Talk:Free Church of Scotland (since 1900)

message: 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. --164.36.38.240 17:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1929

message: 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)
thread_title: Wee Wee

message: The article links to the wrong Donald Macleod. It links to someone in the US, not the Scottish minister.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.104.154 (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Donald Macleod

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: due weight

message: 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?
82.235.147.212 (talk) 07:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Worship section 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120717064352/http://www.icrconline.com/members.html to http://www.icrconline.com/members.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 -  - 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Wee Frees 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion