Talk:Quakers/Archive 5

Comment
In this regard you face the question, "what is a Friend," and it seems to me, fail miserably. Those statements do not do justice. Let me explain. The argument that there are members of religious organizations that identify themselve with beliefs outside the teachings of their faith can't be used to identify what the faith is about. So a pork eating Jew, like an aethiest Friend is simply not practicing their faith in an honest manner. You will find hundreds or maybe even thousands of Friends that may say to you "I am an aethiest Friend," or "I am a Buddhist (insert whatever) Friend." However, the person is simply not being honest about what they believe. These are just people that become Friends that are tolerated by the greater community. They probably have become Friends to be able to make a social statement against war, or some other wrong which they feel. They are so far from daily Friend's practices that they simply cloud the vision of what is a far more coherent faith. Just because Friends tend to have great independence and autonomy, this article should not be focusing on opinions by some members that would be leading to the next split, unless it can be reported that way with authority.

You would not ever pick a random Jew or Catholic off the street and report their personal beliefs as tenents of those faiths.

Jackspratfacts (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposing a Change to section: Decision making among Friends
I would like to solicit opinions on this sentence, under the captioned section: "A decision is reached when the Meeting, as a whole, feels that the "way forward" has been discerned (also called 'coming to unity') or there is a consensus."

I do not know about other Yearly Meetings, but the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, in Faith and Practice clearly differentiates between consensus, which is a secular process, and a "sense of the meeting," which is the foundation of their decision-making, and a decidedly religious process. If this is consistent with other Yearly Meeings, I would propose the revised sentence to read: "A decision is reached when the Meeting, as a whole, feels that the "way forward" has been discerned, a process called 'coming to unity,' or 'finding a sense of the meeting.'"

Like2fly (talk) 02:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Your suggested edit looks like a closer approach to truth than what you are proposing to revise does. --arkuat (talk) 06:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If the mention of consensus bothers you, I would just remove the phrase "or there is consensus." I might add "This process is similar but not identical to coming to consensus" as that is the closest parallel to Friends' process, and will make it more comprehensible to non-Friends. The purpose of a Wikipedia entry after all is to provide information to people who don't know the topic yet.Asegalisaacson (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Introduction missing
This long article really lacks a good, brief, synoptical introduction. Thanks, Maikel (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

IRS in America

 * In America, others pay into an escrow account in the name of the Internal Revenue Service, which the IRS can only access if they give an assurance that the money will only be used for peaceful purposes.

I'm fact-tagging this - needs references. Is this actually done? I thought not, and the phrasing doesn't affirm that the IRS does this or gives any assurances. Tempshill (talk) 05:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Weird Link
There's no link in 'unprogrammed worship'... yet if you type that in the search bar, it redirects to that section in Religious Society of Friends. Mabye I'm just new, but this seems weird... could someone explain? --Comfortably numb55 (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * unprogrammed worship is a redirect to Religious Society of Friends. Trying to go to that page brings you to the subsection in this article because someone has assumed that anyone looking for info on "unprogrammed worship" would rather arrive at the subsection in this article rather than be told that Wikipedia does not have a page by that name. In a traditional encyclopedia, the entry at "Unprogrammed worship" either would not exist at all (which isn't helpful) or would simply say "see Religious Society of Friends". - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that helps. --Comfortably numb55 (talk) 04:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "Unprogrammed worship" is a relatively new term, and I'm a little disturbed about how quickly it has displaced more traditional terms such as "waiting worship". Perhaps if we started a waiting worship article, it would neither get deleted right away nor attract a lot of adverse attention.  Then someday, perhaps unprogrammed worship could be made a redirect to waiting worship. --arkuat (talk) 06:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "Unprogrammed worship" is a term previous generations of Friends might not have needed, as most worship was "unprogrammed." However, with increasing numbers of Friends worshipping in programmed meetings, there needs to be a new term, hence "unprogrammed worship." It's a back formation, like "acoustic guitar" (which wasn't a needed term before the electric guitar). "Waiting worship" is a term I've never heard as a description of a type of meeting in over 40 years of attending Friends meetings. It is sometimes used as the *process* in use in

"unprogrammed" meetings but one would not say "Rochester Monthly Meeting is a waiting worship meeting."Asegalisaacson (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Common Misconceptions of Quakers' Faith
This text has been removed with adverse comment.  All religions are saying the same thing, only in different words.  You can believe anything you want as a Friend.  Friends have no creeds.  That of God in every person is that Divine Spark, that little piece of God, in each of us.  The Bible is just one great book among many.  All Friends embrace the Peace Testimony.  Friends are rugged spiritual individualists.  Quaker business meetings work by consensus. </li>

</ol> The editor's comment: inappropriate, arbitrary listing taken from an opinionated editorial critical of the unprogrammed tradition, POV and unsuitable.

The article referred to is without references but, in my view, makes a valid criticism of current unprogrammed Quaker attitudes. Perhaps we can use it to check whether there is "unprogrammed bias" in this article. Vernon White '''. . . Talk''' 10:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I was adding this text in the hope that people would not discount the views of Friends who are not in FGC. I had hoped that others would take this material and flesh this out further, because the author has some good points (if you actually read the text and not just the comic strips).


 * I hope that others will take into mind these mistaken assumptions when editing Wikipedia. I found a few in the Homosexuality and Quakerism article that worried me a bit, and that one still needs a lot of editing to give it accuracy. It appears that that article lost neutrality in an attempt to draw others to Quakerism (I disagree with the first part - I am a Quaker). In such an article, we must account for the perspectives of Quakers in various places, and it can only be done part-by-part because no one has the whole pie.
 * --Fennasnogothrim (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Convergent Friends
Shouldn't we start a page on Convergent Friends sometime, or is that still a ways away in the making? I have the understanding that there is some sentiment among Friends to become a more united body of people, and that this sentiment has been through FGC and Conservative Friends a good bit. How is it going with FUM, and (maybe) EFI? —Preceding comment added by Fennasnogothrim (talk • contribs) 20:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Debate

 * Unprogrammed worship

"After someone has spoken, it is expected that more than a few moments will pass in silence before further Ministry; there should be no spirit of debate."

Can somebody with a better understanding of it rephrase so it is clearer to what I think (?) it means? Is this to say that Quakers usually don't debate in the "thrust"-"counterthrust" kind of style, even when they disagree? How is it worked out then?

Cheers,

Ingolfson (talk) 07:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This means that Friends who speak, or who wish to speak, should give time for others to consider what has already been said. Also, Friends are strongly discouraged from taking an "I'm right, you're wrong" stance on what another Friend says. Instead, they would express what they had to say in terms that did not diminish the other person AFTER taking into account the full meaning and implications of what the other person said. What is said may be intended for a specific individual, other than the person who has qualms. --Fennasnogothrim (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The quoted passage was from a description of vocal ministry during Friends worship. It's not that we never debate or argue with one another; we certainly do!  But I hope we don't do so in vocal ministry when gathered for worship. --arkuat (talk) 05:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

terms "liberal" and "conservative"
I have a concern about the way these terms are used in articles about the Society of Friends and our history. I have expressed these concerns in a posting of 2004 August 1 to what is now Archive01 of this talk page (and I thank the archive-maintainers for their diligence). Specifically "conservative" has been frequently attached to innovations in manners and practice among our society, innovations which look like backsliding towards the sort of manners and practice that early Friends felt called by Christ to resist in the 17th and 18th centuries. On the other hand "liberal" has been used to stigmatize those who seek to conserve the manners and practice deemed most likely to allow full expression of the Spirit of Christ in our Society by its founders. I'm not sure how to go about explaining this to people new to our faith and practice who are meeting it for the first time in Wikipedia articles, but I do pray such are not deceived. --arkuat (talk) 05:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Query for further research
Though Quakers are now known for "pacifism" (in the democracies at least!), I once read (in an old history book from around the 1940's) that in their beginnings they were amongst the most fanatical of Cromwell's soldiers. The book is somewhere in the attic... but what's the convention for citing from History books? Can anyone find anything on the web (for the moment) to back this up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.243.150 (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Unregistered user has a point. The WP article on the Peace Testimony has nothing on the service of some of those who became Quakers in Cromwell's New Model Army.  It would be helpful if the section on the Development of the Peace Testimony were fully developed, including the ranges of response by Quakers to conscription, during the First World War. There's some discussion on the [|Talk page].  Vernon White  . . . Talk 08:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In light of Friends' active disavowal of all creedal statements, even to say "Quakers are pacifists" is not always true. Friends (although not Fox himself) were active in Cromwell's New Model Army (cf Christopher Hill's two books on the period: The World Turned Upside Down and The Experience of Defeat). There was also a split in Philadelphia Yearly Meeting over supporting the American Revolution. But by and large the mainstream of Quaker thought has been pacifist (although as Chuck Fager points out in A Quaker Declaration of War even the Peace Testimony as originally promulgated was not purely pacifist). It's fair enough for the article to say that Quakers are generally pacifists, although noting the exceptions might be appropriate. Asegalisaacson (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I came to this article looking for information regarding Quakers and pacifism and did not find anything at all. Only after very careful research in other articles did I realize that "Peace Testimony" had anything to do with pacifism, and then I came back here to put it all in context. To a school child looking up Quakers, this seems to be a topic not covered very clearly (or at all) in this otherwise very insightful article. "You have to know it to find it here." But perhaps my historical knowledge is shy of a couple of bricks. (My first wiki post! Janet07810 (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Janet07810)

Shakers reference
I question having a Shakers link in the See Also section. I feel that it may serve to reinforce the confusion among the general public that Quakers and Shakers are in some way related. I would recommend deleting it. Chickpeana (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I would favor a link that follows a "brief" indication that they are not directly related. Because of the common confusion, it might be important to note how they are not related rather than just remove the link.Asegalisaacson (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for mailing me, my dear friend gorge, my own esprence in Africa is geting into another diffrent things, more espcially in Nigeria Ghanians copy them just like that,the group of society which colected money on my behalf, in one pentcostal church in Nigeria call C.p.m some enemies when,t and bribe them against me, pastors use them hands spread my name every where as person that get mental problem, castgeting with my with all manna of evil, just because of money ruth of all evil,  look at what people are saying now, what thesame group of society did to my late father senur brother, them later turn back to me, abuseing thing up, Christainity brought to us from  white why our own is diffrent more espcially in NIgeria, a,lots of money has being invested in there for work of GOd the leaders unit and shear it i, wounder how they resoninig there own thing, those it mean they know more than your people, in African to day theris some people God call to do his work, why can,t use the money to surported them, more than 12yrs now i,m into minisation work God , God provide his spiritiual blessings to me insted for them to give me suport they alowed satan to use them against me,what has not hapen befor hapen, because of there selfish desire,as they started with mistake my prayers is for them not end up with it, Thanks Mr irenaus chinedu Gods Grace, Nigeria writen in Ghana. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.210.43.77 (talk) 08:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

not quite true about individual mysticism
"Quakerism is often termed a mystical religion because of its emphasis on the personal experience of God. But at first glance it differs from other mystical religions in at least two important ways. For one, Quaker mysticism is primarily group-oriented rather than focused on the individual."

While this seems a fair characterization of Quaker belief (to the extent that I understand it anyway), it also suggests a misunderstanding of other belief. I would point to eastern orthodox christianity (the second or third largest christian community, depending on how you count) as one that is both highly mystical in nature and highly communal as opposed to individualistic. In context then, this is not highly distinctive. So perhaps we really just mean 'as opposed to certain strains of protestant piety', or something like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.81.251.201 (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure this is a valid criticism. Stating that Quakers do X does not imply that ONLY Quakers do X. Quakers are also not the only Christian church to believe in continuing revelation (Mormons for instance do, although their view of it is more constrained that Friends). Asegalisaacson (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

"See Also" section
The "See Also" section seems to have got rather out of hand (see "Shakers" comment above and other marginal articles: Suggest that we current crop is deleted and, if necessary, more central references, not in the main text, added.  Vernon White  . . . Talk 07:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * David Willson (1778-1866)
 * Darlington F.C.
 * Friends School (Japan), a Quaker school established in 1887 in Tokyo, Japan
 * George School).

Confusing, missing basic information
I hope I don't offend the fellow Wikipedians that worked on this article already, but I need to say it is not very informative, at least to someone that is looking for basic information on Quakers (and this is an encyclopedia after all). Let me list a few problems:

<ul> <li>The article summary is not useful at all to someone with no previous knowledge on the subject. What exactly define this movement, what is/was the core divergence to the other christian denominations, what is it most famous for?</li> <li>Forgive my complete ignorance on the subject, but at least based on my limited references to the subject from popular culture, apparently there is a strong relation between 'quakers' and 'trustfulness' and 'business'. Is this a prejudice, a common misconception? Or is this something relevant that needs to be mentioned in the article? It sounds like an important topic that we should not skip.</li> <li>The article contains too much information to a main article on the subject. "Memorial services" and other sections should be moved elsewhere.</li> <li>The ordering of the sections is very confusing. Why "International Growth" comes first? History should come first, then maybe followed by a section explaining the major differences to predecessor movements. The Islam article could be a good reference, although there must be better ones.</li> <li>There are too many missing references and they are really mining the quality of the article IMO. We should really address this.</li> </ul>

YvesJunqueira (talk) 00:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your constructive criticism. There's a Quaker Meeting in Zurich 2nd & 4th Sundays at Kirchgemeindehaus Hottingen, Asylstrasse 36, should you wish to do some participant observation.   Vernon White  . . . Talk 15:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ceiriog (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with many of YvesJunqueira's comments - particularly with regard to the ordering of the sections within the article. I will try to move some of the sections into a more logical order.

Thank you both for improving this article. However, the addition of the Christianity sidebar is problematic, as are some of Ceiriog's changes to the first paragraph. Many Quakers in Britain today are non-Christian. I quite like the original sentence, "The Religious Society of Friends, members of which are commonly informally known as Quakers, was founded in England in the 17th century as a Christian religious denomination...", which is something most if not all Quakers can agree on. Mebden (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, yes I see what you mean. On the other hand, the majority of Quakers worldwide would define themselves very much as Christian, and whether individual Quakers define themselves as Christian in Britain or not probably has more to do with what their own definition of Christianity is - for example see Mountain View Friends Meeting website http://www.mountainviewfriends.org/ "Friends are a Christian sect (or not) depending on your definition. Not, if you’re using the Nicene Creed (or any other) as your definition. Yes, if you mean that they take seriously many of the reported teachings of Jesus. Example: love your enemies.". I agree that the formulation "The Religious Society of Friends ... was founded as a Christian denomination" does get round this, but only by avoiding saying what the Society of Friends is at all. I think the initial sentence of the article should say what the Society of Friends is, not what it was. Also, whilst individual Friends in Britain may feel uncomfortable with the word "Christian", corporately the book of discipline of Britain Yearly Meeting is called "Quaker Faith and Practice: The Book of Christian discipline of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) in Britain" and many even of the most modern re-drafting of Britain Yearly Meeting's Advices and Queries make explicit reference to Christ and Christianity (admittedly less so than in previous editions of A&Q). To make out that the Society of Friends is not a Christian group would be inaccurate. I agree that maybe "The Religious Society of Friends is a Christian denomination" maybe does not sum this up perfectly... maybe "The Religious Society of Friends is a religious movement, regarded by many as a denomination of Christianity" would be more suitable. Ceiriog (talk) 10:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This becomes a (in American terms) a question of whether you are FGC (liberal) or FUM (mostly Christian) and harks back to some of the divides of the 19th century. Quakers were founded as a Christian group. Quakers today are a mixed bag, some (as in Ohio Yearly Meeting or East Africa Yearly Meeting) strongly Christian, others (as some members of FGC meetings) are not. The history is true: Fox, Nayler, Penn and the other first generation Quakers would have described themselves as Christian. Friends today do not always do so. When I joined Friends 20 years ago one of the questions raised was precisely this point on my Christianness. I was accepted into membership even though I made it quite clear that I did not believe in the special divinity of Jesus, which might be considered a hallmark of Christianity. I think the wording "...founded as a Christian group..." is more accurate than "...is a Christian sect..." If you want to add "...Many Quakers today consider themselves Christan, but some do not." that would probably clarify the point.Asegalisaacson (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Abolition of slavery
I propose that the information regarding Friends and the abolition of slavery should go into a separate article - it is interesting, however information in this much detail probably doesn't belong in a general article on the Society of Friends. Ceiriog (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Christianity side-bar
Given that some do not agree that the religious society of friends is a christian movement, and symbols such as the cross are not regularly used in quaker meetings I have removed the christian side bar that was recently added to the article. I don't have a problem with it being part of the christianity series on wikipedia, but I think that the way that the sidebar is so prominently placed at the head of the article and the use of the symbol of the cross is misleading. Jenafalt (talk) 09:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I actually came here to try to find out why there was no Christian sidebar. I certainly understand the reasons for removing it, but Quakerism IS a Christian religion...a fact that many Americans are unaware of (I say this from an unfortunate amount of personal experience). I was raised and am an active Quaker; I also, along with many Quakers, eschew traditional Christian symbols.

Still, I think the symbol of the cross would not be so misleading as it's removal would continue the confusion over just what Quakerism is...the shortest answer being "A Christian faith." I'm certainly not going to demand, or even ask, for the sidebar to be put back, but I would like to see a discussion concerning its removal.

Alexander.lewis@trinity.edu (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The second paragraph of the article talks about christian beliefs in quakerism - people come to read the article, not find out about it through looking at the pictures. Jenafalt (talk) 10:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Certain beliefs or practices, which fit into a group of beliefs and practices which people consider "Christian", are necessary for a group of people to all believe for that group of people to be entirely Christian. Not all Quakers hold such beliefs or practices. Therefore, not all Quakers are Christian.

In Quakerism, there is a subset of people who consider themselves Christian, but there are many who do not. I do not think the "Christian series" sidebar should be at the top of the article, but perhaps in the section about Christianity.

I think that the majority of Americans who know about Quakerism mistakenly assume that Quakerism is entirely Christian. They read about it in history textbooks when they read about the Civil War, and are told that Quakers were basically Christian - which they were - but do not know that is not true anymore.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, read about Friends General Conference and nontheist Friends. Calling a group of people who, some are Protestant Christian, some are Catholic, some are Buddhist, some are Muslim, some are atheist, some are Taoist, all Christians is a big mistake. Do a bit more research, please.

This is not an article about Evangelical Friends International or Friends United Meeting, specifically. You may want to put Christianity series bars on those.

If this was about a group that could be exclusively considered Christian, I would not object. However, you cannot write fully about the history of Quakerism without including the Hicksite branch, which turned non-Christian in/by the 20th Century. You cannot write fully about the modern existence of Quakerism without including Friends General Conference, which is not entirely Christian.

There may be a time in the future when I will lift this objection - if the Convergent Friends movement becomes what it aspires to be. However, most Christians would likely find the end-product of that movement impossible to relate to Christianity as they know it.

Anyway, that's my opinion. If you have questions about any part, please ask.

Fennasnogothrim (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

From my experience attending unprogrammed meetings in England, Costa Rica, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Texas, New Mexico, and Georgia, any sort of Christian sermonizing or biblical quotation in meeting is just Not Done. (Or at least on the very rare occasions when it is, mass eye-rolling, frowns and even grimaces ensue.)

There is a deep theological divide between the programmed and the programmed Meetings. Most members of unprogrammed meetings have never been to a programmed meeting. Most cities that have a Quaker meeting have only an unprogrammed meeting. I'm not entirely convinced at a gut level that these programmed meetings actually exist, and I think that most members of unprogrammed meetings share a similar sense. That is not just because most members of the unprogrammed meetings are convinced Quakers, either - the same is true of birthright Quakers. When my father attended 1st day school in Bucks County in the '50s the class visited all the local religious denominations in turn over the course of a season - except the programmed meeting. The idea of pastors and evangelizing seems quite un-Quaker to the unprogrammed sensibility - might as well become a Baptist, almost. (Fighting words :)...I kid - though only a little.) Enon (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been around a lot of the Midwest, visited and seen programmed and unprogrammed meetings, and met Friends who were surprised to see that some people still go to unprogrammed meetings. I also went on a brief trip to Kenya, where I met with Friends from programmed meetings. At around the Gurneyite split, Quakerism went a little more mainstream. Programmed meetings may be pronounced (in Kenya) due to blurrier lines between churches or those churches' public image. Some meetings in the United States alternate between programmed and unprogrammed worship.
 * Fennasnogothrim (talk) 05:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the edits to the introductory paragraph over the past few years, it seems that there are two main schools of thought. The first is to communicate in that paragraph (or via a side-bar) that Quakerism is a Christian denomination; the second, to which I used to belong, is to speak more about what Quakerism was than is. The problem with the first approach is obvious (see above). The problem with the second, I've come to realize, is that well-meaning readers click the Edit button and 'correct' the perceived omission that Quakerism is a Christian denomination - they might add strong Christian language, or a side bar. This is an ongoing pendulum. I think to stop it, the modern relationship to Christian denominations should be mentioned at the outset. I recently tried editing to say of the Society, "Today many but not all of its members, who are known as Friends or Quakers, consider it to be a Christian denomination." However, Ceiriog found my wording 'misleading' and undid it. Ideally we might replace my wording with a statistic from some survey indicating the size of the liberal Quaker minority, but, lacking that, I can't see a better approach. In summary, it's arguably impractical (given the nature of Wikipedia) to ignore in the first paragraph the modern relationship with Christian denominations. Mebden (talk) 09:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think a lot of the problems in this article (not just in the case of "Is Quakerism a Christian denomination", but throughout the article) comes from attempting to write one article which encompasses "The Religious Society of Friends" in all its different forms, over the last 350 years and all over the world. There are hugely divergent beliefs, practices, etc, as well as large perceptions in differences or differences in language used. This article makes the false assumption that there is one "Society", whereas in fact there is no single "The Religious Society of Friends" - there are a diverse range of individually independent yearly meetings, each of whom are linked only in that they can trace some kind of historical link to George Fox's dissent from the Church of England in the mid-seventeenth century. I have previously several times proposed splitting the article by having a fairly basic and all-inclusive short summary of Quakers on the "Religious Society of Friends" page, explaining the diverse range of organisations which share the "Quaker" umbrella, and then having separate pages for different yearly meetings/conferences of meetings (eg Britain Yearly Meeting, Friends General Conference, Friends United Meeting, Evangelical Friends Church International, etc. Numerically, the largest proportion of Friends are in the evangelical grouping, however to say that "The Religious Society of Friends" is an evangelical organisation would be clearly incorrect.  The same goes all the way through the article - eg the section on marriage is specific to certain yearly meetings - the way a marriage is conducted in a Kenyan evangelical Friends' Church is nothing like the way a marriage is conducted in a British Friends' meeting. Again, homosexuality is something which different yearly meetings would consider very differently (eg contrast Uganda Yearly Meeting in 2007 with Britain Yearly Meeting in 2009). Attempting to write an article which encompasses all of these views is pretty much impossible, or ends up with an incredibly vague or incredibly long and convoluted article which does not really encompass the view of any single Quaker body. Its like trying to write an article about "Christianity" which encompasses all forms of Christianity from Quakers to Anglicans, Jehovah's Witnesses, Moravians, Catholics, Evangelicals, Latter Day Saints, etc - it would be pretty difficult to write a single article which covered all that, so sensibly there are separate articles about each individual church. I think it would be much better to split the "Religious Society of Friends" article to articles on each separate Yearly Meeting or group of yearly meetings - an article on Britain Yearly Meeting or Friends General Conference could much more accurately say that there are some Friends who do not identify themselves as Christians in the opening line. I do not believe that an article which purports to be about all Quakers worldwide can really say this in the opening sentence. Ceiriog (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No. There needs to be one article. There can be subarticles on FUM, FGC, EFI, etc. But encompassing the variety that is Friends is part of what Friends are about. There may be problems with the larger subset of Christianity on Wikipedia, but someone who doesn't know about Friends is not going to look up EFI or FUM and you can't have a link go to multiple places. Friends, despite their differences, do have a unity over 350 years, just as Christians, despite their many differences, do have some similarities over 2000 years. It's just that the circle of Friends and the circle of Christians are not entirely conguent. One can talk about similarities about Christians among the many sects you mention above: nearly all of them believe that to some extent Jesus was divine; most believe that his crucifixion was a redemption of sins for those who believe in his divinity; many believe that he rose from the dead on Easter. Not all Quakers believe those things, although some do. However, all Quakers do believe that God (by whatever name) can speak to individuals today; that it is possible for any person to receive leadings from God; and that there is "that of God in every [person]." Most Quakers have some additional beliefs and practices (pacifism, simplicity, truthfulness, etc). Quakers are also distinguished from many Eastern mystical religions by their activism: Quakers are active in working for peace, justice, equality, etc, and have been so since the first generation. Many of these values are what led Native Americans to trust Quakers to be mediators in their disputes with other whites. But just as their are many different sorts of Christians, or Jews, or Buddhists, or Communists, or Americans, there are different sorts of Quakers. You wouldn't say there shouldn't be a single article on Judaism, but Jews also vary widely between Orthodox and Reform (to say nothing of Reconstructionist, etc). Asegalisaacson (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

merge tag removed
I have removed the merge tag from the "Beliefs and testimonies" section. The editor adding the tag has not attempted to justify his/her proposal here, and in my view it is an obvious non-starter. Each of the "testimony" articles is worth a major article in its own right, and this article is already too large.

I am also removing the corresponding tags from the other articles.

--NSH001 (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Liberal Quaker bias in this article
I've visited and even made contributions to this article on occasions, and today, I've re-read some of it.

This is obviously a long-running article and there has been a lot of work put into it.

I have to say that the article has a unmistakable liberal quaker bias, both in its tone, and many of the assumptions it makes.

For example, (and I'm not intending to start a discussion on this, or an other point), a sentence in the first paragraph reads, "It is based on the idea that individuals can have a personal relationship with the divine without the need for intermediaries, such as priests, rituals or sacraments." This is essentially a modern liberal view of the basis of Quakerism, and it is not a view I have personally encountered in historical Quaker literature.

I have no objection to such views appearing in this article, as long as authors make it clear that they are representing a particular point of view within their own tradition. Another example, of such an assumption is also made in the first paragraph "It is historically rooted in interpretations of the reported teachings of Jesus Christ..." This may be true for the liberal tradition but not for the Pastoral or Conservative traditions. For them, that root is certainly contemporary, not only historical

If the intent of this article is to present the viewpoint of the liberal tradition, then it is fine, but if it purports to represent an over-arching introduction to the Quaker faith, world-wide, then my opinion is that contributors take more care to question some of the obvious assumptions that are being made when explaining facets of Quaker faith.

Allistair Lomax (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There is already a tag on the article in the history section saying that it might not represent a world-wide view of the topic.

Having said that, the two examples you give are I believe both correct in their context in the article and should not be changed. You comment that the statement "It is based on the idea that individuals can have a personal relationship with the divine without the need for intermediaries, such as priests, rituals or sacraments." is a modern liberal view of quakerism, but this was an idea clearly put forward by Fox and other early quakers. Secondly, quakerism is historically rooted in interpretations of the teaching of jesus christ - again this is clear in the tracts of early quakers. These two statements don't express a view point - they are facts.

Perhaps a good way of dealing with these concerns would be to introduce a section into the article that specifically speaks about the liberal tradition in quakerism as opposed to other traditions. This could be appended to the section on programmed/unprogrammed worship Jenafalt (talk) 12:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I did see the disclaimer at the top of the article but also the invitation to contribute on this issue, which I did. I also said I didn't want to start a discussion on the two examples. But, as you've responded... Although the idea that "that individuals can have a personal relationship with the divine without the need for intermediaries, such as priests, rituals or sacraments." can reasonably be argued to be a consequence of Quaker faith, it is incorrect to say that the Quaker faith is primarily based on that idea, which the sentence, in my opinion, implies. Fox and early Friends stated that their prime message was about restoring 'Primitive Christianity' which had been lost after 1600 years of the 'Great Apostasy'. For them, intermediares, represented the elements of the Apostacy which Christ was calling them out of, but was also primarily about the restoration of an experience of the Living Christ which belongs to the New Covenant. On your second point, I had no intention of disputing that the Quaker faith is rooted historically in the teachings of Jesus Christ. From your response, I'm now unclear about what the article means by 'rooted'. The sentence, in my opinion, implies that contemporary Quaker faith is not necessarily based on the teaching of Jesus Christ, but was in the past. For traditions other than the liberal tradition, this is untrue, in that they would claim they are still based on this.

Incidentally, in my opinion, the phrase "historically rooted in interpretations of the teaching of jesus christ" is a very poor way of representing what I think it means to be 'rooted' in Christianity. Early Quakers described an experience of being taught by the Living Christ, himself, which is not quite the same as basing one's faith on an interpretation of his teaching. I can be influenced by the teachings of Buddha, but I would not claim a direct encounter with the living Buddha, I hope you appreciate the difference.Allistair Lomax (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could suggest a better wording for these phrases and tidy up the article as you see fit? I have little understanding of a non-liberal quaker view so don't feel able to do that myself and I am finding it difficult to make the subtle arguments you are making into appropriate changes to make the article more balanced. Thanks. Jenafalt (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I really don't feel it's my place to make changes to the article itself. I'm happy to suggest possible changes to the text by those who contribute regularly. Again, I think it's a matter of deciding on the overall scope of the article. If it is here on Wiki to represent the liberal quaker view, then that should be made explicit and I wouldn't think that much change is needed. If it is here to represent a more general Quaker view, then I think it is up to those who contribute to recognise and acknowledge the assumptions behind the statements they make.

On a more practical matter, my first suggestion relates to this statement, "It is based on the idea that individuals can have a personal relationship with the divine without the need for intermediaries, such as priests, rituals or sacraments." I would suggest the following:

"It is based on the idea that individuals can have a direct encounter with the divine." I would have thought that would be broad enough to be acceptable for most Quaker viewpoints.

I'm still not clear what the author, in the first paragraph, intends by the phrase "...historically rooted in interpretations of the reported teachings of Jesus Christ". So it is difficult to make suggestions. Second-guessing the intended meaning, I would suggest; "While all Quaker traditions would acknowledge that, historically, they are rooted in the Christian experience, some traditions would not neccessarily accept this as a distinguishing feature of their faith in a modern context, while others certainly would." Hope that helps. I do have comments on the section "Beginings" which I'll post later.Allistair Lomax (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I will make the changes you suggest here, but in future please feel free to make the changes yourself. Anyone can edit wikipedia, not just established users.  I will post some links on your user page to assist you in editing. Jenafalt (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jenafalt Much appreciated Allistair Lomax (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Beginnings Section: The first sentence contains two statements, the first being erroneous, and the second one, greatly disputable.

1. "The Religious Society of Friends began in England in the 1650s..." It is widely accepted that origins of what we now call the Society of Friends lie in the UK Midlands, in the 1640’s. It is a popular folk-myth that the Quaker movement began in the North-West in the 1650’s. It certainly picked up much momentum there, but did not begin there. “And the Truth sprang up first (to us, as to be a People to the Lord) in Leicestershire in 1644, and in Warwickshire in 1645, and in Nottinghamshire in 1646, and Derbyshire in 1647.” ''George Fox, ‘Concerning the first Spreading of the Truth, and how many were imprisoned, &c. In “A Collection of many Select and Christian Epistles,...” 1698''

2. “...as a Nonconformist breakaway movement from English Puritanism..” I would say that the theory of Quaker origins as a off-shoot of Puritanism is now largely discredited within Quaker academic circles. One of its chief advocates was Geoffrey Nuttall (See Nuttall, G. F., The Holy Spirit in Puritan Faith and Experience Oxford: Blackwell, 1946).

Lewis Benson (A Universal Christian Faith, New Foundation Fellowship, 2008, p8), gives one of the best discussions on this topic and demonstrates, because of major theological differences, that the Quaker faith cannot be classified as a species of Puritanism. I have not seen any serious attempt to refute Benson's views. I suppose I should have started a new topic here, sorry, Allistair Lomax (talk) 11:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that there is a huge liberal bias in this article. However an article which sought to cover all aspects of the many branches of Friends is going to be very long and complex, and may seem fairly vague and unwieldy to a reader unfamiliar with the subject (eg some Quakers believe this, other Quakers believe that, still others believe the other...).  I wonder whether it might be better to have a relatively short article on this page, explaining a bit of basic history and that there are a variety of different "strands" of Quakerism.  I think much of what is currently on this page would be probably better on a separate page on "liberal quakerism".  The general Religious Society of Friends article could then appropriately direct people to different pages on liberal quakerism, Conservative Friends, evangelical Friends, Friends United Meeting as well as individual yearly meeting articles.  Each article could then explain the beliefs and practices of that "strand" of the Religious Society of Friends.  Ceiriog (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Christian denomination infobox
I have removed the Christian denomination infobox, which used to read the following:

The fact is, the data this infobox is designed to convey just doesn't happen to be relevant to Quakerism: the splits aren't as important as the different groupings such as programmed/unprogrammed or conservative in the US etc. The associations it has are too trivial for the lead section, and the info on founding is is the caption of George Fox's image.

