Talk:Roman Catholicism in Scotland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Catholicism (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Catholicism related articles 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 
WikiProject Scotland (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Image copyright problem with File:Bishopsconferenceofscotland.jpg[edit]

The image File:Bishopsconferenceofscotland.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the image from the article. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is Scots law based upon Roman law?[edit]

A discussion on the origins of the Scottish legal system is taking place at WikiProject Scotland. Editors of this article may be able to throw light on the topic. To contribute to the discussion, please click here. References, per WP:VERIFY, would be especially welcome! Thank you in advance. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Pope Benedict will visit Scotland[edit]

Synthesised material[edit]

For an explanation as to my removal of material regarding Leo Cushley and whether the Catholic Church is at a low ebb, see Talk:Leo Cushley "The Tablet article of 21 September 2013". The editor in question has been pushing this same material at the Cushley article. The first source regards Cushley commenting on the low ebb of the church or otherwise in regard to the O'Brien scandal; the second mentions Cushley, mentions some stats on priest numbers and members which may be disappointing to the church, does not though draw a conclusion that the church is at a low ebb and does not refer to Cushley's remark about the church not being a low ebb, in regard to O'Brien or to the unrelated stats about numbers. Mutt Lunker (talk) 08:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Subheadings of History[edit]

At this diff I have added subheadings to the large and indigestible mass of text under History. I have taken Matt Lunker's comments into account and hope that all is agreeable. On the Patrick issue, I didn't express it well first time around, but the original comment was based on an 1864 source which heavily over-interprets Patrick's words on the matter, simply that some "apostate Picts" existed and had enslaved his converts. I hope that the new wording is acceptable. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Only had time to quickly scan the new wording but am happier with it, thanks. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

moved discussion from my talk page[edit]

See below, I thought I was getting close to consensus, but appareantly not. In order to prevent an edit war, would like opinion of other WIKIpedians. The disputed sentence is

A total of 1.7 million people said they were part of the Kirk family in 2011, down from more than 2.1 million a decade earlier.

An exact copy , word for word from a news article. Grsd (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems resolved now, Mutt Lunker reinserted the text.
Always good to reach consensus.
Grsd (talk)

This talk page has been made very confusing with the insertion of a huge passage from Grsd's talk page, not framed as a quote and no indication where it begins and ends. It misrepresents a discussion about Grsd's editing on their talk page as if held here about this article specifically. Follow this link to it instead to see their talk page discussion. I'll give the benefit of the doubt that this is a WP:COMPETENCE issue rather than anything else. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)I'll italicise it:

When I read the diffs and the sources myself, I was somewhat unable to draw a conclusion that "Kirk family membership" = "Church of Scotland membership" which is what you seem to want to say in this article. That is not spelled out in the source, so you are going to need an additional source which supports this interpretation. Otherwise, it seems to me that the statistic is good, although religious census information is notoriously inherently inaccurate, so yet another source that used a different method to count would be helpful to determine margin of error or range of possible values. Elizium23 (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I would have been fine with leaving the Kirk family sentence as Matt Lunker left it at 1 PM , so before your addition above. However Matt Lunker reverted his own reversion so now I am confused what he wants. In this case , by the way I propose to be lenient and not apply the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, as he reverted his own reversion and than re-reverted his own reversion.
As you have read the source, please let me (us) know if the Kirk Family sententie is okay or does not qualify because it is Original Research . Thanks Grsd (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

This afternoon I was removing Grsd's repeated additions of original research and synthesis and an edit conflict with that user led to the removal then accidental re-insertion of their misrepresented material.

Grsd, you are repeatedly adding your own interpretation of Scottish census stats, or putting a different spin on interpretations given in sources. Some of your personal interpretations may have a level of validity (though often they do not) but seem to be aimed somewhat at pushing a POV and when neither stated or implied in the sources are OR or SYNTH (i.e. vandalism). Your understanding of the subject also seems somewhat lacking, for instance repeatedly confusing actual church membership with simply noting religious affiliation on a census form. Your mode of expression is often in need of copyediting or rephrasing. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I have little issues with the article after your last revisions, but please enlighten me why following had to be deleten by you..... A total of 1.7 million people said they were part of the Kirk family in 2011, down from more than 2.1 million a decade earlier. ... This had been copied word by word from the source... I honestly do not understand how this can be a spin or own interpretation. So please help me and others understand why this sentence had to be removed. Thanks Grsd (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, one of your edit summaries said "article is about RC church, not battle with kirk", I am not sure what you meant by this. Please explain exactly why you did not allow this sentence to stand. Elizium23 (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Simply, the edits were becoming increasingly off-topic. This article is about the Roman Catholic church, not the Church of Scotland. Grsd appears to be advancing a thesis about the decline of adherents (although they insist in mis-attributing them as actual members) of the Church of Scotland and a supposed connection with an increase (which is fairly slight and in absolute, not proportionate, terms only) in those identifying as Roman Catholic which is either not present or not the main thrust of sources cited. Cherry-picking and adding in more and more stats about another entity to advance a thesis not actually advanced by a WP:RS is highly questionable. Though the census document re Glasgow mentions that CoS adherents have dropped in numbers below those of the RC church, this is given in the context of the significant trends regarding decrease of CoS adherents and an increase in those identifying as non-religious. Nothing is framed in terms of any of these groups "dominating" in Glasgow, in the past or now and to do so is either of questionable honesty or deficient competence in understanding the source. "the kirk family" is not a clear or meaningful term. I believe that what is in that section now reflects the stats and trends as they are presented in the sources; please don't distort this with personal analysis not given in sources. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)