Talk:Quakers

"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—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

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was 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)

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

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 [1] [2] - 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) [3])). 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. [[WP:NPOV}] (which is what we need to have, I think you may have confused the abbreviation wit POV) does not require us to only document mainstream views, but to cover all views within reason, giving due weight to each. The overall tone of the article does not do this, IMO. I can't think of a good form of words, but I'm pretty confident that non-Christian (but not atheist, nontheist, universalist etc) Friends are a reasonably well-known phenomenon (I'll hopefully find some sources later), so a lead stating without caveat that, effectively, Quakers are Christians not only ignores Quakers of other faiths, but denies the existence of nontheist Friends. Ignoring something because it's minority isn't 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'[4], 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 [5] and [6]. 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 Wikipedia:MOSCAPS#Institutions. 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)