put something in wikisource? --shadowfax37 04:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I've never added anything to it, but I'd suggest you go to Wikisource and at least skim over of the Policies and Guidelines. After that, as far as I know it works just like Wikipedia. --Ahc 17:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the policies and guidelines don't appear to exist, so I just put the epistles up and linked to them. I didn't hyperlink the interior text of the epistles, but if someone wants to do that, great. Or if someone wants me to do that, let me know. --Shadowfax37 20:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Additions

Since I was unable to attend WGYF (too young in '85, not avialable in '05) I don't feel I have a lot of information to add to the article, but here's what I think it would be ncie to see added:

A little more detail about what actually happened at the two events (if we can to have lots of detail, then we can create an article for each).
Some background on the organizing of the two events.
Some mention of what happened next (particullarly with '85, since there hasn't been alot of "next" from '05 yet).

--Ahc 14:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History

Was the first World Gathering that held at Jordans, England 24-30 August 1920? It is described pp414-419 of Kennedy, Thomas C. (2001). British Quakerism 1860-1920: the transformation of a religious community. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-827035-6. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) ===Vernon White (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was reported a Jordans, 1920 : being the report of the International conference of young Friends held at Jordans, August 24-30, 1920 /edited by Bertram Pickard ,London : Swarthmore Press, [1920?] (Bib details from Tripod Catalogue). I believe there was a World Gathering in the U.S. around 1965. ===Vernon White (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refused Visas paragraph

"About 60 African and three Indian Quakers who were chosen to attend the Gathering had their visas denied. We feel their absence. It hurts us. We've had individual reasons for people – for most of the Africans it was that their levels of income weren't high enough and they would want to stay as economic migrants. But a lot of the measures they are using don't really suit young people. They're looking for assets, a secure job or a family and that doesn't really apply to a lot of 25-year-olds. UK Visas have been pretty open with us and we are going to send a report to those we worked with but we will probably also get in touch with MPs." John Fitzgerald, Clerk, Europe-based International Planning Committee in The Friend 26 August 2005

The seems to contradict the statement excusing the British Government in the WP article:

"While the British government refused a large number of visas, in a number of cases these refusals were entirely understandable. In some cases names were given that did not match other documentation, some applications were made late, and some were made to the wrong office. It is highly debatable where the fault lies in many of these cases."

Someone has commented on The Friend website that there were 9 not 3 Indians refused.

===Vernon White (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In making my edit, I was trying to balance my own convictions to the truth testimony with wikipedia policy on external references and so on. I was peripherally involved with the EBC and am currently in close contact with a former member thereof. However, the Friend in question is loath to openly contradict the version of events given by their colleagues.

I would also note that it is debatable where fault lies, and I think it's clear in what I said that there were refusals that were not due to details of the application. I could not in good conscience leave the article implying that the fault was entirely that of HM Government. SamBC 17:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]