Talk:David Beaton

message: "Beaton was little interested in Church reform, living, like many pre-Reformation prelates, in open concubinage, providing lavishly for his children from ecclesiastical property"
this highly controversial and provacativ e quote is without a citation Peppermintschnapps (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  citations/ bias 

message: Two small alterations.  James V was not at Solway Moss.  I've also removed the reference to a 'failed' Scottish invasion of England in 1545.  I know of no such invasion.  I assume that this does not refer to the repeated raids and counter-raids that were such a feature of Border life, both then and later?
Rcpaterson 00:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battles and Invasions 

message: Before moving this article again please read the top of the official policy on WP:NAME. Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. Another way to summarize the overall principle of Wikipedia's naming conventions: Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.
e, here's the thing. No-one outside Roman Catholic specialists ever referrs to David Beaton as 'David Cardinal Beaton'. He is invariable known as David Beaton, Cardinal Beaton, Cardinal David Beaton 
:* Google "David Cardinal Beaton" = 53 hits (NOT impressive) 
:* Google "'Cardinal David Beaton'" = 1, 760 
:* Google "David Beaton" and add a control to ensure we are talking of the same man = with "John Knox" = 1,200 ; with "Reformation" = 1,230 ; with "Archbishop" = 1,730 
* The Catholic Encyclopedia, no less also calls him plain David Beaton 
    
I'd say that's pretty conclusive. The western clergy guideline (which no doubt is the reason for the move - although no reason was actually given - very bad) is obviously not in conformity with our *policy* - perhaps you should update it?. --Docg 09:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) 'Denomination' is a complete anachronism. As in most European countries until into the 17th Century, there was simply 'the church' - the Ecclesia Scotica - which until 1560 acknowledged the papacy and the mass. 2) 'Roman Catholic Church' is also an anachronism, as again there was only the church in the west - perhaps differentiated from the Orthodox as 'the Western Church' or the 'Catholic Church' - but for the most part, and certainly in Scotland, such a distinction was unnecessary. The language of denominations and separate churches co-existing in the same nation does not belong to this period. --Docg 16:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, you're sorta right that there was only one church in the West, but that was the Roman Catholic Church. And until the ecclesia Scoticana breaks off from Rome in 1560, it is part of the Roman Catholic Church. Just fact. And how does that justify removing rather than altering an entire template?(see you didn't remove entire this time) Deacon of Pndapetzim. Rather than engage in a pointless revert war, I will go and see what other people think. (Talk) 16:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've altered rather than removed the template. But it isn't fact. The term 'Roman Catholic Church' doesn't exist at the time - there is simply the one Church that acknowledges Rome. Certainly Beaton did acknowledge Rome - but he (and his reforming critics) would have agreed in denying the notion of denominations. He would never have considered himself a denomnationalist.--Docg 16:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about removing the word 'denomination' and simply putting 'ecclesia Scoticana' as his affiliation? It is only a horrid infobox - hardly worth a fight.--Docg 16:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  See, that's not true, because some parts of the old West have already broken with Rome, and besides that, there is also the Orthodox Church, the Syrian Church, etc. I've asked the people at WP Catholicism what they think. Maybe they'll agree with you, who knows. I just don't see the logic. Yes, the infobox may be improvable (as most are), but it is the one that's widely used on wiki ... e.g. was on the Today's Featured Article (Jocelin) just yesterday. That, of course, is a wider issue, and of course, this discussion could have implications if your views have wider acceptance. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just to emphasize, the discussion you're bringing up is too important for just this page, and could have wider ramifications if you're argument is accepted. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The language of denominations is not Scotland of the time. Both Beaton and his reforming enemies would have agreed that there was and only could be one Church in Scotland. For Beaton that Church must acknowledge the Pope - anything else was heretical. For the reformers that church must not and Beaton was the heretic. There is no concept of their being two 'churches' or various possible denominations. There are only Christians or heretics. Yes, in some parts of the world the church may have strange ideas or do things differently, but the language of denomination would still be improper. Either one would recognise it as part of the same church in some level of heresy - or one would deny it altogether. The language of 'denominations' and different 'churches' competing or coexisting is totally improper for this period. It also can be a POV attempt by proponents of later denominations to 'claim' common Christian ancestors as their own. Can you provide any citations to verify the claim that Beaton would have categorised himself by denominational terms??--Docg 16:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't disagree with your view entirely. But whether the word "denomination" was used isn't really all that relevant (Many protestants and catholics today regard the others as heretics, though it's not much vocalized in this way). But in the modern view, the Scottish Church was Catholic before 1560, owing allegiance to the Pope and doing other Catholic things. That's why it is simply fact. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly had allegiance to the pope and mass etc. but  categorising it with modern categories is deceptive. It would be a bit like saying that ancient Rome was in the Republic of Italy because that's what we call that area of the world today. Allegiance to the pope mass etc existed at the time - but denominations didn't. The concept of their being two Churches or two branches of the Church would have been anathema to both sides. There was one Church in Scotland - it had allegiance to Rome and practised the Roman rites until the reformation. But no-one regarded this as a change of denomination - it was a change of polity, ecclesiology and theology - but not a change of Church - since everyone agreed that there was only one Church.--Docg 21:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, everyone agreed that there ought to be only one church, and that there was only one correct church, but not that there was only one in existence; and since the Pope started creating parallel hierarchies in the east in the 11th century, concepts of more than one actual church had been established. Now, I'm aware that it wasn't until the late 17th, really the 18th century, that parallel church networks had official existence in Scotland, but that is not to say that there hadn't been recognition of religious differences previously. It is perfectly fair to lable pre-Reformation Scotland as Catholic, and no-one is going to think that this implied the existence of protestants in Scotland at the time. At least, I hope not. Is there really such a problem with the word "denomination"? And if there is, then maybe the template rather than this article should be the target of your edits (baring in mind the template already has a life on scores of articles). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming of this article  

message: I don't know how to add citation needed tag, however, when discussing his death there is a reference [2] which contains nothing about who murdered him. If you look at the Earl of Rothes page it states that the Earl was tried & found not guilty. Could someone chase up citation or remove unfounded text (",) Thanks 86.63.26.124 (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on David Beaton. 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/20090923004616/http://www.nls.uk/scotlandspages/timeline/1546.html to http://www.nls.uk/scotlandspages/timeline/1546.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) 00:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified