This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity: Quakers High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) (assessed as Top-importance). Philosophy: Ethics Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Start This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics

Could someone who is knowledgeble about early opposition to slavery in America look at the last half of the third paragraph in Mennonite#Mennonites in early American history and verify the details (the paragraph about anti-slavery, if it has moved by the time you read this)? It has been around a long time without reference. I cleaned up some of the wording and I think some of the details are correct, but it may not be completely accurate in whole. Please feel free to edit and cite. As usual, I'm too lazy at the moment to find a good source myself. JonHarder 06:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-01-27T06:13:00.000Z","author":"JonHarder","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-JonHarder-2006-01-27T06:13:00.000Z-Request_for_help_wrt_American_slavery.","replies":["c-Ahc-2006-01-29T05:45:00.000Z-JonHarder-2006-01-27T06:13:00.000Z"]}}-->

It makes reference to a Germantown Monthly Meeting minute (a Quaker statement of position). It's a somewhat famous minute, but I've never seen the text of it. Might be interesting to track down. --Ahc 05:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-01-29T05:45:00.000Z","author":"Ahc","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Ahc-2006-01-29T05:45:00.000Z-JonHarder-2006-01-27T06:13:00.000Z","replies":["c-Ahc-2006-01-29T05:49:00.000Z-Ahc-2006-01-29T05:45:00.000Z"]}}-->

Well that was easy. See http://www.qhpress.org/texts/oldqwhp/as-1688.htm. As to the details in the other article, I can't speak to who was a member at the time, but this is the document they refer to. I'll try to get a citation added over there soon. --Ahc 05:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-01-29T05:49:00.000Z","author":"Ahc","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Ahc-2006-01-29T05:49:00.000Z-Ahc-2006-01-29T05:45:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

I've pulled the following text from the Religious Society of Friends article. I think if this content has a place it's in this article.

One of the most enduring examples of Quaker egalitarianism can be seen in a meeting between William Penn and King Charles II of England. Summoned into the presence of the King, Penn refused to remove his hat. When Charles II asked why, Penn replied, "Friend Charles, we do not uncover for any man, but only for the Lord." Upon hearing this, Charles removed his own hat. "Friend Charles," Penn asked, "why dost thou uncover thyself?" "Friend Penn," Charles II replied, "in this place it is the custom for only one man at a time to keep his hat on." This pragmatic attitude towards Quaker egalitarianism and "hat honor," however, was comparatively rare for the time.

--Ahc 02:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-08-11T02:44:00.000Z","author":"Ahc","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Ahc-2006-08-11T02:44:00.000Z-Text_from_RSoF_article","replies":["c-Jdcrutch-2014-05-02T19:02:00.000Z-Ahc-2006-08-11T02:44:00.000Z"]}}-->

If this charming anecdote (in which, by the way, Friend Charles rather gets the better of Friend Penn) were attributed to some appropriate source, it would indeed be suitable for inclusion in the article. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 19:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-05-02T19:02:00.000Z","author":"Jdcrutch","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Jdcrutch-2014-05-02T19:02:00.000Z-Ahc-2006-08-11T02:44:00.000Z","replies":[],"displayName":"J.\u00a0D.\u00a0Crutchfield"}}-->

This article leaves me with the impression that there's no document known as "Testimony on Equality", which surprises me. The opening paragraph refers to "Testimony to Equality" as "shorthand", which also surprises me, since there's nothing extraordinary about the use of either "testimony" or "equality", and neither word is particularly brief. Also, there's no explanation of the change of preposition from "of" in the article's title to "to" in the opening. Unfree (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-08-13T17:46:00.000Z","author":"Unfree","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Unfree-2009-08-13T17:46:00.000Z-No_document","replies":["c-Jdcrutch-2014-05-02T19:10:00.000Z-Unfree-2009-08-13T17:46:00.000Z"]}}-->

I have taken out the term "shorthand" and rewritten the first sentence of the lede. I have also changed "testimony to equality", in the last sentence of the lede, to "testimony of equality", although I'm not sure there's a difference there, and wouldn't be surprised if the expression took both forms among Quakers. I think it was already clear that the testimony in question is not a document but an act, usage, or course of conduct, expressing in practice a certain religious conviction; and I trust my revisions don't obscure that fact. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 19:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-05-02T19:10:00.000Z","author":"Jdcrutch","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Jdcrutch-2014-05-02T19:10:00.000Z-Unfree-2009-08-13T17:46:00.000Z","replies":[],"displayName":"J.\u00a0D.\u00a0Crutchfield"}}-->

The section of the article headed "Racial Equality" says nothing about Friends' activities in support of racial equality, but deals entirely with Quaker anti-slavery activities. The last hundred and fifty years of American history abundantly prove that the abolition of slavery and racial equality are not at all the same thing. Many abolitionists, particularly those who favored colonization, presumed or expressly affirmed the inequality of the white and black races. The article does not inform us that Quaker anti-slavery arose from, or even involved, a conviction of the equality of the races. If, as I presume, Quakers have been active in promoting actual racial equality, the article should describe those activities as they relate to the main topic. If not, the section should be deleted, as Quaker anti-slavery activity per se is not necessarily a testimony of equality, and is, or ought to be, amply discussed elsewhere. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 17:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-04-30T17:30:00.000Z","author":"Jdcrutch","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Jdcrutch-2014-04-30T17:30:00.000Z-\"Racial_Equality\"_Section_Doesn't_Cover_Racial_Equality","replies":[],"displayName":"J.\u00a0D.\u00a0Crutchfield"}}-->