Talk:Church of Scotland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WikiProject Scotland Church of Scotland is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh)

- needs references, per WP:CITE
WikiProject Scotland To-do:

Contents

[edit] Supreme Head

Every Christian Church recognises Jesus Christ as its Supreme Head. If this is mentioned in the Church of Scotland, I expect it to have it mentioned in the article about every single Christian denomination. Lacrimosus 22:20, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The reference is specific to England and Scotland. At the reformation Henry VIII declared himself Supreme Head, later Supreme Governor was used because that title did not challenge of the position of Jesus Christ garryq 01:04, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Cool, that makes sense. Lacrimosus 12:19, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. I think I edited myself too much. Something about Henry VIII could go into the main article. garryq 13:52, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Act of Settlement 1690

The article Act of Settlement disambiguates between half a dozen of that name. The Act of Settlement 1690 established the Church of Scotland. This red link is to provoke someone into writing it! --Red King 19:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • The 'settlement' in question is not refering directly to any act of parliament - but arrangements made by the general assembly and recognised by the Scots parliament, and Crown (in the the Claim of Right). The Kirk is not 'established' by any act of parliament - rather its claim to independence is recognised by such. --Doc (?) 19:55, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So would someone care to care to write Act of Settlement 1690? (and maybe correct the disambiguation line in Act of Settlement where it says that the 1690 Act "established" the C of S. Should it say "recognised"? Better still, it should use (if possible) the wording of the Act. --Red King 11:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kirk

Can I encourage you all not to overuse the word "Kirk" as a "name" for the Church of Scotland? You do hear it affectionately, especially in the press, but you also hear it used patronisingly, especially by High Anglicans, some of whom will perform cartwheels to avoid giving the Church of Scotland its proper name. Not that I want to purge this word entirely; it has a nice homely ring to it, and it IS used in the proper name of many church buildings (High Kirk of Edinburgh). But with reference to the whole of the national church, people within the church are more likely to use the abbreviation CofS (even in speech!) or - when the context is clear - just "the Church". (If in doubt, see the website of the CofS for the language used there.) --Doric Loon 2 July 2005 07:59 (UTC)

I take your point, Loon, however I'm not too worried about what High Anglicans think as they are generally pretty out of touch with reality in my opinion. My Doric speaking relatives, Presbyterians all, generally refer to the Kirk rather than the Church whether they are talking about the building or the institution. Of course they also talk about the "English Kirk" when the conversation turns to the Scottish Episcopal Church or the Church of England, so I would say that the Kirk/Church difference is just as much a linguistic marker as a political one. The best way to fight patronising use of a word is to use it seriously and unashamedly in its proper context. Avoiding its use means that the only use it will see is in the mouths of the patronising and that cannot be a good thing. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Fair point. Maybe it's a question of language politics. If you look in Life and Work, you will find this word in the chatty pieces, but not in the serious ones. That doesn't have to be our model, but it is also my personal useage. (Should Life and Work be mentioned in the Article, btw?) --Doric Loon 20:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, Life and Work probably should be mentioned in the article. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I would have to disagree, although it is perhaps not the proper name for the Church of Scotland, it is commonly used enough to be mentioned in this article. Although I thought I may be written The Kirk. Either way I do not feel that it is overused in this article as it is now. With regards to a point above regarding Henry VIII, why should he be mentioned in this article? -- Benson85 (who didn't know that he could sign his note by typing ~~~~).

It's not clear who you are disagreeing with nor what you are disagreeing about. Could you clarify that ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

My original complaint was not about the the informal term Kirk being mentioned, but about it seeming in places to take priority over the correct name of the Church. However, that has since been corrected, so like Benson85 I am now happy. --Doric Loon 19:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Broad Church

