Talk:Nonconformist (Protestantism)

Nonconformist Divine

Throughout Wikipedia, the term is referred to as "Nonconformist Divine" when discussing biographies and religions of individuals - at a brief glance it appears in over 200 articles. Nowhere on this Nonconformism page, however, is there any reference to "Divine", making for an unclear and incomplete definition when coming to it from a "Nonconformist Divine" link. Porterlu (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

C of E

A really bad situation. There needs to be a seperate page for non-conformists in the C of E. SECisek 20:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Vast improvement. -- SECisek 15:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

non-Christian church?

What is that? Is it an invisible star, or perhaps a tea without tea leaves? Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 09:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Revisions needed

Shouldn't the second sentence and second paragraph be combined? Both attempt to define the term in the religious sense. Also, the fourth and sixth paras contradict the current second sentence by indicating that the term applies to churches in Scotland and Wales, not just England. Rexparry sydney (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge with English Dissenters?

There seems to be a lot of overlap of this article with English Dissenters, and it might be better to merge the two articles so as to disambiguate any wikilinking. Thoughts? Rhetth (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps with Recusancy as well? -- Secisek (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No to a merge - Dissenters and Nonconformism seem two separate strands in time (Dissenters earlier) and geographically - Dissent in England, Nonconformism in England and Wales. As long as both articles can be linked no need to merge.Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 10:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I second the no. They are related, but remain seperate historical phenomena. Josh (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No to a merge. Nonconformism is an important part of Welsh history - it would be confusing and misleading to list it within English Dissenters. Normalmouth (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I say no merge. Nonconformism needs to be kept separate. It is an important part of the Welsh and partly English history, and is also connected to John Bunyan, the famous writer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.12.230 (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Although nowadays the terms are used fairly interchangeably, historically Dissenter and Nonconformist are quite different concepts. Dissenters left the Church of England; Nonconformists remained within it, but did not conform to prescribed practices. I think there is a good case for rewriting the articles to make the distinction clearer, but merging the two would not be helpful. Since the suggestion of a merge has now been around for over 9 months, no step has been taken to do so, and there have been several comments opposing a merge, I am removing the tag. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible Alternative Meaning

I noted that "nonconformity" redirected here. However, there is also a geologic meaning to this word--the separation of a rock record indicated by gaps in the record. If someone could fix this that would be great. 128.208.60.138 (talk) 03:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Simple enough: (1) if there is an article referring to the other meaning, create a disambiguation page; (2) if there isn't, but you would like to write one, do so; (3) otherwise leave it alone. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Common knowledge states the present meaning of this term is of not conforming with more than the religious thinking in some particular country, or any religious squabbles. This should be moved to Nonconformism (religion), as is the independent one. I don't think people would go searching for the modern term of the idea of being independent, and want to find ancient religious squabbles. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(1) "the present meaning of this term" Of what term? The original comment questioned the redirection of "nonconformity" here. Whether one takes this word in the common meaning of social nonconformity or in the more unusual geological meaning, there is certainly a case for questioning this redirection to an article about religious nonconformism. However, "Anime Addict AA" is suggesting a move to "Nonconformism (religion)", which suggests that he is referring to the word "nonconformism", not "nonconformity". There may, for all I know, be variation in different parts of the English speaking world, but certainly where I live the word "nonconformism" is used almost exclusively in the religious sense, and only rarely as a synonym of "nonconformity". (2) " . . . ancient religious squabbles". Firstly there is nothing ancient about it: religious nonconformism is alive and well. Secondly, even if you think the religious meaning is a historical meaning, why assume that people looking on Wikipedia are always searching for current matters rather than historical ones? JamesBWatson (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to dissapoint you, but both Dictionary.com and Wiktionary have the more general meaning as primary. (if you find better sources on that that the modern meaning is universally acknowledge as that local squabble, please do share them with everybody). What's the problem with having this in the main domain space you ask? Well what's the problem with having the article about US independence in the article about independence? I think the question answers itself, and there is no difference between the two situation. As there is an independence (religion) article, this ne should be moved to the same type of namespace, to make the subject clear and to leave an open place for the more common and more widely use of the term. I doubt there are plenty of case studies and examples for content on an article completly dedicated to nonconformism as a form on noncompliance.

To answer your question, why assume people looking for independence would want to be redirected to a religious topic about it? Or to the US independence article? Wouldn't they want to find the more general meaning of the term?