Many thanks for the effort regardless! Drum guy (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Richard Nixon
In the presidensts article, it says that Nixon could claim CO status due to his and his parents(my emphasis) being Quakers. Is this correct that your parents have to be Quakers, or is it enough to just be Quaker oneself to qualifer? TIA --Tom (talk) 04:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * from the point of view of the Selective Service your parents are irrelevant. What is relevant is that you have held the beliefs you are espousing for some time, and that they are not just newfound beliefs that you acquired when Selective Service called. In this respect, noting that your parents also held these beliefs might be supportive of your case, but would certainly not determine it.Asegalisaacson (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

A Quaker did not start Amnesty International
The first paragraph states Amnesty International was founded by Quakers. In fact, it was started by Peter Benenson, who converted from Judaism to Catholicism. Therefore, this is a false statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philiplynch (talk • contribs) 17:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Peter Benenson, a catholic, founded it together with the quaker, Eric Baker. I therefore undid the edit. Jenafalt (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See Eric Baker (activist) Vernon White  . . . Talk 08:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Convoluted introduction
This section is far too convoluted for an introduction:
 * "The theological beliefs of the different Yearly Meetings also vary, from some holding very strong evangelical christian beliefs through the spectrum to some holding universalist or Christian universalist beliefs. The predominant theological beliefs of different Yearly Meetings do not tally exactly with the style of service[1], although there is often some co-relation. Within programmed or semi-programmed traditions, some yearly meetings (especially those in parts of the US and Africa affiliated to Friends United Meeting) regard Christ as their teacher and Lord[2]. Other yearly meetings within the programmed tradition (especially those in parts of the US, Asia and Central America which are affiliated to Evangelical Friends Church International) regard Christ as their Lord and saviour[2]. In the unprogrammed tradition, some yearly meetings (especially those in parts of the US which are affiliated to the wider fellowship of conservative Friends, trust in the immediate guidance of an inward Christ[2]. There is often a very wide variety of theological belief in some other unprogrammed yearly meetings (often termed liberal yearly meetings such as those in parts of the US affiliated to Friends General Conference, many yearly meetings in Europe and Australia/New Zealand and the Beanite yearly meetings in western United States), with meetings often having a large proportion of liberal Christians and universalist Christians some of whom trust in the guidance of an inward Christ or inner light, with some non-theists, agnostics, and atheists, as well as some who are also members of other religions, although even amongst liberal yearly meetings this is controversial. Common ideas among members of these liberal yearly meetings include a belief of "that of God in everyone", and shared values, such as to peace, equality and simplicity.[1]"

There should be a short statement about the variety of beliefs in quakerism in the introduction and then this should be moved to a specific section on beliefs. Jenafalt (talk) 08:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There is already a dedicated section on beliefs in the article, so I have moved it down to that section and left a short summary statement in place. Jenafalt (talk) 09:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

no
i dont belive that parts should be moved as school children may wish to read about quakers, but have to switch pages just to get seperate answers that should all be under the same simple title —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.189.36 (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

other responses
I'm confused: quite what is the nature of the split that is being proposed? 𝐨𝐱𝐲𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐵𝑈𝑇𝐴𝑍𝑂𝑁𝐸 ⓊⓉ 00:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a general split tag at the top of the article - I'm not sure to which sections it's referring to but the article is very long and some bits could be moved out. I guess that the exact nature of the split is up for discussion. I would suggest that the organisation section, being of low priority to someone not already familiar with the topic, could well have a separate article. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I see that the split tag was added on 12 August 2009 by, Ceiriog (talk), who has a history of constructive contributions to this article. Therefore it can be assumed that while no rationale was added at the time, the tag was added in good faith.

It may be desirable to split some portion of the article at some point in time. However, at present I would tend to concur with 86.27.189.36 although for a different reason. Primarily, the article needs some work, and you would do yourselves a great disservice to split it before improving the article. Obviously it's far easier to work on an article's quality while it is in one piece.

First and foremost is a matter of adding citations wherever needed, and wherever possible. I have relocated the references out of the body of the article, following on from User:Chienlit's implementation of a reference update for the Vincent Priessnitz article on 15 November 2009, and which I have now implemented in several other articles. This makes it easier to edit both the body of the article without the clutter of citations, and the citations themselves.

For example, in the process of this exercise, I found that two separately listed citations were from the same source, one of which has a website link (Rush, 2002). Also, you can easier work on the format of the citations because they're all gathered together. However, while that is good to do, it is not critical. As long as you provide enough information so the reader can track down the original source, if you're not sure how to format it, someone else can sort out that out later. Or you can check out the editing text of other articles and pinch formats from there. That's what I did as I learned bits of Wikipedia editing. And of course, once I had made enough citations, I could raid my own examples. I would copy-and-paste into the article I'm working on, and then obviously just change the details for each section of the reference. Just be sure to 'Cancel' the editing in the article you're raiding, or use the back-arrow to take the page you're raiding back to how you found it. As long as you don't save any unintended changes, you can't do any harm. You can of course use the Editing help templates, which I also do. But I still find the need to raid formats that display the reference how I want it displayed, especially with some cumbersome or unusual references.

You can also work on the article's structure and other details much more readily while the article is in one piece. Get it as good as you can get it, and then consider what sections might warrant an article of their own. If you decide something does warrant its own article, well you've done most of the work. All you need do is copy-and-paste the text to a new article, and create a synopsis paragraph in the current article, with a link to the new article. I'm not saying anything here that most or all of you won't already know. What I am saying is, loosely speaking, that's how I'd go about it. I wouldn't create needless extra work for myself by prematurely splitting the article. I'd get the parent article as good as I could, trying to get it to a point that it makes sense to someone who isn't familiar with what the article is about.Wotnow (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Wotnow

I have just created "archive 4" for this page
I haven't however created a summary for the archive as I see there is a list of summaries for each file at the top of this page. I will leave that for another editor, as I am uncertain of the practicality of archive summaries, since they are already at the top of each archived file. I will leave it for you all to decide. Hope my edits have been beneficial, --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 10:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * All right, I created a fancy template for the archive section, though archive 4 still needs to be summarized. I hope the changes look good and will be efficient.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 11:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Titles given to men and women in old meeting house records - what did they mean?
I have seen different titles for men and women in old meeting house records. I can guess their meaning, but it would be nice if this article included them with the terms at the bottom of the article. The titles seen among the men were - Goodman, Brother, Mr and sometimes just their name. Among the women there were similar titles - Goody, Goodw., Mrs. and Sister but never just their name. Thank you. Jrcrin001 (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * These aren't specifically Quaker terms of address; most people in early America went by such titles.  Goodw. is short for "Goodwife."Eulogius2 (talk) 03:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Too US (United States) centric?
for example - neither John Cadbury nor Joseph Rowntree are even mentioned in 'List of Quakers'? These men played important roles in UK social reform ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.130.202 (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Paul Carpenter (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Absent introduction
Who and/or what are the Quakers? Who are the Religious Society of Friends? The intro needs to introduce an outsider to the topic... —Felix the Cassowary 09:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How does "The Religious Society of Friends is a Christian religious movement, whose members are known as Friends or Quakers" not fit that? If anything I'd say the introduction is a little too long --Paul Carpenter (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Terminology.
As of this edit. I have boldly deleted the section on "Quaker Terminology". It had been marked as unsourced for over a year and the GA reassessment highlighted it as a problem (suggested that it be spun off as it's own article, but that'd require being sourced). Remembering that WP is not a dictionary or an indiscriminate collection of information I do not feel that the section is hugely important to anyone wanting to learn about the RSoF. If you really object to this, please comment. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I see you have deleted something which seems to me to be inoffensive which somebody spent a great deal of time putting up. It seems to me unnecessary to delete it entirely.  As it would seem to me that it could be of interest to somebody seeking a lot of detail about the Quakers, I would suggest that it is put to an article of its own so that the information will not be completely lost, just moved elsewhere.  Comhar (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "It has been suggested that portions of this article be moved into History of the Religious Society of Friends. (Discuss)"
 * I agree with the person above who suggests that it is not moved into a different section. It is important to have information such as a brief history on the main page to which casual people seeking information (like me) find themselves. Comhar (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The history is particularly important, I don't see how that section could be categorised as history though. The importance of topics such as history are exactly why overcrowding articles can be a problem. If (and only if) it could be sourced up to WP standards then a separate article would be great. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * On that note, if the content were properly sourced, it wouldn't be massively important whether it was part of the main article or a separate one - but then WP:NOT should still be taken into account. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If there is enough information to write articles about several of these terms, we may be able to put them under Religious terminology. If other religions or subjects use these terms, we can make disambiguation pages. Given enough terms, I believe we could make a page about Quaker terminology, which could note both the terms and their usage or lack thereof among different branches of Friends.Fennasnogothrim (talk) 07:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Charities founded by Quakers
I have removed the reference to certain charities happening to have a Quaker amongst their founders. I don't think this is sufficiently notable to be in the introduction to a general article on Quakers as (a) other religious groups also have charities started by their members, they are not listed in the introductions to articles on their religious groups; (b) it is not relevant to the article as a whole - these are just a few individuals who happened to be Quakers rather than a corporate act on behalf of Quakers overall; (c) why mention that some charities were founded by Quakers - one might as well mention that two US Presidents were Quakers, or that two major UK banks were founded by Quakers, or that several chocolate manufacturers were founded by Quakers; (d) I don't think that these charities being founded by people who happened to be Quakers is a well known fact that is notable enough to be in the introduction to this article Ceiriog (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Quakers and the Trinity
Do quakers believe in the Trinity such do mainstream christianity churches or not ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.80.191.190 (talk) 06:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Belief in the Trinity is not usually a requirement of Friends in the non-pastoral tradition, although most Quakers did until believe in the Trinity around 1895. The Trinitarian Richmond Declaration is accepted by many Friends, mostly in the pastoral tradition, as valuable guidance on Christian belief.  Vernon White  . . . Talk 20:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Leadership on non-pastoral Quaker worship
A recent amendment has stated:
 * "Some meet for silent worship with no leader and no fixed program (mainly in Europe, Australia, and parts of North America). Some meet for services led by a pastor with readings and hymns (mainly in Africa, Asia and parts of North America)."
 * Non-pastoral Friends may claim that they are led by God's Spirit, the Light or, in the case of non-theist Friends, just led. Elders play a significant part in guiding and shaping worship, as well as terminating it by shaking hands. Particular types of Meetings for Worship,such as  weddings, funerals and meetings for church affairs do have a programme, or at least an agenda. Readings and song can play a part in non-pastoral worship. Sorry to make encyclopaedia-writing more complex.  Vernon White  . . . Talk 20:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The text however does not say that all non-pastoral meetings are like the first example and all pastoral meetings are like the second example, nor that all Friends' meetings fit into one category or the other all the time. It simply states that 'some' have silent worship with no leader and no fixed program, and 'some' have a pastor, readings and hymns. I think this is true, although the addition of 'human' before leader might be useful. 87.194.113.39 (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Quagans
I have removed the text "The growing number of Quakers who follow an earth-centered or pagan spiritual path are known as Quaker-pagans or Quagans."
 * The heading "Relationship to the wider Christian community" concerns relationship between Quakers and Christians of other persuasions. Perhaps there should be a new section on Interfaith relations.
 * The text presents no evidence that paganism is growing in numbers or influence in all branches of the RSoF. I see no evidence of such growth in Britain Yearly Meeting.
 * Vernon White . . . Talk 15:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Quakers and Business (Organisation)
Someone reverted Quakers & Business as it is said to be a charity. perhaps we need a WP article to cover the whole topic of Quakers in business and another listing "Listed Informal Groups" that are listed in Britain Yearly Meetings Book of Meetings, published each year. Vernon White '''. . . Talk''' 10:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"National and international divisions and organization" section
This article in general is very long, and this section in particular is rather messy and mixes several different levels of organization. I suggest that after the general introduction to FWCC, the information about the various Sections of FWCC be moved to the Friends World Committee for Consultation article.

I'm not sure what to do with the continent/country/"elsewhere" information that follows. There would probably be enough cultural/historical/statistical information to constitute "Quakers in Europe" (or "Quakerism in Europe"), "Quakers in North America", etc. Quakers in Kenya already exists, but perhaps it would be more sensible to organize by continent, rather than country, since a huge number of countries have a small number of Quakers. Cpastern (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Reverted pages
I have reverted the last two changes.
 * It is no help to a non-USA:American to have the names of States replaced by two-letter codes!
 * I think someone is objecting to generalisations being made about "Quakers" when a wide range of belief and practice exists and hopes the different Yearly Meetings and Quaker Churches will be unmerged. The article itself is not a good place for this discussion. Vernon White  . . . Talk 20:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed split
See here I have proposed splitting this article into two&mdash;one about the Religious Society (its make-up and demographics, history, etc.) and one about Quakerism (beliefs, practices, etc.) The discussion linked before seems to support this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't split - or at least, don't split in this way. I would see no rationale for the two names of the articles Religious Society of Friends and Quakerism as the two terms are basically synonymous anyway.  There is no single Religious Society - there is no international structure or single unifying organisation as such - the "Religious Society of Friends" is simply made up of any organisation which claims it as such - as is "Quakerism".  Personally I would like to see more of the information about both structure and beliefs in the current article go into separate articles about each individual Yearly Meeting or organisation (eg Friends General Conference, Friends United Meeting, Friends World Committee for Consultation) as I feel that at present the article is too unwieldy as it is trying to cover a vast diversity of different organisations, structures, beliefs, ways of doing things.  As each Yearly Meeting is independent, with different common beliefs, practices, structures, etc I think it would make more sense for more of this information to be in the articles about each Yearly Meeting and for the general Religious Society of Friends article to be fairly short, mainly directing people to the different detailed articles about different branches/Yearly Meetings. Ceiriog (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm in agreement with Ceiriog. The two terms are basically synonymous, and the current introduction does a pretty fair job of explaining their significance and meaning. A split would probably confuse the issue. Auranor (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Mr Ceiriog. Could make the extensive list of further reading a separate article, to reduce length. Vernon White  . . . Talk 09:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Ceiriog. A separate article about the history and structure may be better. Call it History of .... Darx9url (talk) 05:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see any justification for splitting the article even being proposed here or in this discussion. I also noticed that it was proposed that the wikiprojects be notified and they weren't.  I say there should not be a split here. What would the point be?  What would go in one versus the other?  A History of.. article, as Darx9url suggests, would not be horrible if you are concerned about length.  Rifter0x0000 (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is already an extensive History of the Religious Society of Friends article. Ceiriog (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm in agreement with Ceiriog. The two terms are basically synonymous, and the current introduction does a pretty fair job of explaining their significance and meaning. A split would probably confuse the issue. Auranor (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with both Ceiriog and Auranor. The two terms really are synonymous, and the intro makes it clear as to their significance and meaning. A split would definately be confusing and require the user to jump an extra link for really no good purpose. DigitalQuaker 11:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

19th century woodcarving of George Fox
I have removed the 19th century engraving of George Fox from the top of this article. There are two reasons for this: (1) This is an article about the Religious Society of Friends - it is not about George Fox. Although George Fox plays an important part in the development of the Religious Society of Friends in the 17th century, he is not particularly central to Quakerism today, and I do not feel that he is of sufficient importance to place a picture purporting to be of him at the top of the article. There are plenty of other individuals who have developed Quakerism since then who might have equal claim to be at the top of the article. To put a picture purporting to be of Fox at the top would be similar to placing a picture of Henry VIII at the top of an article about the Church of England, or a picture of St Peter at the top of an article about the Roman Catholic Church - yes they are important but they are hardly the central figure within either church. Quakerism has moved on a long way since Fox's day, and as the article points out - only a small proportion of Quakers today are Conservative (similar to what George Fox might recognise were he alive today) - most are either evangelical or liberal, neither of which have much in common with Fox. (2) Even if there was an argument for including a picture of Fox say in the 'History' section, this one is not it. This is an image produced around 200 years after Fox died, by an artist who never met Fox. It is therefore entirely unencyclopaedic to include this article as it is merely a fictional illustration rather than in any way showing what Fox actually looked like. It might be interesting - say - in the George Fox article to discuss various pictures which purport to be of George Fox and the likely accuracy of them, however the general Religious Society of Friends page, in my opinion is not the place for this. Ceiriog (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree. Vernon White  . . . Talk 20:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I would rather see an image of George Fox than a symbol for the American Friends Service Committee. While I don't think there is one specific symbol for Quakers, this one does not seem to fit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildeyedredhead (talk • contribs) 20:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The image File:Quaker star-T.svg isn't the AFSC symbol - the AFSC logo is based on this symbol, but the 'Quaker Star' precedes AFSC and is used with variations by many other Friends' service organisations, including the British Quaker Peace and Social Witness amongst others. Ceiriog (talk)
 * Yes. Documented in J. Ormerod Greenwood Quaker encounters.  Vernon White  . . . Talk 06:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it should be moved to the lead. Darx9url (talk) 05:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've never encountered this symbol before and to have it in such a prominent position in the article seems really weird to me. To the extent that a Christian cross or even a picture of the Quaker oats guy would seem like more appropriate symbols for this. It seems pretty clear (and indeed pretty characteristic of Quakerism) that there isn't one symbol that can represent all Quakers worldwide, so surely better to address that rather than say "eh, no Quakers ever really know or use THIS symbol, but we're sticking up here just, well, just for no good reason at all". I personally think a picture of George Fox would be pretty nice (given that he, like, invented it and all) but I imagine the objection to this comes from American protestant evangelical programmed worship types (Fox is very frequently referenced in my experience in Britain) and we certainly don't want to get into a Quakerism fight here. Do we really need a picture? Maybe a nice Meeting House or something? 130.88.174.147 (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The question has nothing to do with different branches of Quakerism - the point is that the image in question isn't of George Fox as the person who produced the image lived around 200 years after George Fox, never met him and had no idea what he would have looked like.Ceiriog (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Loyalism during the American Revolution?
I'm researching the motivations of American Loyalists for my dissertation at University and Quakers have come up in most of my readings as prominent Loyalists. However this article appears to be missing any mention of the American Revolution at all: Is this simply because it has been overlooked or is it not generally approved to 'tar' present day associations with the Loyalist moniker? Henners91 (talk) 14:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * First, sweeping statement about "Quakers" instead of "some Quakers". My guess it is because the activities of some individual Quakers in the American Revolution is rather minor in the history of the Religious Society of Friends (or are you referring to the Quakers' pacifism which would have led them to oppose the war and not take up arms for either side [except for the 'fighting Quakers' who supported the patriots], this might actually be appropriate for the article as it appears a few Quakers at least moved to Canada because of the persecution for not supporting the patriots).  A better fit perhaps is in the History of Pennsylvania especially since that article has no mention of why the Quakers ceased to be the dominant power in the colony/state or in the Loyalist (American Revolution) article.  --Erp (talk) 06:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Quakers acted as a community and their loyalty to the crown was an important event & should be covered. Rjensen (talk) 07:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If this were to be covered anywhere within a page about Quakers then I think that History of the Religious Society of Friends would be a better place to put it than Religious Society of Friends. This page is intending to cover all aspects of the Religious Society of Friends worldwide, and I agree with Erp that the actions of some Quakers in the American Revolution is rather minor to the worldwide Religious Society of Friends.  I would expect that most people on both sides of the American Revolution would have belonged to one Christian denomination or another - would you put, say, the role of some Catholics or Lutherians in the American Revolution on the Roman Catholicism or Lutherianism page?  I agree that History of Pennsylvania or Loyalist (American Revolution) would be better places for this material. 94.197.127.53 (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a major issue regarding the emerging peace testimony to support a war. Rjensen (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

As Erp has said, Quaker communities collectively refused to fight or even sign oathes of loyalty; thusly they were persecuted and mistrusted by Patriots. It's an important fact. And well done for mentioning Pennsylvania, I totally forgot that Quakers dominated the state legislature there before the war Henners91 (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME concern
Hey all,

I'm a little worried that the current article title doesn't fall in-line with WP:COMMONNAME. I've always refereed to these folks as Quakers, and have never heard this term "Religious Society of Friends" used before. I did a quick poll of the folks in my office, and nobody knew that "Religious Society of Friends" was in fact the "correct" term for Quakers.

