Talk:Nonconformist (Protestantism)

message: 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)
thread_title: Nonconformist Divine

message: 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)
replies: text: Vast improvement. -- SECisek 15:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: C of E 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Revisions needed 

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

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge with [[English Dissenters]]? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nonconformism with Oliver Cromwell 

message: ". . . 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)
thread_title:  Attendance? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Unclear about UCL. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nonconformism or Nonconformity? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  modern meaning 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Roman Catholics? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Editing  overly simplistic account of nineteenth century nonconformism