Other question and I'm done, what's wrong with my proposal, even if it's not completly identical with the discussion's starter? And why talking to the third person? Please give me the minimum respect of addressing me directly, thank you. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

wikipedia is not a dictionary, so I put an appropriate link in to wiktionary, does this satisfy?119.224.57.190 (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Nonconformism with Oliver Cromwell

If dissenters are said to have "triumphed briefly under Oliver Cromwell" and they are different from nonconformists as also similar in some aspects, did were nonconformists more favoured with Cromwell aswell?

And Puritans might be sometimes closely considered as nonconformists, but were they actually nonconformists? (not tecnically or semantically speaking) - I mean... Did in that age people use to look at a puritan and say "look a nonconformist right over there!"???? (that's what I dont get too) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.204.75.246 (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Attendance?

". . . census of 1851 revealed that total Nonconformist attendance . . . ."

Why tie the census count to "attendance"? Attendance at church? Why not just speak of the proportion of Nonconformists in England as being very close to that of the Anglicans? I don't know what non-Christian religions would have been in England at the time but did their adherents necessarily attend church?

Richard Ong (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Unclear about UCL.

This is not clear to me:

. . . attendance at an English university had required conformity to the Church of England before University College London (UCL) was founded, compelling Nonconformists to fund their own Dissenting Academies privately.

Was conformity no longer required after the founding of UCL?

This appears to be what I believe the author intended, if I correctly understand his intent:

. . . attendance at an English university had required conformity to the Church of England, compelling Nonconformists to fund their own Dissenting Academies privately. University College London (UCL) was one such academy.

Richard Ong (talk) 05:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

UCL was not a dissenting academy. It was a full and proper university, but admitted people who did not conform to the Church of England, the first such to do so. Dissenting Academies weren't universities, AIUI. SamBC(talk) 23:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Nonconformism or Nonconformity?

The title of the article is "Nonconformism", but the intro line bolds and uses the word "Nonconformity". I don't know the distinction, which I'm betting is completely arbitrary, but I think these need to be synchronized. Ithinkicahn (talk) 02:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

modern meaning

Hello? The modern meaning of nonconformist is way different. At least mention how it is commonly used today as someone who does not follow conformity.--75.139.102.174 (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 20 January 2020

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

The result of the move request was: moved (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

---

Nonconformist → Nonconformist (Protestantism) – While Nonconformist should WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Nonconformity. PPEMES (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Note that Nonconformity isn't a article but a DAB page so this would be a DABCOMBINE rather than PRIMARYREDIRECT. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

OK. PPEMES (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Clear primary topic for the word. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Necrothesp: Still, would you mind concerning WP:PRECISION, though, taking into account also WP:GLOBAL? PPEMES (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support - the wide range of applications at the Nonconformity disambiguation page indicates that a more precise article title is called for - Epinoia (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with the nominator; it seems the phrase "nonconformist", although it may have roots to the original Protestant meaning, is not traditionally used anymore for its connection to the church. Best redirect this to a disambiguation page so readers can figure out what they trying to look for. Steel1943 (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support per discussion. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

---

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

Roman Catholics?

I have no idea whether or not my impression is true, but I understood (very vaguely) that Roman Catholics were non-conformist too 'within the meaning of the Act'? Has the article been renamed too tightly? --Red King (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Editing overly simplistic account of nineteenth century nonconformism

The included quote, intended to sum up nineteenth century nonconformism, is simplistic and potentially misleading. It seems to mainly characterise nineteenth-century Methodism, but including the quote as from a Unitarian magazine is liable to give a dangerously one-sided account. Still in the late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century, for instance, radical figures like Jeremy Bentham and Mary Wollstonecradft were nonconformist Unitarians, and some of this group became even more radical in the mid-nineteenth century when they had contact with German ideas. Groups like the Quakers and Unitarians may have been marginal compared to the Methodists, but the chsracterisation included is not adequate.

109.154.140.10 (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Please wait for consensus to form on here before removing the whole content. Statements that are "potentially misleading" is not a ground for removal of content in my opinion, but you can add "other side" accounts to balance what is standing right now if you think the current content is one-sided, as I think your addition, to balance the neutrality of the article, will be great for all (please back your statements with reference, though). Cheers! SunDawn (talk) 11:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts - this is reasonable. I would like to put a POV tag instead of this on this section for now, as the original quote is already tagged with a clarification mark and I do think there's good grounds to warn readers temporarily that this is an atypically simplistic point of view, before I've had time to choose exactly which sources are best for the opposing view.

109.154.140.10 (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)