While I respect the fact that the group might self-identify as the "Religious Society of Friends", WP article titles aren't decided on the basis of self-identification. They're decided on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME.

I propose and immediate rename. I imagine there's probably been discussion on this topic before. Can someone point to it for me? NickCT (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested Move
moved per the common name argument below. Quakerism also appears to have support but that'll need some more discussion. --regentspark (comment) 14:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Religious Society of Friends → Quakers – I'm pretty sure these guys are far more commonly referred to as Quakers. Thus, per WP:COMMONNAME, it would probably be appropriate to move this page. NickCT (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support readers will be looking for "Quakers" --note the Rs in the bibliography--the great majority say "Quakers" (a few say both "Friends" and "Quakers"; one has only "Friends" -- the experts are telling us what is the standard terminology. Rjensen (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Fully agree that "Quakers" is the common name. Jenks24 (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Quakerism has been suggested below, and that would also be fine with me. Jenks24 (talk) 03:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. The term "Quakers" refers, almost exclusively, to people, whereas this article deals mainly with the organisation and its history. We already, correctly, follow the example of Catholics (redirects to Catholic Church) and Anglicans (redirect to Anglicanism). Possibly the redirect Quakers or Quaker could be turned into an article along the lines of Mormons or Muslim, dealing with the name, its origin and the people, but simply to rename this article would be wrong and misleading. --NSH001 (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * a weak argument--the Quakers unlike the Catholics, Anglicans, Muslims and Mormons never formed a state church; the article hardly talks about their church at all and focuses on the membership. Rjensen (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support it is obviously the more common name, i just came here today after typing Quaker into the search box. Jeff Song (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose the proper name used by the members whatever yearly meeting they belong to is Religious Society of Friends. To expand, this is the denomination name (and yearly meetings generally recognized other yearly meetings as belonging to the same group even if on some points they disagree) and the article is about the denomination not individuals. I note the Religioustolerance.org website uses "Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)" as their title.  Britannica uses "Society of Friends". BTW Quakers is also the name of a type of parakeet--Erp (talk) 05:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that "religious society of friends" is "used by the members" is irrelevant b/c self-identification of groups is not a standard on Wikipedia. They could call themselves "The snuffaluffaguses", but if they were most commonly referred to as "Quakers", Quaker is what WP would call em. The fact that the article is "about the denomination not individuals" is worth noting. Religious sects will have often a denomination article, and a individuals article (see Mormons & Mormonism or Christians & Christianity) or sometimes just a denomination article (see Bhuddism and the page that redirects to it Bhuddist). I'd probably also support a rename to Quakerism.
 * While pointing to Britannica is worth considering, WP is not Britannica & Britannica often times doesn't follow WP:COMMONNAME.
 * The parakeet point is interesting trivia, but I'm not sure it has much bearing as the religion would seem to be hugely more notable than the bird. NickCT (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose As far as I know, no other denomination (whether or not it was ever established) uses an analogous term. Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, etc. are all redirects to different titles.  Let's stay with the actual name, which is the most common name used when someone's specifically referring to the organisation.  Nyttend (talk) 11:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * See my comments above re denomination articles and inidividuals articles. By-the-by Baptists isn't a redirect. NickCT (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support; exactly the sort of case for which WP:COMMONNAME was written. Powers T 00:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment There seems to be some confusion here. "Quaker(s)" is indeed the WP:COMMONNAME for the people who are members/adherents of the religion (indeed, I have that moniker on my user page). This article, however, is about the religion (and the set of organisations and so on that support/represent it). The WP:COMMONNAME for that is "(The) Religious Society of Friends", which is why its title should remain unchanged. --NSH001 (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So I take it you "oppsose" the move? Again, see my comments above regarding how WP normally handles a religion versus adherents to that religion. What do you think about renaming to Quakerism. I think that would be more common. NickCT (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Err, yes, I was tempted to put a big, bold "oppose" somewhere in there, but that wouldn't be very ethical, given that I've already !voted. Yes, I saw your remarks above re denomination/individuals, which I largely agree with. Certainly Quakerism would be a lot better than Quakers, but I still think the present title is the right one. --NSH001 (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Missed the fact you voted above. Don't mean to challenge your impartiality here, but do you think you might have a conflict of interest? Might you not be arguing on the basis of how you like to refer to yourself, rather than how everyone else likes to refer to you? Perhaps we can find some common ground with Quakerism. NickCT (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Quakerism" = yes, a good compromise. Rjensen (talk) 04:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose. Within Britain and parts of the US Quaker is probably a more common name for adherents of this denomination.  As stated, this article is about the organisations which make up the worldwide Religious Society of Friends.  Unfortunately for various reasons the article already has a vast bias towards British and liberal US Quakerism (which is a small minority of the worldwide Religious Society of Friends).  The majority of evangelical and Guerneyite meetings (which make up the vast majority of worldwide Friends, but are mainly located in India, Africa, South America and parts of the US) are commonly called Friends Church/Friends/Society of Friends/Religious Society of Friends - both popularly and within the organisations concerned.  The term Quakerism refers to a theological/philosophical system, more often used for liberal Quakerism, and does not refer to the organisations concerned and therefore does not reflect the content of the page.  Quakerism is not a common name, even if Quaker(s) is, I doubt that Quakerism is used any more widely than Religious Society of Friends.  To change to Quaker or Quakerism would be against WP:WORLDVIEW  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceiriog (talk • contribs) 07:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Quakers should be rebuilt to cover those not of this church as well as this church, since Quaker is a broader concept than just members of this church, as it also covers the Shakers. 70.24.247.40 (talk) 01:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Quakers or Quakerism, fairly clear-cut common name/recognizability issue, though there may be scope for splitting off article(s) about specific organizations.--Kotniski (talk) 08:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support move to Quakers, or failing that to Quakerism. More recognised name, to the point that referring to them as Society of Friends smacks of pretentiousness and/or pedantry, however correct it may be. Andrewa (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - Derogatory. As discussed above, Quakers are people and the Religious Society of Friends is an organization (of sorts), but this is just a secondary argument from my perspective. VQuakr (talk) 03:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Derogatory?? So what's the deal with the UK Quaker site, where they use the word everywhere to refer to themselves (and hide any mention of "Religious Society of Friends" away on a subpage)? --Kotniski (talk) 06:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Kotniski is right--anyone glancing at the bibliography will see the great majority of historians and RS prefer the term "Quaker" and they mean it in a "friendly" way. Rjensen (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is true in the UK (and parts of the US) - but this is not true globally. Most of the references quoted come from UK and a few US sources, therefore there is a bias towards use of the term 'Quaker'.  How many references Kenyan sources would use the term 'Quaker'?  (and Kenyan Friends make up the largest proportion of members of the Religious Society of Friends in the world).  This page has a huge bias towards British and liberal American Quakerism - who are the people who use the term Quaker, and this is reflected in the lack of references from African Friends or evangelical Friends.  I think it would be fine for the Britain Yearly Meeting page to use the term Quaker as this is the most commonly used term in the UK, however the page is attempting to be about the Religious Society of Friends worldwide, of which British Quakers make up a very small proportion. Ceiriog (talk) 06:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a friendly thing to invent false statements about Africans. Fact is the standard history is A history of the Quaker movement in Africa by Ane Marie Bak Rasmussen (1995)-- and the book prefers "Quaker". The East Africa Yearly Meeting of Friends published its history as Painter, Hill of Vision: The Story of the the Quaker Movement in East Africa, 1902-1965 (Kaimosi, Kenya: East Africa Yearly Meeting of Friends, 1966). Melton (2005) says "Their greatest success was in KENYA, where the East Africa Yearly Meeting of Friends became the largest Quaker association in the world." Hamm (2006) says, "Most important ultimately would be the Quaker work that began in Kenya in 1902. Kenya is now home to more Quakers...."  Another scholarly history book is Mombo A Historical and Cultural Analysis of the Position of Abaluyia Women in Kenyan Quaker Christianity, 1902–1979. The Friends World Committee for Consultation, Handbook of the Religious Society of Friends (1967) says: "The East Africa Yearly Meeting, largely located in Nyanza and Western Provinces, Kenya, is engaged in the effort to adapt Friends' organization and the Quaker way of life to the dynamic African situation of today." If  Ceiriog is serious about his Africa argument he will support the Kenyan position on the matter. Rjensen (talk) 07:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Christian Denomination
I'm sure this must have come up before, but it's a question close to my heart, so I bring it up... while RSoF grew out of definitively Christian roots, and many modern Friends consider themselves Christian (especially among Evangelical meetings), it's not an exclusively Christian identity. The lead certainly gives the (misleading) impression that Quakers are all Christians. Is there some way to alleviate that without it becoming awkward? SamBC(talk) 21:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, as a further thought, there are several elements that don't entirely seem to be from a NPOV... while it is arguably neutral between different traditions among Friends, the description of those differences is very much from a Christian POV... some bits on Liberal Quakerism seem almost judgemental, especially the mention of non-Christian Friends (the number of whom seems implied to be almost negligible, which it certainly isn't in Western Europe)... SamBC(talk) 21:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Just reading more (yeah, should have done that all in one go), it seems like the degree of controversy over non-Christian Quakers is overblown. I'm sure it's that controversial in some liberal YMs, but definitely not all... I've already tweaked wording a tiny bit to remove the implication that the presence of non-Christian Quakers is very recent and limited to "parts of the US and Europe". SamBC(talk) 21:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Whilst it is true that there are some Quakers in liberal YMs who describe themselves as non-Christian, this is a fairly small minority of the RSoF overall. Taking these two sources   - which are figures from FWCC - the Quakers' own international group - we can see that in the US and Canada there are 30 000 Friends affiliated to FGC (the liberal branch of the RSoF in the USA) and also 18 452 Friends in the liberal YMs in Europe and 1399 in Australia/NZ YMs.  This is out of a total of 340 558 Friends altogether, meaning that only 14% of Friends overall are members of a liberal YMs.  As far as I know there is no reliable data on what kind of proportion of members of liberal YMs would identify themselves as Christians and what proportion would not.  However, there is plenty of reliable evidence pointing to the fact that there are SOME Quakers in liberal YMs who do regard themselves as Christians, so the total proportion of Quakers who do not consider themselves Christians is definitely less than 14% (and is probably MUCH less than this given there are a fair number of Christians in liberal YMs).  Therefore I think it is entirely reasonable and accurate that the article focusses mainly on the >86% of Quakers who would regard themselves as Christians.  Whilst I think it is right that the article mentions that there are some Quakers who do not regard themselves as Christians, I think we also have to be careful to not over-emphasise this small minority.  In fact, I think the article is rather too much the other way - currently it seems to focus mainly on unprogrammed worship in liberal meetings, with very little information on the beliefs, practices, worship style, testimony, etc of evangelical, conservative or FUM Friends.  There is already a separate article on Nontheist Friends, and I would support the creation of an article on liberal Quakerism, in which it would be appropriate to give greater prominence to discussion about Quakers who do not identify themselves as Christians.  However I think the general RSoF page should represent the whole of the RSoF, which means giving prominence to the large majority of Quakers who do identify themselves as Christian.  92.40.254.10 (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Completely neglecting unprogrammed meetings would be absurd, given it was part of the defining character of Friends Meetings traditionally. Covering both makes perfect sense. While those numbers for liberal versus non are sourced, they aren't a problem (not sure there even in the article), but the article currently states that a 'small minority' of Friends in liberal Meetings identify as non-Christian, and that it's highly controversial in those meetings. This isn't sourced, and is contradictory to my own experience. I'm not suggesting that we base the article on my experience, but it's acceptable to allow editors experience to inform the weight given sources, and there isn't even a source given for that statement. It does note that there have been calls to include non-Christians since at least 1870, and that is sourced. If we were to hive out almost all detail of unprogrammed liberal Friends to a separate artcile, NPOV would sure require us to do the same for programmed, conservative and evangelical elements, and this article focus on the points of commonality with only a brief summary of the different points. That would be perfectly sensible. While liberal Friends might be a numerical minority, in terms of influence we are not; indeed, the nature of FWCC is such that numbers have very little effect on influence. SamBC(talk) 08:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you are confusing 'Friends who do not identify as Christian' with 'Friends who are active members of a faith other than Christianity'. These are not the same thing (although obviously the second is a subset of the first).  The actual paragraph which I presume you are talking about actually currently says:


 * There are Friends in some liberal unprogrammed Meetings who no longer feel happy to call themselves Christian and instead consider themselves unitarian, agnostic, atheist, secular humanist, postchristian, or nontheist.[17] Calls for Quakerism to include non-Christians go back at least as far as 1870,[23] and there is a small minority of Friends in liberal meetings who actively identify as members of a faith other than Christianity, such as Judaism, Islam,[24] Buddhism [25] or Paganism, although this is controversial, even in liberal Yearly Meetings.


 * This paragraph (I think accurately) distinguishes between two groups - Friends who do not consider themselves Christian but consider themselves to be agnostic, atheist, unitarian, etc, - which the paragraph just says there are 'some' of and does not say whether it is controversial or not; and Friends who actively identify as members of a faith other than Christianity - which it says is a small minority and that this is 'controversial' (although in no point in the article does it say that it is highly controversial). You say that your experience is that this group is not a small minority - my experience within Britain Yearly Meeting over the last 30 years is that I have never met a Quaker who actively identifies as a member of a faith other than Christianity (yes, I have met some Quakers who do not identify as Christians, and some who think that there are interesting ideas in Buddhism or whatever, but not who are actually active members of another religion and an active member of the Society of Friends) - although I am aware that there are a few Quakers who are in this position.  Are you saying that your experience of liberal YMs is that there is a majority of Quakers who actively are members of other religions (eg Judaism, Islam, etc)?  However, I do agree with you this article shouldn't be based on original research, but on sourced material.


 * As far as the source that 'Calls for Quakerism to include non-Christians go back at least as far as 1870' - whilst this is sourced it is simply one Friend saying this in 1870 - there is no evidence presented that this is a widespread view at the time.   One can find individual Quakers saying all sorts of things - (eg The Friend (the national British Quaker weekly periodical) carried a piece this year calling for non-theist Quakers to be barred from membership of Britain Yearly Meeting (Heathfield D (2011) 'Non-theist Friends Network' The Friend 169 (21) )).   I think an encyclopaedic article should explain the general trends and beliefs of an organisation, rather than a few comments from fringe extremists on one side or the other, otherwise the article becomes very NPOV.  I think it is accurate to say that within liberal YMs there are 'some' non-Christians, but to say that the RSoF in general is not a Christian denomination on the basis of a couple of random essays people have sourced is very NPOV indeed. One might as well quote Don Cupitt in an article on Anglicanism and claim that 'Anglicanism was based in Christianity but now has non-Christian priests' - whilst this would be a true and sourced sentence it would not give a particularly accurate view to a reader on what they would find in their average Anglican church. 92.40.254.10 (talk) 11:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've known a couple of British Quakers who identify as a specific faith other than Christian, and known of several others. While I'm quite happy with the idea that it's a minority, calling it a small minority seems to be WP:OR at the very least. It also hasn't been my experience that the existence of these people is particularly controversial; I though the paragraph did say highly, not sure how I got that wrong, but there you go... all I was saying about 1870 was that it wasn't a new thing, and I feel that the section gives the impression that it is, despite the 1870 reference. neutral point of view. SamBC(talk) 12:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Having just read the source which supposedly 'calls for Quakerism to include non-Christians', which is a historical monograph on the history of Quakers in New Jersey. The closest I can see to the 'calls for Quakerism to include non-Christians' is the concluding paragraph which says Quakerism, developed to its legitimate conclusion, leaves to its earlier professors the confusion of Calvinistic theology with the simpler faith in God as he is manifested in the individual soul. The logic of Quakerism establishes the Church universal, and demands a religion which embraces Jew, Pagan and Christian, and which cannot be limited by the dogmas of one or the other.  This seems to be arguing that the logical conclusion of Quaker belief is universalism (ie a single universal religion), rather than saying that individuals should be active members of the RSoF whilst also being active members of another specific religion.  Whilst I can sort of see that you could argue that the author might not be opposed to non-Christians within the RSoF, I think it is pretty flimsy evidence to assert that there were non-Christian Quakers all the way back in 1870 from this source. 92.40.254.10 (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I agree with your edit. I'm still uncomfortable with the language on controversy - while my own experience isn't a source, there's no source tied to that statement either, so I'm not sure what it's based on. I'd be happier with 'can be' controversial rather than is (it's not weasel words if it's true), or the addition of 'some' to liberal yearly meetings. If I have the time and spoons, I'll try and find a source that helps decide it one way or the other, but if we're sticking to WP:V we should remove the bit about controversy, as far as I can see it - and I don't think that's any more right than what's currently there (well, it'd be even more wrong in a sense, but they're both 'wrong' as I see it). SamBC(talk) 20:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * SamBC is correct in saying "this must have come up before". In previous years, Wikipedia users have had discussions on how to sensitively describe the relationship between Quakerism and Christianity in the opening paragraph.  Two links to consider are  and . It's inaccurate to describe the Society as a Christian denomination.  Mebden (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In what way is it inaccurate to describe the Society as a Christian denomination? All reliable sources that I can find, including the official publications of the so-called liberal yearly meetings appear to point to the fact that the Religious Society of Friends is a Christian denomination.  Can you show me any reliable sources that back up your assertion that it is not a Christian denomination? 92.40.253.128 (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A significant number of Quakers aren't Christians. Official literature from even some liberal meetings lags on this a little, because of a degree of conservatism inherent in the Quaker processes. I'll see what I can rustle up in my relevant books... I suspect Pink Dandelion might give some good clarity. Some Christian umbrella groups accept Quakers as generally Christian, some don't. SamBC(talk) 23:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * According to quakerfinder.org, a service of Friends General Conference:
 * "Are Quakers Christians? Not all of them. Quakerism has deep Christian roots, and most Quakers consider themselves Christian, but many do not. Quakers have always held that Christ as spirit is universally available, and has been at work since the beginning of creation. This 'universalist' perspective is especially strong in the unprogrammed branch of Quakerism. Unprogrammed meetings are often characterized by great theological diversity, while still experiencing profound spiritual community."
 * I don't know if that counts as "official literature," and it's certainly not a secondary source, but I think that's enough to convince me that it shouldn't be too tough to find some reliable sources which agree.--~TPW 04:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if it were correct that "a significant number" of Quakers are not Christian (and what definition of Quaker and Christian are you using?), this wouldn't mean that the Religious Society of Friends generally was not a Christian denomination - in the same way that I know many Anglicans who are not Christians, but most people would define Anglicanism as a Christian denomination, even if there are non-Christians who attend (or even officiate) at Anglican churches. Britain Yearly Meeting is a member of Churches Together in Britain and Ireland under a clause in their constitution which reads A church, which on principle has no credal statements in its tradition and therefore cannot formally subscribe to the statement of faith in the Basis, may nevertheless apply for and be elected to full membership provided that it satisfies those member churches which subscribe to the Basis that it manifests faith in Christ as witnessed to in the Scriptures and is committed to the aims and purposes* of the new ecumenical body, and that it will work in the spirit of the Basis.  The Basis that Britain Yearly Meeting in session agreed that it works is thus The Council of Churches for Britain and Ireland is a fellowship of churches in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland which confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour according to the Scriptures and therefore seek to fulfil their common calling to the glory of the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  Therefore Quakers in Britain collectively both see themselves as Christian and are officially recognised as Christian by the vast majority of other protestant churches in the UK.  There are one or two fringe groups who do not consider Quakers to be Christians but generally these are fringe groups who use a very narrow definition of Christianity which excludes the vast majority of groups generally considered to be Christian.  My experience of people who believe Quakers are not Christians are generally people who have a very narrow view of what constitutes Christianity.92.40.254.84 (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The opening sentence is inaccurate in the following way. By your own data (see above), somewhere below 14% of Quakers (we have no better figure than this yet) would take issue with the opening sentence as is.  This number is too high.  To put it in perspective, when the article on Shirt begins baldly with "A shirt is a cloth garment for the upper body", the number of dissenters - while surely nonzero - is negligible.  Currently, we can say this with significantly more confidence than we can for the Quaker counterpart.  There exists stronger material for the opening paragraph (see the rich discussion in the two links above).  I won't disagree with you that YMs can "appear to point to" certain things; however, in Quaker Faith and Practice, Britain Yearly Meeting sensitively substitutes other terms for "denomination".  Mebden (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've rewritten the opening paragraph slightly. I substituted 'movement' for denomination since the latter implies a single unified group.  I added non-theistic to the list of theological positions; I also suspect that some Quakers probably think that being Christian and non-theist is not contradictory.   The Pew Forum has found in its surveys that other Christian denominations in the US at least also have non-theists (also see the Sea of Faith in Britain) so the Quakers are different only in that some are open and some yearly meetings don't disown them. Historically it is Christian and I think all yearly meetings would still consider themselves Christian some fervently so (with a few accepting that some members are not)--Erp (talk) 06:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * So the only evidence for the statement that the Religious Society of Friends is not a Christian denomination is that Britain Yearly Meeting does not use the word denomination in their book which sets out what it means to be a Quaker in that YM - in a book entitled Quaker Faith and Practice: the book of Christian discipline of the Religious Society of Friends in Britain (and which, incidentally until 18 years ago was known as Church Government and Christian Faith and Practice)!? Whilst there may be individual Quakers in Britain who do not identify as Christian, the yearly meeting collectively certainly seems to be sending out strong messages that it sees itself as a Christian organisation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.169 (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're objecting to, as the edit in question doesn't remove 'Christian', just 'denomination'... SamBC(talk) 22:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm objecting to the statement that It's inaccurate to describe the Society as a Christian denomination - a statement which no-one appears to be able to find any reliable sources to back up. 92.40.254.169 (talk) 06:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Congregationalist polity?
The statement that Quakers have a "congregationalist polity" is incorrect. A "congregationalist polity" means that each congregation is independent of each other congregation. But this is not the Quaker tradition.

In the Quaker tradition, congregations (which are called "Meetings", at least by unprogrammed Quakers) are grouped together into larger units. In Great Britain, for example, local Meetings are grouped together into "Area Meetings", with each Area Meeting having authority over all the local Meetings in a particular area. All the Area Meetings are grouped into a yet larger unit called "Britain Yearly Meeting", which is the sovereign body, having authority over the Area Meetings.

Quakers in other parts of the world are organised in a broadly similar way, although the details will vary from place to place. The largest (and sovereign) unit is generally called a "Yearly Meeting". While Meetings that are not part of any larger body do exist (especially in parts of the world where there are very few Quakers), this is not the norm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.108.123 (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the idea that the larger groupings have 'authority' would be generally accepted, at least in Britain. Local Meetings voluntary work together to form Area Meetings, that voluntarily combine to form Britain Yearly Meeting. They aren't actually 'components', at least in a legal sense, though in some areas Local Meetings do legally delegate their property and other 'risky' things to Area Meetings. Those terms are, of course, a recent aberration of BYM, the rest of the English-speaking (and some not) Liberal Quaker world largely sticking to the traditional 'Monthly' for the level smaller than Yearly - I'm not sure if the old term we had here, 'Preparatory', instead of Local, was used much elsewhere. In any case, the point is that Meetings are independent and voluntarily combine. They can (and have) broken away from larger groups over a number of issues, sometimes one at a time, sometimes in large schisms (at several points in North America, for instance). SamBC(talk) 22:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been giving this some more thought ... it's far from being black and white.


 * Looking at Britain, it's true that Local Meetings have a large amount of autonomy ... but all the same, "Quaker Faith and Practice" describes Local Meetings as "subordinate" to Area Meetings (QF&P 4.32). Area Meetings are responsible for such important issues as admitting new members (QF&P 4.15) and eldership and oversight (QF&P 12.06).  Yearly Meeting, meanwhile, is described as "the final constitutional authority" (QF&P 6.12), and as "the body with ultimate authority for church affairs" (QF&P 8.01).  This is not congregationalism -- this is a single, united organisation, with different kinds of decision being made at different "levels" within the organisation.


 * However, I realise that elsewhere in the Quaker world, things may look very different. In the U.S.A., for example, the larger local Meetings (called, as you say, by the more traditional name of "Monthly Meetings") generally have more independence than Local Meetings in Britain, and deal with such matters as membership, eldership and oversight internally.  Monthly Meetings in the U.S.A. are generally grouped into Yearly Meetings -- but the latter tend to be defined as much by theology as by geography, and it is not unheard of for a Monthly Meeting to break away entirely from its Yearly Meeting, and run itself independently (and that would be unheard of in Britain).  So, whatever the legal or theological position may be, in practical terms American Quakers are closer to congregationalism than British Quakers.


 * I don't know about Quakers in other countries....


 * --86.174.108.123 (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Monthly and other Meetings have broken ties with the YM in Britain before now, and I believe some meetings (theologically distinct) have sprung up without any association with BYM. I don't know about recent history, but I think some of the older history is right here in this article. SamBC(talk) 09:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization of yearly meeting
The article is not consistent in the capitalization of "yearly meeting." In general I favor fewer capitalized words, but I don't know when this should be considered a proper noun and when it shouldn't.--~TPW 20:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It is a proper noun in official names and almost all yearly meetings are 'Location' Yearly Meeting (e.g., Pacific Yearly Meeting, Ohio Yearly Meeting, Britain Yearly Meeting). Things like Hicksite and Beanite are adjectives describing the orientation of a yearly meeting.  Note that Britain Yearly Meeting use to be London Yearly Meeting and we might want to be wary of anachronistic use of the former.  I fixed one section. --Erp (talk) 05:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Specific YMs are organisations, and the words "Yearly Meeting" are part of the organisation's name, so should absolutely be capitalised. I am fairly sure that it's standard usage to capitalise "Yearly Meeting" when used on its own to refer to a specific YM (such as in Minutes from a constituent meeting), or to refer to the event of the meeting itself. I'm less sure about capitalisation when referring to the general concept, or when writing about YMs in general - I think I've seen both styles used a fair amount. I am certain that I've seen Quaker writings use the capitalisation in general, when referring to YMs in general (such as saying that "two delegates will be invited from each Yearly Meeting or equivalent group", to make up an example of the sort). I am fairly sure I've also seen them not capitalise in those cases. Not sure how it would stand in regards to the Wikipedia MOS. SamBC(talk) 21:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the relevant section is MOSCAPS. With the clarifications by Erp and Sambc, it seems clear that the full name of one is capitalizes, e.g. Ohio Yearly Meeting, but referring to the institution generally is not.  I recommend eliminating capitalization for all instances that are not part of a particular yearly meeting's formal name.--~TPW 21:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this distinction is relevant (I.E., whether it actually occurs), but the MOS seems ambiguous on the case of references to a particular institution that do not use the full name. I would suggest the "Yearly Meeting" should remain capitalised in cases where it is referring to a specific meeting identified by context. Hopefully, that won't occur. Also, I assume that capitalisation in any quotes will be taken from the source, rather than tweaked to fit our MoS. SamBC(talk) 12:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree that quotes are quotes. I think I resolved the ambiguity internally with my journalist training; my editors expect, for example, that "Memphis Board of Education" is capitalized, but any shortened references to that same body (e.g., "the board of education" or "the board") are not.  Capitalizing a short form makes it harder to distinguish which formal body is being referred to; in that case, the full name is a better choice.--~TPW 13:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Upon rereading the relevant section, specifically:

However, the words for types of institutions (church, university, college, hospital, high school, bank, etc.) do not require capitalization if they do not appear in a proper name.
 * . . . I think it is quite clear. Yearly meeting is a type of institution.  The phrase should only be capitalized when it is in the proper name, e.g., Ohio Yearly Meeting.  How is this ambiguous?--~TPW 13:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Quaker terminology
What happened to the section on 'Quaker terminology'? The 'Quaker terminology' link in the article on 'Clerk (Quaker)' links to the main article, but there is no explanation in the main article as there used to be. 'Quaker speak' may qualify as a separate article. MaxHund (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, a section would be easy to source. We'd need multiple sources specifically addressing terminology to justify a separate article, and the requirement for them to be independent may be interpreted as the sources not being published by or otherwise originating from any Quaker organisation. When I have fewer more important things to do ("real life" stuff), I may dig out my F&P and use it to source a terminology section if one is completely lacking. SamBC(talk) 10:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Slavery
"Some Quakers in America became well known for their involvement in the abolition of slavery." seems to me a rather inadequate statement. Vernon White '''. . . Talk''' 02:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In what way? I think this statement (1) explains that some Quakers have been promiently involved in the abolition of slavery in America (2) implies that not all Quakers at the time supported this (3) is fairly brief rather than a detailed discussion of Quakers' involvement in slavery and its abolition - bearing in mind that the history section is just a brief overview, with anyone who wants to find out more having the opportunity to visit History of the Religious Society of Friends which has more on this topic.
 * The only other options would be to (1) not mention any Quakers' involvement in abolishing slavery - which would be inadequate as it is something Quakers are well known for by the general public (2) implying that the Quaker movement generally supported the abolition of slavery (which would be factually inaccurate - many Friends who supported slavery such as Benjamin Lay were not supported by the majority of other Friends at the time (3) have a long and detailed account of Friends involvement in the slave trade and its abolition and the varying views of different Quakers to this - whilst this would be the most accurate option it would not be appropriate for this article given the history overview is already probably a bit too long. 92.40.253.110 (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What about British Quakers? For instance the Edmund Sturge, and his brothers, who were deeply concerned about the well-being of liberated slaves? Vernon White  . . . Talk 10:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Number of Evangelical Friends
The source cited states "These represent 40% of the world Quaker membership, but that is an underestimate, as many evangelical Quaker Churches do not affiliate to the Friends World Committee for Consultation.". Are there any better sources? "At least 40%", would seem to be an understatement. Vernon White '''. . . Talk''' 09:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Systemic bias towards liberal Quakerism
It seems that the edits made today have been to try to eliminate references to evangelical, pastoral and conservative Friends in the lead, and present the whole of the Religious Society of Friends as if the whole Society were liberal/FGC. This is a general page about the WHOLE of the Religious Society of Friends - of whom at least 40% are evangelical, around 50% are pastoral/FUM and only around 11% are liberal (and of these a smaller percentage universalist). The page and the lead should present a balanced point of view which includes recognition that the large majority of Friends worldwide would describe themselves as Christians, or would use terms such as Friends Church to describe their organisation. There is a systemic bias in that many Wikipedia editors are white, affluent, young people from developed countries, who are therefore much more likely to be universalist Quakers than the majority of Friends in the world, so there is a tendency to present the WHOLE of the Society as their experience of their liberal/universalist meeting. 94.197.127.211 (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedic article, not an article that should be biased toward anyone. Because Quakers are so diverse, it is disingenuous to assert that it is, today, an international Christian movement. This page shows a bias toward Christianity, which is not appropriate. Neutrality highly questioned. Georgenancy (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This article should not be biased. There also should be no original research and edits should be based on reliable sources.  There seem to be plenty of reliable sources backing up the idea that most Quaker Yearly Meetings are Christian organizations.  By removing all references to evangelical branches of the Religious Society of Friends and the Friends Church this is introducing significant bias towards a minority universalist view.  Yes, the fact that there are some universalist Quakers should be mentioned but it should also be mentioned that most Quakers worldwide would not subscribe to this view. 92.40.254.102 (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The items you mention have not been removed, but they are not appropriate for a lead paragraph. Georgenancy (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not? 94.197.127.130 (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly the article should not be biased, although that is more easily said than achieved. For a complex subject such as this, covering many aspects of the Religious Society of Friends, various sources are required. As you've said, original research must be avoided. In the end, the quality of the sources will be crucial to improving the article. Please read the policy on original research more carefully. I would draw your attention to WP:SYNTH, in particular. We should not be using a source to say anything other than what it says. I've reverted recent additions by 92.40.254.102 in which they use this source to try to support statements such as the following: "At least 40% of Friends regard Christ as their Lord and savior." The problem is that the source does not say this. Sunray (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality Questioned
This page should be edited by non-Quakers. Georgenancy (talk) 03:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Possibly; I'm not sure. But could you be more specific about the neutrality problems you see? Sunray (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As we see it, the fact that Quakers have definite, personal ideas rather than clear, factual information with which to edit the article. We hope to see a non-Quaker editor take on the page. Georgenancy (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You are saying that we need more reliable sources? Sunray (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that this article does need reliable sources. Much of the recent edits and reverts appear to be based purely on hearsay or original research rather than reliable sources. 94.197.127.130 (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not so. The reverts I've made are based on issues related to policies and guidelines. The citations being used are not adequate (I've explained one of the problems above). There are other problems related to the MoS. I would suggest that you slow down and read up on how to edit. Sunray (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources, yes. But it will take heavy-duty intellectual muscle power to discern the facts that make up the true picture of Quakerism. Beyond sources, this page needs an encyclopedic scholar of substance. Georgenancy (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that would be nice. How about a team of experienced WP editors as an alternative that we might put together fairly quickly. Sunray (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be ideal, given the alternatives. Georgenancy (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Women in early Quakerism
"Women's meetings were organized to involve women in modest, feminine pursuits, and Quaker men excluded them from church public concerns with which they had some powers and responsibilities, such as allocating poor relief and in ensuring that Quaker marriages could not be attacked as immoral." The above sentence implies that women were, and by implication are still now, treated as inferiors by Quaker men. This may or may not be true with the Evangelical movement but I don't think it's accurate for Liberal Friends. At some point, women's business meetings and men's business meetings became separate but equal, with separate entry doors in many unprogrammed meetings. Saylesville, RI Meeting has had two separate meeting rooms since 1742.

"Women were treated as severely as men by the authorities." Marmaduke Stephenson and one other man were hanged on Boston Common, while Mary Dyer was whipped and released to the custody of her husband William Dyer. She was given another chance to stop preaching, which she didn't take. This is an example of unequal punishment by the authorities. It's also an example of a Quaker woman preaching unto death. Paul Klinkman (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Priesthood of all believers
I have never heard of the "priesthood of all believers," and I am a birthright Quaker. 108.240.108.255 (talk) 02:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It might not be a term Friends use very much, but it is the appropriate theological term; while many say that Friends have no clergy, it is perhaps more accurate to say we have no laity - we are all 'priests' with full divine authority, etc etc. Even Evangelical Friends, with churches and pastors, only have pastors, not ordained priests (in general); they are paid to do a job, and it's generally accepted they have a calling or leading to do it, but they have no greater divine authority than any other person. SamBC(talk) 02:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous. 108.240.108.255 (talk) 02:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you saying the term is ridiculous, or my description of Quaker beliefs? SamBC(talk) 01:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your beliefs couldn't be more irrelevant. 108.240.108.255 (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Possibly true, but neither then it is relevant whether you have never heard of a term. By my reading though, Sambc was describing the beliefs of the organization, not his/her personal beliefs. Either way, a more construction response might be "what do reliable sources on the subject say?" VQuakr (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If I'd been talking about my own beliefs, that might be a reasonable point; as it is, it seems to be verging on the abusive. Responding to VQuakr - I imagine sources about the concept of Priesthood of all believers would be found on that page. I have certainly seen reliable sources relate that to (at least Liberal) Quaker belief and practice, but I don't have any to hand. SamBC(talk) 01:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you can't provide sources, the reference shouldn't be in the article. 108.240.108.255 (talk) 03:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How about some of the following - from a range of different countries and theological traditions within Quakerism, including some official publications by Quaker organisations and some external authorities writing about Quakers:
 * Quakers believe in the ‘priesthood of all believers’ (an idea that comes from the Bible, in I Peter ch 2 v 9) which means that all members have the responsibility to support the life of the meeting in the way that a priest would. Belgium and Luxembourg Monthly Meeting "'That of God' in everyone"
 * When early Friends affirmed the priesthood of all believers it was seen as an abolition of the clergy; in fact it is an abolition of the laity. Britain Yearly Meeting "Quaker Faith and Practice" 11:01
 * Other Christians may profess the priesthood of all believers, but still maintain a class of “hireling priests,” while we practice this universal priesthood. Crossroads Friends Meeting "What Do Conservative Friends Believe?"
 * Along with the leadership of pastors and elders we value the priesthood of all believers, the people of God who pray, worship, teach, discern, witness, bless, encourage, love, give and serve - Evangelical Friends Church Southwest, "About us - Friends' values"
 * We believe in the priesthood of all believers, each of whom may approach God directly without the aid of an ordained human priesthood. - Westfield Friends Church, "What we believe"
 * Friends believe strongly in the New Testament concept of the priesthood of all believers - Alaska Yearly Meeting "Handbook of Faith, Practice and Discipline" (page 22)
 * The priesthood of all believers is a foundation of our understanding of the church Britain Yearly Meeting "Quaker Faith and Practice" 27:35
 * Quakers believe in “the priesthood of all believers”. - Westminster Quaker Meeting
 * Among the primary religious tenets of early Friends were an emphasis on first-hand religious experience, and a belief in the priesthood of all believers, through which early Friends sought to effect a restoration of "primitive" Christianity Earlham School of Religion (a Quaker seminary)
 * The Society of Friends has no set creed, liturgy or sacraments, but derives from the Protestant tradition of: a belief in salvation by faith, the trinity, a priesthood of all believers and scripture as the sole spiritual authority University of Cumbria "Overview of World Religions"
 * There are no Quaker priests, because the Friends believe in "the priesthood of all believers" who have an equal responsibility to maintain the life of the movement. The Guardian "Guide to religions in the UK"
 * The doctrine of the high-priesthood of the Lord Jesus Christ and the priesthood of all believers, who offer spiritual sacrifices and have free access to God through Him, without the intervention of any human instrumentality whatsoever, lies next to the corner-stone of distinctive Quakerism. James Wood "THE DISTINGUISHING DOCTRINES OF THE RELIGIOUS SOCIETY OF FRIENDS: A lecture delivered at Twelfth Street Meeting House", Philadelphia, 1908
 * The seventeenth-century Quakers interpreted the Reformation doctrine of universal priesthood to mean, contrary to what both Lutherans and Calvinists asserted, that no ordained clergy was needed. MacPherson, RC, "Quakers in America: From Persecution through Toleration to Domination"
 * Believing that formal education was unnecessary, Fox emphasized the priesthood of all believers. People should sit in silence and allow the spirit of Christ to speak to them Ronald H. Fritze and William B. Robison, "George Fox" in "Historical Dictionary of Stuart England, 1603-1689" (page 202)
 * There are lots and lots of other references to this term in relation to Quakers, so hundreds of sources to choose from... this is a very widely used term, both within and without Quakerism to describe the basic Quaker belief... in fact it is so widely used that Britain Yearly Meeting list it as a "well loved phrase" Quaker Faith and Practice (their book of discipline) . In view of this I have reverted the edit to remove this from the opening paragraph, the justification for which seems to be based on original research Ceiriog (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

So add a reference or references after the statement. It is not a term that a non-invested reader will recognize, and it should include a citation. 108.240.108.255 (talk) 05:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Religious Society of Friends or Quakers? Title and lead need to be consistent
Last year, the title of this page was changed from Religious Society of Friends to Quakers. However, the lead still started "The Religious Society of Friends, or Friends Church is..." with only any mention of Quakers several sentences in. Overall I opposed the change of the name of the page from Religious Society of Friends to Quakers however the move was made anyway (see archived discussion further up the talk page). Therefore, as the change has been made, I edited the lead to reflect this so that it started "Quakers, or Friends are..." with the emphasis being on what Quakers are rather than on what the Religious Society of Friends is. This change was reverted by Georgenancy with the edit comment "Highly biased editing convoluted the information so that only insiders could appreciate it". We are therefore back to the state of a page that is titled Quakers being about the Religious Society of Friends in the lead. I would be quite happy for the name of the page to go back to Religious Society of Friends, but if we are sticking with a page entitled Quakers then the lead needs to start with explaining what Quakers are rather than what the Religious Society of Friends is. Ceiriog (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is explained early on, that Quaker is a common name. Again - this is not something Quakers should be quibbling about. We are too close to the subject, per Wikipedia policies. Georgenancy (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If Quakers is the WP:COMMONNAME then the first sentence should be describing what Quakers are and not what the Religious Society of Friends is. Quakers and Religious Society of Friends are not synonyms - Quakers (or Friends) refers to the people rather than Religious Society of Friends (or Friends Church) refers to the organisation/movement as a whole.Ceiriog (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Friend, me thinks thou should step back from this and let non-Quaker editors take over. Georgenancy (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no reason I can think of that Quakers should not edit this article, provided, of course, that they follow WP policies. Ceiriog's reading of policy and quidelines related to treatment of the article name is correct (see WP:LEADSENTENCE). Georgenancy has not provided adequate reason for reverting Ceiriog's edits, thus I agree with restoring them. Sunray (talk) 07:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy says that if we are close to the subject, we cannot edit a page. It's pretty simple. Georgenancy (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, close. But the nutshell summary of the policy goes like this:
 * "Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers. Do not write about these things unless you are certain that a neutral editor would agree that your edits improve Wikipedia."
 * Do you see the difference? I know dozens of editors who are proficient at dealing with their own POV and write brilliantly on subjects very close to them. I believe that the key is in truly understanding core policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:VER and the rules on editorial consensus. Sunray (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to continue to argue. It is clear that Quakers have been editing this page, and Quaker process does not lend itself to Wikipedia editing process, in my opinion. The differences in the way different Friends view Quakerism are so widely varied, that this page will never meet any kind of encyclopedic neutrality standards. Georgenancy (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that you are not going to argue. I was just trying to state some policy-related facts. Your comment: "... this page will ever meet..." doesn't sound like a very hopeful place to be. I am not a Quaker, but I have great respect for Quakers I know. I am sure that there are many who could edit here without bias. And in any case, it would not be possible to keep non-Quakers away. My experience is that a team of editors (perhaps, in this case, a small group of Quakers and non-Quakers) can make all the difference to an article. Are you able to control for your own POV? Sunray (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be disingenuous of me to say that I can "control for my own POV." For me and my meeting, Quakerism is universal, it is based behavior and not faith. There are many Quakers for whom the experience is something altogether different and very Christian, etc.. That's why I've dropped out. Georgenancy (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that knowing that you have a POV is a start. And knowing that you are not "in control" of it is also helpful. Beyond that, I think that it is important to listen to other editors and realize that there are many ways of viewing things. The best articles present all points of view in proportion to their prevalence (see WP:WEIGHT). Sunray (talk) 04:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

HUH???
"In the early days of the United States, there was doubt whether a marriage solemnized in that manner was entitled to legal recognition. Over the years each state set rules for the procedure. Most US states (except Pennsylvania) expect the marriage document to be signed by a single officiant (a priest, rabbi, minister, Justice of the Peace, etc.)."

OK. What do we do in PA???georgespelvin69 16:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)georgespelvin69 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgespelvin69 (talk • contribs) <!--Autosigned by SineBot--


 * GOOD QUESTION! Is anyone there??? ~

Friends' Church
The term Friends Church has been removed from the lead by Sunray and Georgenancy.

Friends' Church is what the Religious Society of Friends is standardly called both informally and officially within evangelical and some FUM circles. As is cited in the article evangelical Friends make up at least 40% of the worldwide membership, so are not a small or insignificant group. The wikipedia page Friends Church redirects to Quakers.

To give a selection of examples of the term Friends Church is used by evangelical Friends, where other Friends might use the term Religious Society of Friends - see these examples: the international organisation of evangelical Quakers is called Evangelical Friends Church International [www.evangelicalfriends.org], the umbrella group of Yearly Meetings in Kenya is called Friends Church Kenya. Whilst some Yearly Meetings are called "Xxxxx Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends" or equivalent as their formal name (eg Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) in Britain), some evangelical YMs' formal name is "Xxxx Yearly Meeting of Friends Church" (eg Western Yearly Meeting of Friends Church [www.westernym.net] and Rocky Mountain Yearly Meeting of the Friends Church [www.rmym.org]. Also, historically others were called similar names - eg what is now called Evangelical Friends Church Eastern Region [www.efcer.org] was formerly Ohio Yearly Meeting of the Friends Church.  The Faith and Practice used in Kenya is called Faith and Practice in the Friends Church.

For such a widespread and commonly used term I believe it has a place in the lead as an alternative to Religious Society of Friends. Ceiriog (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Again - "some" does not cut it. Neutrality is again at issue. Georgenancy (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not see a problem with including "Friends Church" in the lead sentence (my reverts were based on other problems). In fact, I do not have a problem with any of the edits Ceiriog made, which I thought were an improvement. These were reverted by Georgenancy and I cannot understand why. The edit summary by Georgenancy said that the edits were biased and only relevant to insiders. I don't understand that. I'm not an insider and they seemed factual and informative to me. Are they not factual? Sunray (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Georgenancy, can you point out what specific portion of WP:NPOV you feel is violated by including the alternate name "Friends Church" in the lede? I am having trouble understanding this one. VQuakr (talk) 03:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * All of these recent edits are biased and based on specific points of view, rather than verifiable facts. This is not encyclopedic, it is sloppy and amateurish. Georgenancy (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some competative editing taking place over the alternative names Friends' Church and Religious Society of Friends. I have attempted to modify the first sentence based on published sources (cited) and thus establish neutrality. However, another editor has subsequently altered the sentance to give a particular emphasis while also removing the supporting citations (with other citations moved, rendering them no longer relevant to the text). A qualitatively and quantitatively inaccurate/unsupported characterisation of the Religous Society of Friends has also been given in an edit summary. While it is understandable that amost any editor might give primacy to a particular strand of thought, it seems that greater effort might be made to properly achieve neutrality while also observing Wikipedia's "Do misrepresent other people" guidance. Futurepast63 (talk) 12:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Meeting Houses are not widely called Friends Churches. The terms are not interchangeable and that should not be stated or implied. Again - an objective scholar should write this article, if it is to have any integrity at all. Georgenancy (talk) 03:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * By the strictest of definitions, any statement must be based on a specific point of view. You say Meeting Houses are not called Friends' Churches, but another editor has produced a number of examples of groups of Quakers that refer to them selves in terms closely related to "Friends Church." Neutral is not defined by your say-so, and you have not identified what portion of WP:NPOV is being violated here. This is an encyclopedia edited by volunteers, judge edits by their content and not whether they are by "objective scholars." VQuakr (talk) 04:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, VQuakr, encyclopedia articles are NOT based on any point of view. They are a report of facts. You are obviously a Quaker, and therefore "close to the subject," which disqualifies you from editing this page. Georgenancy (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Georgenancy, according to your user profile you are "a couple of Quakers" so your criticisms of any Quakers editing this page seems highly hypocritical. No-one has linked meeting houses and Friends Churches - the opening statement, and my edits, stated that the Religious Society of Friends is also known as the Friends Church - it is the organisation that is known as the Friends Church, not the building/meeting house.  I can see no reason for this edit.  I have provided reliable sources which show that the term Friends Church is used in equivalent places to Religious Society of Friends by evangelical branches - yes it is only some Quakers who call it the Friends Church, but it is also only some Quakers who call it the Religious Society of Friends - it would be very non-neutral to use either term exclusively, which is why the WP:NPOV thing to do is to include both terms in the lead.  Can you provide any reliable sources to say that no Quakers use the term Friends Church? Ceiriog (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's not hypocritical, because I am admitting that I shouldn't be editing the page either. As far as "Friends Chuches" goes, the Meeting is a Meeting, not a Friends Church universally. Again - not something for Quakers to be deciding for an encyclopedia. Georgenancy (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Friends Church isn't a synonym for meeting - no-one is saying that it is. Friends Church is a term used to describe the Religious Society of Friends as a whole - neither terms are universal, so both should be used. Ceiriog (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

This isn't for us to decide. We are too close to the subject. Georgenancy (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Friends Church"?? What the hell is that? I've been a Quaker 38 years and I have never heard that term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.1.26.58 (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just do a Google search on the term. It is common enough to warrant mention. Sunray (talk) 06:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Now the opening paragraph is unrecognizable. This is a joke! Georgenancy (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This comment is not helpful. Please provide specifics. Sunray (talk) 06:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't heard the term "liberal Friends" used before. I've often heard the term "unprogrammed Friends". People should properly be called by what they name themselves, not by what other people call them for pejorative reasons, although the name "Quaker" itself was put upon the Friends of the Truth by the British authorities. The Unitarian Universalists are liberal. I can see a liberal flavor or strain within the body of unprogrammed Friends, but I equally see a deeply religious flavor, almost Pentecostal in its nature, flowing within the same group. Sometimes the two attributes are found within the same Friends.Paul Klinkman (talk) 02:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * the term 'unprogrammed' refers to a style of worship, whereas the term 'liberal' refers to a type of theology. The two are not always the same, and whilst all liberal Friends are unprogrammed, but not all unprogrammed Friends are liberal.  Conservative Friends (that is members of Ohio Yearly Meeting (Conservative), North Carolina Yearly Meeting (Conservative) or Iowa Yearly Meeting (Conservative) also practice unprogrammed worship, but do not subscribe to liberal Friends' theological views.  There are also some Gurneyite Friends who practice unprogrammed worship.  Liberal Friends tend to subscribe to a similar theology as other liberal Christians and these Friends tend to belong to the Friends General Conference YMs in the USA, or one of the European YMs.  The term is widely used, both by liberal Friends themselves and by others describing liberal Quakerism or describing Quakerism in general.  The term is, for example, widely used by the British Quaker academic Ben Pink Dandelion (who holds the chair in Quaker Studies at the University of Birmingham).  A Google search reveals hundreds of references to this term.  92.40.254.207 (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Quaker Women
To Whom it May Concern, I simply wanted to notify the larger Wikipedia community that within the next week or so, I will be augmenting some portions of the Quaker Wikipedia page, particularly focusing on Quaker women, which is what the majority of my research is in. I would love to have a dialogue with anyone who has critiques or changes to make to my additions.

Llt123 (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your contributions. Can you please provide better sourcing for the statements comparing the experience of women in Orthodox vs Hicksite meetings? Also, there appears to be a little too much repetition between the "Hicksite–Orthodox split" section and the "Role of women" section. VQuakr (talk) 01:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Small grammar issues
Now the page is semi-protected I, as someone who's never bothered to register, can't edit obviously but "However the dominant discourse of Protestantism.[18] viewed the Quakers as" has a period which does not belong there - can someone remove it? 83.84.138.87 (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Fatphil (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Bar charts too wide?
Is there any reason why all of the bar charts should be wide enough to fit Kenya's bar? The middle east and americas one look particularly ugly with all that whitespace squishing the real text of their relevant sections into a little column. Europe has its own max width, for example, and that looks a lot better. If no-one objects soon, I'll make them all behave the same way (with sensible individual widths). Fatphil (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

history stuff should be split off & put in a different place
I think more of this history stuff should be split off & put in a different place than on this main page. I think this page is too long. If it was placed on a few more pages, it would make it easier to refer to the various different parts of it. I think there is too much history on this page really. . EE 46.64.73.245 (talk) 12:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's "too much history" per se, but I do agree that it is too long, becoming unwieldy, and that it's time to start thinking about moving things to sub pages. Some of the history should of course remain here, but probably not all of it.Marteau (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * While you're re-organizing...