I am a little worried about calling the CofS a "broad church". This phrase refers to the CofE as instituted by Elizabeth I in the Act of Settlement - a politically brilliant move to unite the first nation state by having a national church which (at least in theory) tried to make space for everyone in the nation, no matter what their theology was. The Scottish Reformation was a strict Calvinist one, and in the 17th and 18th centuries, there was no room for deviance in the CofS. Perhaps something should be written here about that history (cutty stool etc). The Church became more liberal in the 19th century, with a polarisation between evangelicals and moderates, and today the ethos is relatively enlightened and tolerant. So "broad" is not exactly a wrong way to describe the CofS today, but it does have misleading associations. --Doric Loon 2 July 2005 08:30 (UTC)

[edit] Ordination of women

In response to a request from some friends, I have started an article on the Ordination of women in the Church of Scotland. It is very much in its infancy, though, and it would be good if those of you with knowledge of recent CofS history could give it some input. Ta! --Doric Loon 2 July 2005 08:52 (UTC)

[edit] List of Parishes

I have also started a page called List of Church of Scotland parishes which is intended to list parishes and link to their Wiki articles. I don't think there is any point in trying to provide a complete list of parishes (unless one of you wants to take on that massive job!) but I did think it was a good idea to provide easy links to the ones we have special material on. And this may spur some of you on to add articles on other parishes. I think it is worth having an article on a parish if it has a particular historical importance, if its church building is worth visiting, or if it is involved in a particular project (Livingston experiment?) which is worth writing about. --Doric Loon 2 July 2005 10:17 (UTC)

[edit] History section

I notice User:Padrea's useful contribution to the history section. I think that the history section should probably be kept quite brief - a simple skeleton overview. If not it has the potential to swamp the article with info that is not terribly illuminating on the modern CofS. I have wondered for a while whether a separate History of the Church in Scotland might be useful - does anyone have any thoughts? Would you be interested in helping with that?

The description of Knox's superintendence system as a 'modified for of episcopacy' is one I would question - as episcopacy = oversight, I suppose technically you are correct. But theologically it was miles from Episcopalianism and nothing like the Anglican model - perhaps we need language that is a little less definitive. --Doc (?) 11:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The CoS has an "action-packed" history and I think that a separate article would be a great idea. Go for it! -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Of course, episcopacy is not at all the same thing as Episcopalianism, so I think there is no ambiguity there. As I understand it, Knox did want to keep bishops, but give them a different rôle in the Church's structure. And indeed the CofS does still have bishops today: a parish minister who is given oversight of a theology student or minister on probation is referred to as his or her bishop. I'm not sure that most lay members of the Church know that, though. (I still remember MY first bishop - his only piece of advice was "marry a rich woman". I didn't!) --Doric Loon 18:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wee Frees

Out of interest, I notice that there is no longer any reference to the "Wee frees" in this section, why not? I came looking for an explanation of the term (I'd run across it in a book: the excelent stargazing, memories of a young lighthouse keeper) and could only find it on one of those obnoxious sites that just recycle wikipedia content.--stib 12:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

That's because they are a different denomination. They have their own article, but to make it easier, I have just created a redirect: Wee Frees.--Doric Loon 12:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I originally looked for Wee frees, but all that turned up was something about a science fiction book in a seies called Discworld (..?). One of wikipedia's big weaknesses is that it is groaning with trivia about subjects of interest only to geeks, while thin on stuff that normal people might be looking for. I guess that's the nature of an encyclopaedia that anyone.. erm.. anyone with access to a computer and time on their hands can edit-stib 23:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

While I'm no fan of category clutter, I think this article does merit inclusion in the Category:Scotland. The CofS is the largest religious denomination and the national church. It seems crazy that to find it from the Scotland Category one needs to navigate Category:Religion in Scotland Category:Presbyterianism in Scotland to Category:Church of Scotland to the aticle itself. I'm happy enough not to have the article in Presbyterianism (since the category is there). --Doc ask? 11:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nomenclature

