Talk:Free Church of Scotland (since 1900)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Calvinism (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Calvinism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Calvinism 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Scotland (Rated B-class, Mid-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


This needs something about what happened in 1929. If the Free Church of Scotland (post 1900) supported establishment in opposition to the neutral position of the United Free Church of Scotland, then there must have been some kind of reaction when the United Free Church merged with the established Church of Scotland in 1929. -- 17:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Wee Wee[edit]

Sooner or later someone is going to mistake "wee wee" for vandalism. While it clearly is a joke nickname (as is "wee frees", but less so), it's a joke that's been in common currency for a long time, certainly isn't vandalism, and fully deserves its mention in the article (The Times, Guardian, Daily Telegraph). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Donald Macleod[edit]

The article links to the wrong Donald Macleod. It links to someone in the US, not the Scottish minister. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

due weight[edit]

I do not think that "Also in November 2010. it was confirmed that the parents of Gianmarco Peshiera, an overseas student who died in a car crash shortly after visiting a Free Church camp in Scotland, were preparing to sue Colegio San Andres school, the school's headmaster and the Free Church of Scotland." is of any permanent or encyclopedic significance in the context of the history of the church, and I have accordingly removed it. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Being sued for what might be not too far away from the equivalent of corporate manslaughter isn't worthy of note? Really? If you say so, Prof. Betsy Cola (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Worship section[edit]

The worship section lists the order of the service, then goes on to say events happen before or after 'the first psalm', 'the second psalm' etc. However psalms are not mentioned in the list above. Can someone clarify? (talk) 07:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Apologies if 'editing' your comment isn't the correct way to reply to it - this is my first! I have I hope fixed this in the entry. The refs to 'psalms' are equivalent to the 'singings of praise', but - as the article goes on to indicate - since 2010 these need not necessarily be psalms. Hope this helps. Iaineditor (talk) 08:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

– In common modern usage the term "Free Church of Scotland" overwhelmingly refers to the current denomination that bears that name. It is the primary topic. The history of the Free Church of Scotland (1843-1900) is important and deserves its own article, especially given the partial mergers that occurred in the 1900. The Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) is not generally referred to as the Free Church of Scotland without qualification. Greenshed (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence of the claim to the primary topic? StAnselm (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Some evidence can be found in contemporary news sources that use the "Free Church of Scotland" to mean the current denomination without qualification, see:
The Guardian - Let us cherish and praise the Free Church of Scotland
The Courier - Free Church of Scotland leader calls for end of council tax freeze
The Herald - Free Church Moderator defends BBC presenter Dan Walker after Christian views mocked
The BBC - Free Kirk backs Scottish voluntary organ donation
Etc, etc. Greenshed (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'm afraid contemporary news sources don't mean much here - that would be WP:RECENTISM. An encyclopedia has to take a longer view. StAnselm (talk) 03:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Erm, I was not arguing that we should use the above sources to overburden the article with contemporaneous controversy or give undue weight to recent news reporting but simply providing evidence that in common modern English the "Free Church of Scotland" means the current denomination. I respectfully don't think you have quite understood what WP:RECENTISM is saying but by all means point out the bit in the essay that upholds your point - which on a re-read I cannot see. In any case I am prepared to do a bit more work to establish that the current denomination is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and perhaps it might not be that productive to have a long debate on the Recentism essay and so if I found sources from, say, before 2010 would that be acceptable? Greenshed (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is huge scope here for confusion between the different bodies which have shared the title, and the selection of one of them as a primary topic serves only to make such errors harder to detect and to correct. As a result, the rename would be a disservice tp0 both readers and editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:01, 22 February 2016 (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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Free Church of Scotland (since 1900). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Wee Frees[edit]

Should we say that "Wee Frees" is a pejorative term? I think we would need a better source than the one in the article. The key thing is, has it always been pejorative? Also, saying that it is "surprising" is blatant original research. That would need a reliable source, too. StAnselm (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I have no attachment to the surprising. The Wee Free is a long standing insult and since it's before 1900 shouldn't be in the lead in this article unless the intention is to be insulting as you seem to want to be. Try searching the phrase "the free kirk, the wee kirk, the kirk without the steeple". I don't think that Scotch or for that matter nigger were always offensive. Nor should they be used with anything other than a great deal of care.

Please stop your edit-warring. Also, please don't jump to conclusions about other editors' intentions. Your first few edits were good, but this has spoiled your work here. But back to the matter at hand: numerous independent, reliable sources use the phrase "Wee Frees" in a neutral manner - [1][2][3] - so it is certainly not necessarily pejorative. Also, I think you have your phrases confused: The ditty you quote was used of the pre-1900 body, but the phrase "Wee Frees" was not, AFAIK. StAnselm (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The two phrases are not independent. The "Wee" part was always meant to be insulting and is, and was, taken that way. None of the sources you quoted discussed the offensiveness of the term. When the term is trotted out in the media it's almost always with weasel words like "commonly" or "popularly" meaning a lot of people do it. Nevertheless it remains an offensive term and you perhaps should do some more reading before reverting my edits. If you're told you're being offensive why don't you err on the side of caution and avoid the phrase? I didn't start an edit war. I removed an offensive term which you keep replacing whatever your intentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehdeejay (talkcontribs) 05:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

You are certainly edit warring - you made a change to the article which was challenged. You should not have added it back in without first obtaining consensus. See also WP:BRD. Anyway, two of the books I linked to are from university presses, and the third is an encyclopedia - so it is not just a case of the media "trotting out" the term. You may be offended by it, but how do you know everyone is? Indeed, how do you know people found it offensive in the 1920s? You need to produce reliable sources. You say I should do more reading - fair enough: tell me what to read. StAnselm (talk) 05:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

You know the Moderator of their General Assembly found it offensive. Perhaps you think he was speaking in a private capacity rather than as a representative of his denomination when he made this plain as reported in the media. The link to a reliable source is there. I didn't put it there. I did therefore remove the offensive term. You did replace it - twice. I don't see the need to attempt to prove everyone finds it offensive. Is it not enough to know many people take it that way as shown in the link? Do you take this approach every time you see a potentially pejorative term? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehdeejay (talkcontribs) 05:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the link was there - but why change the wording? When not just say that the designation is common but some within the church object to it? StAnselm (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The designation as you call it is: "If used in reference to the present-day Free Church of Scotland, it is seen as a derogatory and offensive slur."[1] The media know this as is shown by the BBC using the term they're reporting on as being offensive in their headline. I would expect better things on Wikipedia and from someone with a name and past Wikipedia history like yours. As far as I'm concerned you have the link and the one here I've just quoted. If you will not listen to them then I suppose you will not even listen if someone rises, looks you in the eye and tells you it is so.

OK, I have reworded the lead per this reference. It is very helpful - it clarifies that the offensiveness is in reference to the present-day Free Church. I removed the (unsourced and dubious) reference to political correctness, and restored the plural in "Wee Frees" - that is the usual form. Also, I have restored the hatnotes - you seem to be unclear about how they work - please read WP:HATNOTE. But most of all, please lay off the personal attacks. StAnselm (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)