 * The Quaker Oats issue is [unfortunately] significant because of the omnipresence of the image. However, it seems badly located as the last paragraph in the Main Introduction.  Maybe it deserves its own section -- very far down towards the end of the article.


 * Also, since the image has been responsible for generations of misunderstanding Quakers as unusual and foreign, I don't think it would be unwarranted to suggest rewording the paragraph less diplomatically, i.e., "The well-known portrait found on the label of Quaker Oats, dating back to 4 September 1877, is not an image of any actual person, nor is it in any way connected to the Religious Society of Friends."


 * That does leave the question burning, "Is the image a complete figment of the imagination of an advertising agency done without any knowledge of the movement they chose to use for their own commercial purposes?"


 * There's a small can of worms.Nei1 (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Mary Dyer
As an early martyr for Quakerism, she absolutely should be included. (EBY)/98.227.225.222 (talk) 11:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Characterization of polity as congregational
I am aware that there tends to be a very strong relationship between Local Meetings and higher structures (e.g. Yearly Meetings). However, the defining characteristic of Congregational polity is that the control over doctrine and practice is local and participation in the larger structure is voluntary on the part of the local congregation. More conventional congregational churches can and do form elaborate superstructures above them and agree to harmonize their doctrines and worship structures; the clearest examples are probably the Baptist Conventions and the United Church of Christ. Quaker yearly meetings are a bit more tightly bound to each other than those, but nevertheless if a local meeting wishes to go its own way, there is no "Quaker canon law" that would put serious obstacles from doing so, as would occur if a Catholic or Anglican parish or even a local Presbyterian congregation did so (for a particularly contentious example of the latter, see Presbyterian Church in the U.S. v. Mary Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440 (1969). Lockesdonkey (talk) 03:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The Origins of the Term and the First usage of the Name " Quaker "
I was pondering whether I could find an authoritative reference for the first use of the term " Quaker," which I thought was going to be recorded in Bristol, but I thought that this reference to a " sect of women " in Southwarke sounded intriguing plausible as the source idea for Justice Bennet's sneer at Fox. Whilst I realise that there were a lot of women around who were being empowered by the circumstances of the civil wars, I then wondered about 16 year old Sarah Wight's prophecies of 1647 which were extremely popular and first published as ' Exceeding riches of grace advanced by the spirit of grace, in an empty nothing creature, viz. Mris Sarah Wight ' on 27 April 1647, second edition 27 September 1647, as described by Henry Jessey. She was a public spectacle and much noted for her astounding feat of what we might now worry about as a savage bout of anorexia [ see http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/69143 ] - and her fellow prophetess Anna Trapnell also had some strange behaviour too, and I suspect that they were more or less involved in what was a sort of religious circus side-show. They were teenage prophetesses of the laying still and looking pale sort whose behaviour was either quiet and ecstatic or loud and hysteric such as we now presently associate with ' Goths ' and ' Emos.' The publisher of Sarah Wight's book was the Fifth Monarchist and dangerously female printer Hannah Allen/Chapman [ http://www.oxforddnb.com/templates/article.jsp?articleid=57039&back= ]

It must be noted that George Fox seems to have been considered to be effeminate by some of the radically religious for his not cutting those long curly locks ... but then most of them were all dressed up in ribbons and lace themselves ! ( And just before I leave this to others, it is worth noting that by this time snippets of the Koran were being discussed and George Fox is recorded as having quoted a couple of passages from it : this tends to upset all those Quakers who are determined to make him as staunchly Christian as they are themselves ! )

From " The Beginnings of Quakerism " William C Braithwaite, published by MacMillan, London 1912.

page 57 - in text :

> 57 > " Before leaving the Derby imprisonment there is one last point to note. When examined before the magistrates Fox and his followers were called Quakers by Gervase Bennet, and the derisive name at once came into vogue. We find the word used as early as the year 1647, [ 1 - SEE SOURCE FOOTNOTE WHICH I QUOTE BELOW ] not of Friends, but of

... a sect of women ( they are at Southwark ) come from beyond sea, called Quakers, and these swell, shiver and shake, and, when they come to themselves, - for in all this fit Mahomet's Holy Ghost hath been conversing with them - they begin to preach what hath been delivered to them by the Spirit.

Fox says that Justice Bennett gave the nickname because Fox had bidden him tremble at the name of the Lord. [ 2 ] Barclay, on the other hand, tells us that the name came from the trembling of Friends under the powerful working of the Holy Ghost. [ 3 ] There is no real inconsistency between the two accounts. Fox gives the words of his own which led to Bennet's retort, but Barclay correctly states, as the 1647 extract shows, what must have been in Bennet's mind when he applied the scornful epithet to Fox. The name almost at once found its way into print in a tract > 58 > published in London early in 1652 called " The Pulpit Guarded with XVII Arguments " [ 1 ]

> 57 >

[ 1 ] Cited from Clarendon MSS. No 2624, per The Oxford English Dictionary, sub voce " Quaker." Tradition records that when questioned on the subject of inspiration Mohammed said that sometimes it affected him " like the ringing of a bell, penetrating my very heart, and rending me as it were in pieces." See Smith and Wace, Dict. of Christian Biography, iii. 963.

[ 2 ] Journ, i, 58. But in Great Mistery, pp,61, 110, he accepts the word as meaning " tremblers," saying that Bennet first gave the name, " though the mighty power of the Lord God had been known years before," and " quaking and trembling we own, though they in scorn calls us so." In the Cambridge Journ, i. 5-8 there is a strongly-worded letter from Fox to Bennet as " given up to misname the saints." Ct. past. p.119.

[ 3 ] Apology, prop. 11, sect. 8, cf. Wm Penn, Serious Apology, 1672, p.12.

> 58 >

[ 1 ] P. 15, " We have many sects now abroad, Ranter[s], Seekers, Shakers, Quakers, and now Creepers " ; Cf. Alex. Gordon in J.F.H.S. ii. 70. The preface is dated Jan 1, 1651, that is, 1652 New Style. DaiSaw (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

William Penn's treaty with the Lenape Indians
It's incorrect to state that the treaty was never violated. See the 18th century history section of the article on the Lenape Indians. It clearly states, "In the end, all Lenape who still lived on the Delaware were driven off the remnants of their homeland under threats of violence. Some Lenape polities eventually retaliated by attacking Pennsylvania settlements." Darx9url (talk) 04:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that your example shows a Penn's Treaty being broken.


 * First, some basics; to say that a treaty was broken, it has to be the same parties and the same treaty. Clearly if Alice and Bob agree that Bob will buy lunch for both on Tuesday, Eve cannot violate that agreement. Likewise, if Alice and Bob agree that Bob will buy lunch for both on Tuesday and later agree that Bob will buy lunch for both on Thursday, Bob not showing up on Thursday does not constitute a violation of the lunch-on-tuesday agreement.


 * Now consider this scenario: Alice and Bob agree that Bob will buy lunch for both on Tuesday, and at the same time discuss lunch on Thursday without coming to any agreement. Lunch on Tuesday goes as planned, but on Wednesday Bob claims that they had an agreement for Thursday, with "they" being defined as "Bob and Eve". Eve disagrees and calls the agreement a fraud, and they come to blows over it. Does this constitute a violation of the Bob-and-Alice lunch-on-Tuesday agreement? No. That agreement was never broken. This new agreement is (at least according to Bob) a Bob-and-Eve lunch-on-Thursday agreement. According to Eve it isn't an agreement at all.


 * Penn's Treaty (1683) consisted of an agreement with the government of the Pensylvania colony with the Lenape polities in the lower Delaware. There was discussion about land further north, but that land did not belong to the polities that Penn was negotiating the treaty with, and thus there was no agreement.


 * The Walking Treaty (1737) was a purported treaty between Penn's descendants and the Lenape polities in the upper Delaware. Penn's descendants claimed it to be part of Penn's Treaty (1683), but it concerned a different tract of land and a different set of Lenape polities (I say "claimed" because it was almost certainly a fraud and a forgery).


 * This distinction can be clearly seen in our Lenape article. Under "17th Century" it says "His new colony effectively displaced many Lenape" (displaced from the lower Delaware river), and under "18th Century" it says "In the end, all Lenape who still lived on the Delaware were driven off the remnants of their homeland under threats of violence" (displaced from the upper Delaware river). Not the same parties. Not the same land, Not the same treaty.


 * None of this should be viewed as minimizing the very real fact that the Lenape, like so many other indigenous people around the globe, were treated unjustly. --Guy Macon (talk)


 * The treaty was verbal and so we will never know exactly what it states, but it apparently was a treaty of peacefully mutual coxistence between the white settlers in Pennsylvania and the natives of the area. The Lenape indians were driven off their land (from both lower and upper Delaware) by Penn's decendents, ipso facto, the treaty was violated. If we follow your rule that because the original participants have died, the treaty was never broken, then nations would be free to ignore treaties once the original negotiators died. This implies that treaties are specific people, for themselves alone. That doesn't seem reasonable. Darx9url (talk) 10:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not claiming anything about the original parties dying (which would come into play if it was an agreement between individuals; my children are not bound by any agreement I make with you). William Penn, as leader of the Pennsylvania colony, entered into an agreement that was binding on his heirs, who were later leaders of the Pennsylvania colony.


 * The issue is who the other party was. In the above you wrote "...a treaty of peacefully mutual coexistence between the white settlers in Pennsylvania and the natives of the area." Why did you specify the white settlers in Pennsylvania? Why not Virginia? You wouldn't consider a treaty made by Penn to be binding on the government of the Virginia colony, would you? Or that something the Colony of Virginia did would be a violation of Penn's treaty? Then why do you think that an agreement with one Lenape polity is binding upon another or that something done to that second polity breaks a treaty with the first? Just as it was impossible at the time to make a treaty with "the English settlers on the east coast of North America", likewise it was impossible to make a treaty with "the Lanape" -- because neither had any sort of centralized government. You had to make treaties with individual English colonies and with individual Lanape polities.


 * When Penn was negotiating his treaty, The Lanape of the lower Delaware river refused to enter into any negotiation concerning land owned by the Lanape of the upper Delaware river, for the same reason the government of the Pennsylvania colony would have refused to enter into any negotiation concerning land owned by the Virginia colony.


 * To say that a land treaty was broken, it has to be between the same parties and the same land. In this case, the land was different and one of the parties was different. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * From what I've read, historians don't know any details about the treaty, so to claim as you do that the Walking Treaty disposed a different group of people is claiming too much. In any case, even if that were true, if as you claim the treaty was never broken, then there would still be a Lenape tribal polity controlling a large area of the state of Pennslyvania today, which is not true. Where today are the tribes that Penn made the treaty with? They're no longer in Pennslyvania, so either they were a) offered a better situation elsewhere and left voluntarily, b) forcibly displaced. Given the history of the US with the Native Americans, which do you think is the most likely?
 * Also, I've seen various sources that give various dates for how long the treaty lasted. According to the Penn Treaty Museum website, the treaty was broken by the Penn’s Creek Massacre of October 16, 1755. Darx9url (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about the Penn's Creek Massaccre, but I do know something about the 2 Paxton Boys massacres (1st on December 14, 1763). There's no question that Pennsylvanians were violently pushing out Native Americans, including the Lenape. You might even call it "ethnic cleansing". As an aside, after the 1st massacre some folks claimed that a copy of an old treaty, perhaps even THE old treaty, was found among the Conestoga's possessions (which really doesn't make a lot of sense). But there is a difference between Pennsylvanians, the Proprietorship of Pennsylvania, the heirs of Penn (who were Church of England folks), and Quakers. So the question of "who signed" the oral treaty appears on both sides. If I may paraphrase a 20th century saying "An oral treaty isn't worth the deerskin it's printed on." BTW, the"rule" of Quakers only lasted until about 1710, and just before the French and Indian Wars they all dropped out of the colony's government (until the war was over).

In short - it's an overstatement by Voltaire - but if you use a 1710 ending date, there wasn't too much breaking of the oral treaty. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 17:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * We really do need to use an ending date, although one can argue as to which date to use. As popular as the idea of treaties staying in effect after a complete change of government is (you hear it a lot in reference to Crimea, Palestine, and other disputed areas), it really does not hold up as a general rule. Is the US government bound by treaties made by the confederacy? Does the that fact that Cottbus is no longer part of Prussia imply that the Kingdom of Saxony broke the Treaties of Tilsit when Cottbus was taken by the Red Army in 1945? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * First, we shouldn't be doing original research. I'm not familiar with the issue but I believe the story is that Voltaire was commenting on a painting by Benjamin West. That needs to be cited. Second, the concept of the treaty is imaginary. The point is that (generally speaking) the Quakers as a people were fair to the natives and Voltaire said as much in response to the painting. The discussion here should be about the popular impression of how the Quakers acted, not the supposed machinations of various white peoples living in Pennsylvania. In closing, I would ask the journalists to leave this to the historians.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 03:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Voltaire was not a historian of the Lenape and was entitled to be mistaken. That he mentioned the topic is interesting and relevant but shouldn't influence how we deal with the events. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Exactly. We could say that 'Voltaire (who was some French writer) believed that the Quakers were ok and he commented...' rather than say 'the Quakers never broke a treaty (cite Voltaire)'. It's interesting and perhaps ought to be mentioned (although that's tangential to this article, better left on the William Penn article) but in its proper context.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 13:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Darx9url claims that the Walking purchase broke Penn's Treaty. I claim that the Walking purchase was of a different piece of land with a different Lanape polity and thus did not break Penn's Treaty. Voltaire's opinion is certainly interesting, but Darx9url and I are making our best good-faith effort to follow the best sources we have on the history of the region. Which of us is right? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't put much faith in what Voltaire said, or thought or belived. As Itsmejudith said, quite correctly Voltaire was not a historian. He was a philosopher who had the ambition of creating the first encyclopaedia and many of his texts are rather incorrect and confusing, and original research, too. Also he said quite a lot of things about quite a lot of topics he had no idea about. I would regard Voliaire's remarks as unreliable. Hafspajen (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It isn't just Voltaire who made the claim.


 * "The Quakers are your friends" said Black beaver of the Delawares in 1872. "Their fathers and ours bound themselves to be friends forever. Their treaty was never broken" -- Native Peoples - A to Z: A Reference Guide to Native Peoples of the Western Hemisphere, published by by Native American Book Publishers Volume 8.,Page 307


 * "Pennsylvania's Indian relations were therefore peaceful as long as Penn and the Quakers were in command, and deteriorated rapidly thereafter." -- William Penn’s Experiment in Race Relations by Thomas E. Drake (1944) Page 385


 * "I have been entrusted by my people with the responsibility of defending their rights and protecting their interests; and in discharging my trust as best I could or preparing myself for the duties required thereby, I have reviewed the history of many past events relating to them and their dealings, and not one have I ever found that was a discredit to them; neither have I found any cause to know why I, myself, should not be proud that I am a Delaware Indian." ... "The treaty was ratified with all due solemnity and is known to this day as the treaty that never was sworn to and never was broken." --- A Brief History of the Delaware Indians by Richard Calmit Adams, Page 12 (1906)  :Also see:


 * Is there any reliable third party source that claims that Penn's treaty was broken? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't know. Hafspajen (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * According to the Penn Treaty Museum website, the treaty was broken by the Penn’s Creek Massacre of October 16, 1755. Darx9url (talk) 06:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, The Penn Treaty Museum website says that someone else said it was broken, The exact quote is:


 * "And in March, 1722, the Colonial Authorities, sending a message to the Senecas, said: “William Penn made a firm peace and league with the Indians in these parts near forty years ago, which league has often been repeated and never broken. In fact the “Great Treaty” was never broken until the Penn’s Creek Massacre of October 16, 1755.”"


 * Let's ignore the fact that according to the above the Colonial Authorities appear to have had the ability to see into the future.


 * Let us also ignore the fact that you quietly shifted your alleged treaty violation from 54 years later on a different part of the river to 72 years later and halfway across the state.


 * Let us even ignore the fact that now you are saying that the Delaware broke the treaty, not the Pennsylvania government. And the fact that this new alleged treaty breaking was in the middle of the French and Indian War.


 * The real problem is one of sourcing. Your source is a museum website written by Studio Z Web Design. My sources are the words of actual historians and the words of a legal representative the Delaware, who was himself a Delaware. And Voltaire, of course; he isn't the most reliable source in the world, but I will take him over Studio Z Web Design any day. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You are gravely misreading the source, which brings into question your ability to accurately judge sources. According to the website, which is a publication of the museum, the historian Jenkins wrote in Pennsylvania, Colonial and Federal that "the 'Great Treaty' was never broken until the Penn’s Creek Massacre of October 16, 1755." A bit of googling finds that it's likely this book: Pennsylvania, colonial and federal : a history, 1608-1903 by Howard Malcolm Jenkins. This is a reliable source. You claim that your claim that the treaty was never broken is backed by historians, but I have yet to see a source that's not a quote from an earlier figure, but rather a statement from a modern historian (20th century or later), that makes the claim that the treaty was never broken. If you have one, please produce it. Darx9url (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The two of you need to give it a rest. Based on the facts presented, there has been no consensus of academic sources to agree whether the treaty was or was not violated. Since that's the case, Wikipedia should not attempt a determination, as that would be synthesis/original research. I recommend the both of you leave this article alone. Let's leave out the "treaty was never violated" statement. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 15:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not the one pushing this. I just don't want this article to contain a statement that's obviously untrue. I agree with you that we should leave it out. If this statement should be anywhere, it should be in the article on William Penn, or the Lenape indians. It isn't there, and it shouldn't be here. Darx9url (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Guy Macon is correct, Voltaire never said it. Got only one source for claiming that he said, but we need more. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "Penn set sail for his new dominions with two ships freighted with Quakers, who followed his fortune. The country was then called Pennsylvania from William Penn, who there founded Philadelphia, now the most flourishing city in that country.  The first step he took was to enter into an alliance with his American neighbours, and this is the only treaty between those people and the Christians that was not ratified by an oath, and was never infringed." -- Voltaire


 * Source: Letters on England by Voltaire, transcribed from the 1894 Cassell & Co. edition by Project Gutenberg. [ http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2445/2445-h/2445-h.htm ] Also see [ http://www.bartleby.com/34/2/4.html ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

How many Evangelical Quakers are there?
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)
 * The source seems clear.
 * "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..." http://www.quaker.org.uk/files/ymg-2009-epistles-and-testimonies.pdf page 5 continuing onto page 6).
 * The only occurrence of ".03%" on the source is
 * "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)
 * This is clearly a misreading of the source I'll be bold and change it to "at least 40%". — Preceding unsigned comment added by NisJørgensen (talk • contribs)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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:
 * http://www.fwccworld.org/kinds.html (the embedded image gives the percentages)
 * 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 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)

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)

World Council of Churches
Quakers at large, FWCC, is not a member of WCC. Three groups are listed as members of WCC (see list): Therefore this page cannot be taged with the Category:Members of the World Council of Churches --MHM (talk) 07:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Friends General Conference
 * Friends United Meeting
 * Canadian Yearly Meeting

Types of 'worship'
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)

Recent edits by Pablo.paz
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. &mdash; 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)

Merger proposal
I found Quaker music while new page feed patrolling, and decide to see if there was any consensus in merging that article here. --I dream of horses (T) @ 06:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This page is pretty long already, and the Quaker music page is not small. So, I think no. Darx9url (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Quaker shunning or being read out of meeting
The article on Excommunication discusses the general concept of banning or shunning and has sections for the variety of this exclusionary practice among various religions including Quaker excommunication which it identifies as being "read out of meeting". However the Quaker article does not, and this seems like an oversight. In fact, there is nothing about this at all with the exception of one comment about "Quakers gone bad" being "branded a heretic" and "read out of meeting" in Talk/Archive 4.

If there is such a thing, can someone knowledgeable about this add a subsection or paragraph about this somewhere? Mathglot (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2014‎  Hmm, that's interesting, my tilde-sig to the left seems to have had its timestamp omitted. I've edited it back in.Mathglot (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Friend never practiced shunning as in some Anabaptist groups. People were read out of meeting for behavior that did not reflect Quaker practice, but it was a matter of revoking membership, not cutting ties. They could still attend and not cut off from friends or family. This is a long article, and I don't see reason to add it. 2605:A000:1313:4006:8816:5058:E141:62B6 (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Percentage of Quakers who consider themselves Christian
The lead says "Many Friends view themselves as members of a Christian denomination." I would think that most Friends view themselves as members of a Christian denomination. Any objection to changing this? Anyone have a good source on what percentage of Friends do not consider themselves members of a Christian denomination? Darx9url (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. The word should be "most" and is common knowledge. Marteau (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The "many" reflects a generally FGC perspective of this article, though even there a significant percentage would acknowledge Christian roots. But the vast majority of Friends world wide are part of FUM, and clearly Christian. 2605:A000:1313:4006:8816:5058:E141:62B6 (talk) 02:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Quakers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080131215748/http://www.nwfriends.org:80/what-friends-believe/historical-statement/ to http://www.nwfriends.org/what-friends-believe/historical-statement/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 15:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Spelling and punctuation style
The page is an uneasy mixture of US and UK at present. Which should it be? Bmcln1 (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

That will be a matter of Wkipedia policy, I should imagine hypotaxis (talk) 10:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The earliest version of the article used AmE, so per WP:ENGVAR, that's the one that should be used. Bazonka (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * With their English origins it should be in English. I'd have thought so anyway. What does the Mormon article use? GaryGill (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

the Quakers: Good People who happened to be christian. Not the other way around!
This passes for an enclopedia entry? Wikipedia is a horrible source on quakers. Whoever is maintaining this should be ashamed. There are so many better sources.

IT seems that whoever is trying to "maintain" this entry focuses entirely on the religious aspects to the Quakers. History.com shows this to be a feeble and weak view of the Quakers.

THe fact that the Quakers were the first abolitionists in the country wasn't even mentioned int he article. To name just one defect in the article. Thank goodness there are many sources that bring to light the enormous accomplishments of the Quakers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:304:6450:6DCD:3FDA:AEFC:51C8 (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Have you read the article? The section titled "Friends and Slavery" is about their contributions to the abolition movement. Mediatech492 (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The Quakers would be the first to admit that not all have been good. I'm also not sure which "The country" you mean.   In the US (or what was to be the US) the first abolitionists were Mennonites in 1688 in Pennsylvania though a few Quakers soon took up the issue.  It took many decades to get anywhere even among the Quakers (though even longer among most non-Quakers).   In the UK it also took a while and with mixed beginnings though the Quakers were I think the first denomination to support abolition and were/are fervent in supporting it. I note this article does cover abolitionism but the main info is elsewhere as it should be.  --Erp (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

David Yount's book "How the Quakers Invented America"
https://www.c-span.org/video/?202202-17/quakers-invented-America


 * a good 5-minute interview with the author on C-Span, probably worth including. Mr. Yount himself is a Quaker.  FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

"religious" sometimes superfluous
Some passages use the word "religious" where it is not necessary. For example "... a direct religious belief in the universal priesthood of all believers.[14] They emphasized a personal and direct religious experience of Christ, acquired through both direct religious experience and the reading and studying of the Bible." The word "Christian" is also scattered in odd places, such as in the section on Conservative Quakers "retaining Christian Quakers who use the plain language" as if those who didn't were not.

"Simplicity" deserves a section of its own, with sections on plain dress, plain speech and simplicity in the home --Hugh7 (talk) 07:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Worship
Quaker worship services are called "meetings for worship". They start with everybody sitting quietly. This is because they are trying to listen to God. Sometimes, a Quaker will feel that God wants him or her to say something. When this happens, the person stands up and tells everyone. Then they all sit quietly again. At some meetings, a many people will speak. At other meetings, nobody speaks. Quakers feel that a meeting for worship helps them to understand what God wants. Usually, worship lasts about an hour.

Anyone can go to a Quaker meeting.

Quakers also have meetings for worship for weddings and funerals -- when two people get married, or if someone dies. When two people get married, the meeting is about them and the life that they will live together. When someone has died, the meeting is about remembering things about the person and the life they had.

Many Quakers in North America, South America, and Africa have a different kind of worship service, like other Christian services. They sing hymns and a pastor gives a sermon. They also have a quiet time, but it does not last as long. These Quakers often have strong Christian beliefs.

and at other times these meetings also decide what Quakers should do - these meetings can be called "meetings for business", but other people call them "meetings for worship for business", because they include parts of both worship and business.

deisenbe (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Article Name Change
The recent change in article name was done inappropriately. Correct procedure is to open a discussion and get a consensus before making such a major change. This was not done. Furthermore, the proposed name "The Religious Society of Friends of the Truth" is a historical term that is not in common use with any modern Quaker groups. The majority of Quaker meetings use the formal name "Society of Friends", but this is not consistent across all Quaker groups. This article name change seems to be an act of WP:OR. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed. This name seems to be a distant fourth best title after "Quakers", per WP:COMMONNAME (which is also a name that they use themselves and clearly do not object to), "Religious Society of Friends" (which is what most of their websites seem to use as their main title), "Society of Friends" (which some of their other websites seem to use). I think it should be changed back. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Moved back. Please discuss any future move beforehand. Jonathunder (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I have also reverted the lead section to match. That does not mean that the name "The Religious Society of Friends of the Truth‎" can not be included at all. Provided that there is a good reference for it, it can be added as one of the alternative names. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

"Division"/"Branch"/"Meeting" discussions currently confuse reader
This article's "tree [splitting/schism] diagram" (titled "Divisions of the Religious Society of Friends") refers to 5 "divisions" of the Quakers/Friends. The "Theology" section of this article describes 7 branches, via 7 subsections - one for each. The companion article Friends United Meeting refers to 6 "branches". Discussions in both articles sometimes refer to a branch by its "name" and other times by the "name of its meeting", and the connection between the two is not obvious. All of this confuses the naive reader, such as myself. (I get the impression, possibly mistaken, that in some cases a particular "yearly meeting" or particular "5-year meeting" might not necessarily be congruent with any particular branch. But nowhere in either article is this explained.)

Perhaps a Venn diagram would better show the relationships between different groups better than the current, possibly overly-simplistic, "tree [splitting/schism] diagram" does. Alternatively, a more complex "tree diagram", similar those in the Christian denomination article & section might be more explanatory. Acwilson9 (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Content dispute
Please stop your edit warring. Discuss the change here. INeedSupport(Care free to give me support?) 20:14, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No ad-hominems please. Explain the reasons for you edit if you have one. That's is what this page is for. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Removal of definition from article
An editor has been trying to put this material into the article: According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term “Quaker” derives either from the Society's founder George Fox directing his followers to “tremble at the name of the Lord’, or from fits supposedly experienced by worshippers when moved by the Spirit. Cf. Shakers

There are several problems with this. First, the definition is not from the Oxford English Dictionary, but from Oxford's online British and World English Dictionary. Second, the reference does not support the statement. It says perhaps alluding to George Fox's direction to his followers to ‘tremble at the name of the Lord’, or from fits supposedly experienced by worshippers when moved by the Spirit, not that the term derived from either one or the other. (Such religious fits are not epileptic seizures, so the link is also incorrect.) Third, the origin of the term Quaker is already covered in the history section of this article. Any additional information about the name should be added there. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I could support the statement from the history section being pulled out into a more visible "etymology" or "terminology" section, but that would be a more involved project than the (repeated) edits described here. Nitpicking polish (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for new WikiProject
At WikiProject Council, I have made a proposal for a new WikiProject - WikiProject Mysticism. I wonder whether any readers of this article would be interested in joining this WikiProject? Vorbee (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I found the project page and I have added it to my watchlist. Thank you, warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">(¥¥) 20:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Historically Christian?
What does "historically Christian" mean in this context? How does "historically" modify "Christian"? Historically the Quaker denomination has been Christian, but that as denomination it is less clearly so, now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanMarshCTR (talk • contribs) 00:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's about right. Groups among the Quakers have associated themselves less clearly with Christianity at various times. The article explains this. Bmcln1 (talk) 07:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Similar to this, why does this page list the Quakerism a branch of Protestantism? The official UK site says Quakerism ... grew out of Christianity and today we also find meaning and value in other faiths and traditions. Nowhere does it say that they are currently a Christian group. This aligns with the "historically Christian" viewpoint, but the latter part of this definitely does not align with the view that they are now a Protestant group. My edit on this was reverted a few months ago by who said that these were "exceptional cases"; I'm aware that groups outside of the UK may take a different view and place more emphasis on their Protestant roots, but if the official site of the UK Quakers says that faiths and traditions outside of Christianity are acceptable, it seems a little odd to label Quakerism as a branch of Protestantism without any reliable sources confirming that. But I am no expert in the matter. --Mondodi (talk) 13:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * We cover it in detail in the "theology" section, where it is also sourced. There isn't space or a need for more nuance in the template. VQuakr (talk) 01:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Why not leave it out of the template altogether then? – Mondodi (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Because removing the classification makes the article worse. VQuakr (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Star
I removed the star from the info-box as it gives the impression that the star is a symbol that Quakers use to represent their faith and practice – but it is not – Quakers do not use symbols – the star caption states that the star was used by some Friend’s service organizations, but there is no citation to support this - it is certainly not a symbol used by all Quakers – to have it in the info-box is misleading – unless a citation to a reliable source (WP:RS) can be provided stating that this is a Quaker symbol, there is no justification for including the star in a general article on Quakers – WP:VERIFY – cheers - Epinoia (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I restored the image with citations to its modern use and its original use. I hope this clears up any WP:V concerns. --Equivamp - talk 19:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * - placed in the info box it gives the false impression that the star is a symbol of Quakerism - it isn't - perhaps the star could be added to the section International organization which lists some Quaker service organizations - or perhaps a new section could be started on the work of Friend's service committees and the star could be placed there - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * - perhaps a new section could be started called "Quaker star" where the image could be displayed with its history and current usage - Epinoia (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe that both the article and the template should use an image of George Fox (such as this one), who all Quakers would recognize as the founder of the Religious Society of Friends. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 20:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to suggest that it is used by all Quakers, and in fact in my edit I went out of my way to avoid such a suggestion. Your insistence that Quakers don't use symbols tests the limits of original research into outright fiction. Of course, Quakers do use symbols. Your creation of a false dichotomy between Quakers and Quaker service organizations doesn't change that. --Equivamp - talk 20:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * - the assertion that Quakers do not use symbols comes from the Testimony of simplicity, "This testimony also finds expression in the tradition of plain walls and functional furniture in Quaker meeting houses." - plain and simple, no adornment - Robert Barclay said that simplicity was an outward expression of an inward transformation. - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Your analysis of the Simplicity testimony is the definition of WP:OR. --Equivamp - talk 02:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have suggested a good way to resolve the dispute that is occurring between the two of you and would like to hear your feedback. With Methodism-related articles, we use an image of John Wesley. For the Quakerism infobox, how about we use an image of George Fox rather than the star, which seems to be in dispute? I look forward to hearing from you. With regards, AnupamTalk 02:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * - that would be acceptable to me - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * - p.s. - as previously suggested, the Quaker Star could be given it's own section with history & usage and an image of the star appropriately displayed there. - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Epinoia, great! Is this acceptable to you as well User:Equivamp? I look forward to hearing from you. With regards, AnupamTalk 15:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's as recognizable, but if similar articles do the same, I can agree to it, with the star moved to its own section. The issue of how to describe it still exists, but will probably be easier to handle outside of an infobox. --Equivamp - talk 17:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks User:Equivamp and User:Epinoia. I'm glad that I was able to help resolve this dispute! I have supplanted the infobox image with that of George Fox and have moved the information about the star to a section on "Service organisations", which the two of you can modify as you see fit. Have a great evening! With regards, AnupamTalk 17:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Length Tag
Creating this discussion per WP:BRD and pinging. Question is whether or not a Very long tag is warranted.

The article is currently at 67k characters, and as such clearly exceeds the 50k recommendation made by WP:AS. The length of other articles on religious denominations is irrelevant (similar to WP:OSE). Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such follows summary style. If there are other denominational articles with excessive length, perhaps they ought to be refactored as well. For this article in particular, I see a bit of a bloat in the "History" section (Would suggest moving some subsections to History of the Quakers, but that is at 48k and could possibly use a summarizing as well). Other sub-articles could be created as well to allow for more moving of sections and slimming of the main article.

All in all, I think the tag is warranted for the reasons above. Please let me know your opinion(s) and we can discuss from there. :) AviationFreak💬 21:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * A good starting question might be, "What should be cut out?" If the article can be trimmed to meet the recommended length, then it should be trimmed rather than flagged. If it cannot be trimmed, then the tag is not warranted. <b style="color: green">TechBear</b> &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 20:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Independent 'Quaker decision-making' page?
Hello Quakers editors! I would like to start an independent page for Quaker decision-making (a.k.a. discernment, 'sense of meeting', etc.) The way Quakers make decisions has been secularized into the Consensus decision-making used by many activist groups and coops, and the Consent process used in Sociocracy. As such, I think it justifies its own page. Are any of you interested to get involved? I just started a draft. Happy for any input! <b style="font-family:sans;background-color:paleturquoise;border-radius:7px 0 0 7px;padding:2px 5px;">DougInAMug</b> talk 22:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it should be section of this page. Bmcln1 (talk) 14:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I just saw your comment now that I published Quaker decision-making. Would you like to take a look at it and see if it is justified to stand-alone? <b style="font-family:sans;background-color:paleturquoise;border-radius:7px 0 0 7px;padding:2px 5px;">DougInAMug</b> talk 14:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Today I added a link to Quaker decision-making using the "main" template at the beginning of the Organizational government and polity section. <b style="font-family:sans;background-color:paleturquoise;border-radius:7px 0 0 7px;padding:2px 5px;">DougInAMug</b> talk 15:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Pacifism?
Shouldn't there be some discussion of pacifism in this article?

Weren't the Quakers a leading pacifist denomination at the time of the American Revolution?

I was raised in an evangelical Friends community. We had ministers, and a grandfather fought in WW I. However, the Wikipedia article on "Peace churches" says, "The term historic peace churches refers specifically only to three church groups among pacifist churches:
 * Church of the Brethren ...
 * Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) [linking to this article]; and
 * Mennonites".

Sadly, I do not know enough to add material to this article on that, but I hope someone else will. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 06:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * User:DavidMCEddy, Quakers have several testimonies, including those of Peace, Equality, Integrity, Community, and Simplicity (if you would like a short description of each, have a look at this link). The peace testimony is mentioned in the "Practical theology" section of the article. It's good to know you were raised in an Evangelical Friends community—they constitute the largest and fastest-growing branch of Quakerism today. Kind regards, AnupamTalk 06:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)