(prior to the Anglo-Scottish Union known formally as the Kirk of Scotland}

I've removed this from the intro - it is important, but an article on the church which deals with the church today and its history doesn't want tis level of detail in the introductory sentence. My intention had been to put it into history section, and I'm happy to do that. But two questions first. 1) Can we verify that this was the formal name? 2) Does the 'anglo-scottish union' refer to the union of the crowns (1606) or parliaments (1707)? Can we check both before reinseting. As I say, if clarified and verified, this should be included in the history section, perhaps in its lead sentence. --Doc ask? 13:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
As far I was aware the nomenclature was "Established Church" or "Established Kirk", known informally after 1846 as the Auld Kirk. "Kirk of Scotland" could very well have been the formal name and following the Union of 1707 the name could have been Anglicised. Davidkinnen 14:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
This information is also mentioned / discussed at kirk; maybe that's enough? --Doric Loon 02:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Church and monarch

I read The British monarch (when in Scotland) is simply a member of the Church (she is not, as in England, its "Supreme Governor"). and I wonder: : does QEII ever attend an Anglican church in Scotland and is her status as simply a member of the Church of Scotland one that may be assumed by any member of the Church of England? Laurel Bush 12:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC).

The Queen usually attends Crathie Kirk near Balmoral. I couldn't say she has never attended an Anglican Church in Scotland, but she and other royals do not usually do so. Members of the Church of England (as of other Christian denominations) are not automatically members of the Church of Scotland - the Kirk keeps distinct lists of its members. However, anyone who has previously been a communicant of another denomination, will usually be accepted into mebership of a Church of Scotland congregation in which they are now worshipping with little or no further requirements.--Doc ask? 12:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. I note use of has previously been. Does this mean that living mortals other than QEII can not be simultaneously menbers of the Church of England and the Church of Scotland? Laurel Bush 15:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC).

Yes, I suppose so. Although, I think one is quite sufficient! --Doc ask? 15:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Except for QEII? Laurel Bush 16:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC).

Yes. It is really a constitutional thing to underline that the national Church in England is the episcopal Church of England and in Scotland in the presbyterian Church of Scotland. The monarch as Head of State is sworn to uphold both churches in their respective nations. Thus she is an Anglican in England and a Presbyterian in Scotland. --Doc ask? 16:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by membership, of course. CofS theology says that baptism makes you a member of the church universal, but common parlance speaks of members of the Church meaning people admitted to communicant membership whose names are on the communion list of a parish. If you move from one parish to another there is a formal documentation of this known as "lifting ones lines". I don't know whether the CofE defines membership in such a way, or even keeps lists of members; whereas a Scotsman has to opt into full membership of the CofS, I suspect that the English assumption would be that an Englishman belongs to the CofE unless he opts out (though the new pluralism of the last 50 years will have upset that). Perhaps someone can clarify this. At any rate, I know of many people who in practise are fully involved in the CofE (members of parish councils, lay readers etc) who still have CofS membership from times when they lived north of the border. There is absolutely no obstacle to having both. It is only smaller denominations who seem to have trouble with this. I remember a friend of mine asking if she could be a member of the CofS and the Scottish Baptist Union at the same time. The CofS said yes, but the Baptists said no. --Doric Loon 02:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. Not quite the story I am getting in Talk:Anglican Communion#QEII and Church of Scotland. However, generally, I do get the impression that the idea of QEII as an ordinary member of the Church of Scotland is a bit of official fiction, that her real status in that church is quite special and privileged. Laurel Bush 10:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Queen's status

"The British monarch (when in Scotland) is simply a member of the Church (she is not, as in England, its "Supreme Governor"). The monarch’s coronation oath includes a promise to "defend the security" of the Church of Scotland. She is formally represented at the annual General Assembly by a Lord High Commissioner (unless she chooses to attend in person). The role is purely formal."

Surely this is contradictory. If she is an ordinary member of the Church, in what capacity is she represented at the annual General Assembly by a Lord High Commissioner? Adam 05:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Good question. Seems to me the idea of QEII as an ordinary member of the Church of Scotland is a bit of official fiction. Laurel Bush 10:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC).

No, the Lord High Commissioner has no powers whatsoever in theory or practice. The existence of the office does not indicate any extra-ordinary status of the monarch in the church. --Doc ask? 10:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No powers, but an office, a title, and therefore status? Laurel Bush 11:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC).

No, the monarch has no office and no title with regard to the Kirk. The office and title of 'Lord High Commissioner' are not granted by the Church, and have not legal status within it, but it is granted by the queen to an individual who represents here. It is an affair of the State and not the Church. He is not a commissioner of the General Assembly (and indeed is not a member of it) but he holds a 'commission' from the crown. Technically he/she, or the monarch if attending the assembly in person, is merely a spectator (as can be any member of the public). By convention and courtasy, the assembly invites the LHC to address it, but it would not be obligated to do so. --Doc ask? 11:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The "ordinary member" bit is a reference to a famous speech by John Knox, and sure, that is slightly propagandistic. The Queen is respected by the Church as the head of the secular establishment which the church acknowledges. That means she IS special. But on an entirely different plain from her importance in Church of England thinking. --Doric Loon 11:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. That ref to John Knox seems to make some sense of the situation. Laurel Bush 12:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC).

My current understanding re Church and monarch is as follows:

The monarch is recognised as a member of the Church of Scotland, but whether she is listed on the role of any particular congregation (like any other member) is unclear.
The monarch has no position in the Church equivalent to that of Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Which means, for example, that she has no role in appointments to office within the Church of Scotland.
The monarch is sworn to to protect the Church of Scotland, and the Church is recognised as the "National Church".
The monarch or her representative is routinely invited to speak at the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, an invitation not routinely extended to a simple member of the Church or member of the general public.
There is a widespread but questionable belief that the monarch is a simple or ordinary member of the Church of Scotland. The monarch is not the Supreme Governor, anything like it, but she does appear to have a special position, representing or symbolising the relationship between Church and State or the status of the Church with respect to the State.

Laurel Bush 17:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC).

I have read this discussion with interest. There is no hierarchy in terms of membership in the Church of Scotland. There are, however, also adherents - persons who regularly attend worship but have chosen not to formally join or receive Communion. The monarchy has to be considered in both its theological and constitutional roles - as such the Queen undertook to uphold Presbyterian polity in the Church of Scotland at her Coronation in 1953. There is no reason why the Queen could not attend worship at any other church in Scotland should she wish, but she takes a keen interest in the affairs of the Church of Scotland. She regularly worships at a Church of Scotland church when in Scotland, notably Crathie Kirk and Canongate Kirk. No person who is not a Commissioner to the General Assembly may address the Assembly without the prior consent of the Assembly; the Moderator will always ask the Assembly first "Is it the will of the General Assembly that X be invited to speak?" The response is invariably positive, expressed by restrained stamping of feet (even more restrained since the Assembly Hall was carpeted.) Thus even the Queen has no automatic right to address the Assembly. The reformer Andrew Melville famously called King James VI "God's sillie vassal" to his face; the late 16th century Second Book of Discipline formulated Presbyterian church government which expressly rejected hierarchies in membership or in ministry. Burleigh, in his book A Church History of Scotland, records Melville: "There are two kings and two kingdoms in Scotland. There is Christ Jesus the King and His Kingdom the Kirk, whose subject King James the Sixth is and of whose kingdom not a king, nor a lord, nor a head, but a member." --Matthewross 18:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well done MR - how could I confuse Melville and Knox? But that was the quote I was thinking of. --Doric Loon 21:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for those erudite answers to my question. Adam 21:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

David Steel (yes, the politician) made an excellent BBC documentary on the Disruption a few years ago. It was called "Rebellion of the pious". Does anyone know if it is available on DVD or similar? It has a lot of good stuff on the constitutional status of the Church. --Doric Loon 21:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The monarch does have a constitutional role, related to the status of the Church as the National Church? Could there be a National Church without that particular sense of nationality which is represented by the monarchy? (I am thinking that a republic with a national church might look a bit like a theocracy or one party state.) Laurel Bush 10:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC).

Greece is a republic with a state church, but it is neither a theocracy nor a one-party state. Adam 10:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Can't imagine how Greece squares that particular circle. My main point remains: the monarch has a constitutional role (or somewhat disguised constitutional role) with respect to the Church of Scotland. (It is my impression, by the way, that what Melville was aiming for would be seen now as theocracy. His time was one of some hysteria about religion – and witchcraft.) Laurel Bush 12:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC).

Calvin's Geneva was a theocracy, and yes, Melville would have liked that model. --Doric Loon 12:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that the Queen has any special status in the CoS. If Britain became a republic tomorrow, it wouldn't have any effect on the governance of the Kirk that I can see. Whereas it would surely have major legal implications for the CoE. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. Something that looks fairly concrete, not a quote that may represent aspiration rather than fact, from Acts of Union 1707: The Acts ... guaranteed that the Church of Scotland would remain the established church in Scotland. I imagine those Acts, which concern the succession as well as the status of the Church of Scotland, might need some repeal or amendment if Britain were to become a republic. I havent yet seen the texts of the Acts themselves. Laurel Bush 16:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Scots, Bishops and Kings

Are there any members of the Church of Scotland reading these pages; or, more to the point, are there any who know the real facts behind the history of the church in Scotland? Anyway, the section on the history of the church here is a complete muddle, the result, I imagine of multiple (and uninformed) editing.

Here are the changes I've made to correct the wholesale confusion this piece managed to convey.

First and foremost, it is important to understand that there is no conflict between Calvinism-a theological doctrine-and Episcopacy-a form of church government. The Church of Scotland, before 1638 and after 1661, was both Calvinist and Episcopalian, different in every way from High Church Anglicanism.

The Reformation Parliament of 1560 abolished papal jurisdiction and adopted Calvin's Confession of faith; but it most definately did not adopt the 'polity' set out the First Book of Discipline, which wanted to see all of the assets of the old church pass to the new. The acts of the Reformation Parliament remained unratified throughout the reign of Queen Mary. The office of bishop, moreover, did not disappear. Knox, himself, had no clear views on this question, suggesting that these individuals be renamed as 'superintendats', but still retaining much of their traditional powers.

The situation remained unclear for some years. It was only in 1572, during the minority of King James, that the 1560 acts were finally approved. At the same time the Concordat of Leith allowed the crown to appoint bishops with the approval of the church. It was only now that a specifically Presbyterian party began to emerge, headed by Andrew Melville, the author of the Second Book of Discipline, who argued that bishops were 'unscriptural.'

In the sew-saw struggle that followed the Presbyterian party enjoyed some temporary successes, particularly in the Golden act of 1592. But the alliance between reformers and the nobility, so crucial for revolution of 1560, was steadily weakened by James; and the Presbyterian riots in Edinburgh in 1596 collapsed because the Melvillians had no powerful allies.

From the beginning of the seventeenth century, James steadily reintroduced bishops at a parliamentary and then a diocesan level. General Assemblies were deliberately managed, meeting only in the more conservative parts of the country, to ensure that royal policy was sucessfully implemented. By the end of his reign all the ancient diocese of Scotland had bishops, including the archdiocese of Glasgow and St. Andrews.

The Scottish church at the outset of Charles I's reign was therefore Calvinist and Episcopal. James had himself attempted some High Church innovations, most notably in the Five Articles of Perth, but backed down from full implementation when faced with resistance. It was to be otherwise for his son.

It was Charles's desire to create a national 'British' church by elevating and beautifying the plain Scottish practice in a more fitting Anglican way. The Prayer Book of 1637 was the chief milestone along this road. This book was compiled by a panel of Scottish bishops, including Archbishop Spottiswood of St. Andrews; but the secrecy insisted on by the king led to rumours that it was even more 'papist' than its English cousin.

The National Covenant of 1638 says not a word about bishops. This document was drawn up to focus opposition to Charles' untested reforms, and insisted that all such innovations be subject to scrutiny and approval by free parliaments and assemblies of the church. The Bishops, as suspect agents of the king, were finally expelled from the church at the meeting of the Glasgow General Assembly in November 1638. Then, and only then, was the Church of Scotland established on a full Presbyterian basis; and so the situation remained until the Restoration, when bishops made a reapperance. Rcpaterson 01:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for tackling this; for some time I've been suggesting the need for the reformation in Scotland to be the subject of at least a section in Protestant Reformation, and preferably a new article, and this could form the basis of such an article. I'm glad to see your emphasis of the differences between the Kirk and C of E: this is an area to clarify if possible. I've seen it said that the more Calvinist factions in the Kirk gradually developed a preference for extempore prayer, which fuelled the reaction against imposition of the prayer book. The idea of superintendents seems to have been significantly different from bishops, in that they did not have the sacramental functions and were subject to the authority of the general assembly of the Kirk and elected rather than being under pope or king, but Michael Lynch describes the idea as being subverted from the outset when three bishops converted to Protestantism and were allowed to keep their positions. The more I look into this the more complex it looks, and getting the emphasis right will be welcome, ..dave souza, talk 23:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Souza; it is a pleasure to hear from you again, and I always welcome your perceptive and thoughful observations.

You are quite right: there is a clear need for a detailed account of the Scottish Reformation. I think a lot of the confusion that I have uncovered on areas touching on this subject stems from one simple and understandable misconception-many people, particularly Scots, see the revolution of 1560 as a terminus, whereas it is only act one, scene one in a very long drama, on which the final curtain only really fell in 1690. The Scottish Reformation, in other words, is a process rather than an event, and as such it is arguably the longest in history. In the decades after 1560 there was a prolonged struggle over both forms of worship and forms of government, which seemed to defy resolution. I would be happy to contribute a piece along the lines of 'The Scottish Reformation-a Long Revolution.' I normally, in true mercenary fashion, only write for money; but for once I would be happy to contribute, pro bono, if you like, to the pure democracy of intellect.

I do, however, have one very serious concern. I am very new to Wikipedia. At the outset I thought that it was peopled by individuals like yourself, interested in knowledge and information for itself alone. Sadly I have since discovered that there are other forces at work. I do not wish to sound too paranoid, but I have become ever more aware that there are people working to agendas that have very little to do with knowledge. I was seriously told by one individual that 'knowledge was not enough.' I know that history is an art rather than a science; but it still has to be based on a hard core of evidence. Otherwise, we sink ever deeper into a bog of hopeless relativism, where one argument is as good as another. Some of my attempts to correct factual inaccuracies have been undermined without explanation. I would refer you in particular to my comments on the talk page of the piece on the Auld Alliance. I do not mind thoughtful editing and counter-argument; but I would hate to see any of my work-even unsigned- subject to bowlderisation and corruption. Rcpaterson 10:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I know how you feel, but don't paint too black a picture. There are Wiki editors with agendas - the radical Scottish Nationalist agenda and the extremer reaction to it will be two which will crop up on the pages you work on, but there will be others too, religious and political. And there are people with a bee in their bonnet without much philosophy behind it. And there are the purile idiots who just want to make a mockery or spread obscenities. But the VAST majority of people working here are serious about the pursuit of objectivity and understanding. And very many are erudite people with important contributions to make. If you make improvements where you see them needed, you will generally be met with gratitude and respect, especially if you explain your changes as thoroughly as you have been doing recently. You do have to live with the fact that your texts will be changed, and be patient with the fact that not every change will seem to you like an improvement. But Wikipedia is improving by the day (compare just about any major article with what was there two years ago!) and the community has proved itself worthy of a little patience. So don't be discouraged. Your contributions are greatly needed. --Doric Loon 15:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Doric Loon's covered this better than I might have, however I will add that Wikipedia is a tremendous opportunity to improve access to knowledge, but can be a bit rough on experts. The basic policies, particularly perhaps WP:V, are well hammered out to value fact above opinion, but that also means that expert opinion is subject to the same need for published verification. I've had a look at the Auld Alliance, and should be able to stop that from getting any worse than you left it. It's easier for me as I'm interested in a lot of things I'm no expert in, but the danger is that my contribution to articles won't rise above the level of mediocrity set by my interpretation of my limited sources. However there's impressive work being done, and hope you'll be able to help to improve the standard which more bureaucracy minded souls like myself can strive to defend against the inevitable nuisances, using the procedures which have been well set up for that purpose. ..dave souza, talk 08:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/u/Talk%7EChurch_of_Scotland_1dd8.html"