This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"Roman Catholic Church" is not inaccurate, as it refers to the "Holy Roman Church" or that part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is only one (but the biggest) of the 20-odd churches which owe allegiance to the Roman Pontiff. It used to be distinguished by following a Latin rite and liturgy, in distiction to some 20 other rites (Marionite, Greek, etc) - all faithfully owing allegiance to Rome (but also having their own structure, canon law, etc - allowing their priests to marry for example). (They cause the Catholic Church some problems when they emigrate to America and want to keep their own, legitemate Catholic rite). These in turn are distinct from similar rite churches, which do not acknowledge Roman primacy - the Orthodox Churches, for example - but which Rome still considers to be part of the Catholic Church, if separated. Finally, these latter are to be distinguished from other "ecclesial communities" (ie Protestants and others) that nowadays Rome keeps quiet about, to avoid giving offence. Confusing? Easier to say, as has always been the case the "Roman Catholic Church", which has the benefit of being strictly accurate as regards the Catholics in Scotland.
I agree with the first point, I suppose I might as well move unless anyone has any objections? Gavin Scott ( talk) 20:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding "there are significant numbers of Italian and Lithuanian ancestory and more recently Polish immigrants". Although recent Polish immigration has greatly swelled those of Polish ancestry in Scotland, there was a significant population beforehand, which this phrasing ignores. Conversely, until recent years I'm pretty sure numbers of those of Lithuanian ancestry were not at all large. Even with the immigration of the last few years I'd want to see citation that shows Lithuanians are any more significant in numbers now than Roman Catholics of other nationalities/ancestries, e.g. Spanish, French or even German and English. Mutt Lunker 19:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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 replaced the largely unsourced text in the Medieval section with about the same amount of sourced text that gives a brief summary. What is the feeling about this bit of the article? It is well covered in the articles given in links, so I was not sure it needed a lot of details here, but plenty more could be supplied. My feeling was that this article should focus mainly on (the unique aspects of) post-Reformation Catholicism.-- SabreBD ( talk) 17:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. There should probably be a sitewide RfC on this issue at some point, as it is coming up across multiple different countries, and the results are not consistent. However, until that happens, from the discussion here, I see a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS not to move this article. — Amakuru ( talk) 12:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Roman Catholicism in Scotland →
Catholic Church in Scotland – To be in line with definitive rename of main article to Catholic Church, and to avoid excluding Eastern Catholic presence in the country. (Yes, they exist there, e.g.
St Andrew's Ukrainian Catholic Church.) Deus vult!
Crusadestudent (
talk) 07:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC) --Relisted. —
JFG
talk
12:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Obviously a very controversial topic, and I confess that, despite my Protestant background, I'm of two minds, but tending to think that Roman is a necessary qualifier.
I certainly agree with the closer that further discussion is needed.
I note that nobody has provided the link I requested to previous discussion (it seems that the article now at Catholic Church was renamed at some stage and that rename is the subject of much subsequent discussion... does anyone have a link to that RM? How recent was the rename...).
Trying to be objective, my main concern with the current name of the Catholic Church article is that it is seriously ambiguous. The Apostles Creed for example uses some variant of the Holy Catholic Church in all of its English translations (protestant and Catholic alike... yes I leave out Roman there deliberately), and is widely understood (even within Roman Catholic circles, especially but not only since Vatican II) to refer to a larger entity than the Roman Catholic Church. At the very least they would include other churches with which they have intercommunion.
On the other hand, Catholic Church is in many other contexts understood to mean Roman Catholic Church, and is widely used as a shorthand at least.
And of course many people have a strong theological reason for wanting to go one way or the other... at least one indicated as much in the discussion above. Not easy. Andrewa ( talk) 22:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"Roman Catholic Church" is not inaccurate, as it refers to the "Holy Roman Church" or that part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is only one (but the biggest) of the 20-odd churches which owe allegiance to the Roman Pontiff. It used to be distinguished by following a Latin rite and liturgy, in distiction to some 20 other rites (Marionite, Greek, etc) - all faithfully owing allegiance to Rome (but also having their own structure, canon law, etc - allowing their priests to marry for example). (They cause the Catholic Church some problems when they emigrate to America and want to keep their own, legitemate Catholic rite). These in turn are distinct from similar rite churches, which do not acknowledge Roman primacy - the Orthodox Churches, for example - but which Rome still considers to be part of the Catholic Church, if separated. Finally, these latter are to be distinguished from other "ecclesial communities" (ie Protestants and others) that nowadays Rome keeps quiet about, to avoid giving offence. Confusing? Easier to say, as has always been the case the "Roman Catholic Church", which has the benefit of being strictly accurate as regards the Catholics in Scotland.
I agree with the first point, I suppose I might as well move unless anyone has any objections? Gavin Scott ( talk) 20:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding "there are significant numbers of Italian and Lithuanian ancestory and more recently Polish immigrants". Although recent Polish immigration has greatly swelled those of Polish ancestry in Scotland, there was a significant population beforehand, which this phrasing ignores. Conversely, until recent years I'm pretty sure numbers of those of Lithuanian ancestry were not at all large. Even with the immigration of the last few years I'd want to see citation that shows Lithuanians are any more significant in numbers now than Roman Catholics of other nationalities/ancestries, e.g. Spanish, French or even German and English. Mutt Lunker 19:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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 replaced the largely unsourced text in the Medieval section with about the same amount of sourced text that gives a brief summary. What is the feeling about this bit of the article? It is well covered in the articles given in links, so I was not sure it needed a lot of details here, but plenty more could be supplied. My feeling was that this article should focus mainly on (the unique aspects of) post-Reformation Catholicism.-- SabreBD ( talk) 17:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. There should probably be a sitewide RfC on this issue at some point, as it is coming up across multiple different countries, and the results are not consistent. However, until that happens, from the discussion here, I see a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS not to move this article. — Amakuru ( talk) 12:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Roman Catholicism in Scotland →
Catholic Church in Scotland – To be in line with definitive rename of main article to Catholic Church, and to avoid excluding Eastern Catholic presence in the country. (Yes, they exist there, e.g.
St Andrew's Ukrainian Catholic Church.) Deus vult!
Crusadestudent (
talk) 07:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC) --Relisted. —
JFG
talk
12:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Obviously a very controversial topic, and I confess that, despite my Protestant background, I'm of two minds, but tending to think that Roman is a necessary qualifier.
I certainly agree with the closer that further discussion is needed.
I note that nobody has provided the link I requested to previous discussion (it seems that the article now at Catholic Church was renamed at some stage and that rename is the subject of much subsequent discussion... does anyone have a link to that RM? How recent was the rename...).
Trying to be objective, my main concern with the current name of the Catholic Church article is that it is seriously ambiguous. The Apostles Creed for example uses some variant of the Holy Catholic Church in all of its English translations (protestant and Catholic alike... yes I leave out Roman there deliberately), and is widely understood (even within Roman Catholic circles, especially but not only since Vatican II) to refer to a larger entity than the Roman Catholic Church. At the very least they would include other churches with which they have intercommunion.
On the other hand, Catholic Church is in many other contexts understood to mean Roman Catholic Church, and is widely used as a shorthand at least.
And of course many people have a strong theological reason for wanting to go one way or the other... at least one indicated as much in the discussion above. Not easy. Andrewa ( talk) 22:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)