Talk:Church of Scotland: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Peter Jackson (→Established church: new section) |
imported>Peter Jackson |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
It still is, according to every authority I've ever come across till now. Perhaps some change was made in the nature of the establishment in 1921, but that's a different matter. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 17:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC) | It still is, according to every authority I've ever come across till now. Perhaps some change was made in the nature of the establishment in 1921, but that's a different matter. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 17:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
Primary evidence: | |||
#The Regency Act 1937 says a regent cannot give royal assent to an act of parliament to change the establishment of the C of S, implying parliament in 1937 didn't believe it had disestablished the church in 1921. | |||
#The Queen, on her accession, had to sign a promise to protect the establishment of the C of S. | |||
[[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 16:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 10:55, 13 November 2008
Richard:it is not correct to redirect Presbyterian to Church of Scotland. They are not the same thing, although the historical connection is important. I have removed the divert. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 08:36, 8 October 2007 (CDT)
- a redicrect means there is significant informationm there--and there is--not that the topics are identical. Look at the Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia, which covers C of S under the heading "Presbyterian." at [1] Richard Jensen 08:40, 8 October 2007 (CDT)
- That is not my understanding of how to use redirects on CZ. I will ask about it. For the moment, I prefer just to have a link there, although we need at least some text...--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 09:52, 8 October 2007 (CDT)
- I guess I have not seen any CZ policy on redirects. The basic problem is that we do not have an article on Presbyterianism, and my goal was to help people interested in that topic by taking them to the most relevant article.Richard Jensen 17:13, 8 October 2007 (CDT)
- I would not make to much fuss about it, when the time comes and someone one to make both good articles, it will happen. Kim van der Linde 17:30, 8 October 2007 (CDT)
- My reasons for making a fuss are twofold: first, someone might think that Presbyterianism is a synonym for the Church of Scotland: secondly, that the redirect prevents someone from easily creating an article there. These two things are an important part [or should be, anyway!] of overall policy on CZ. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 18:32, 8 October 2007 (CDT)
- I would not make to much fuss about it, when the time comes and someone one to make both good articles, it will happen. Kim van der Linde 17:30, 8 October 2007 (CDT)
- I guess I have not seen any CZ policy on redirects. The basic problem is that we do not have an article on Presbyterianism, and my goal was to help people interested in that topic by taking them to the most relevant article.Richard Jensen 17:13, 8 October 2007 (CDT)
- That is not my understanding of how to use redirects on CZ. I will ask about it. For the moment, I prefer just to have a link there, although we need at least some text...--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 09:52, 8 October 2007 (CDT)
- the solution is to keep the redirect and add a sentence here that Pres, is the governance system created by the C of S and adopted by its many offshoots in the Brit Empire.Richard Jensen 18:55, 8 October 2007 (CDT)
- a redicrect means there is significant informationm there--and there is--not that the topics are identical. Look at the Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia, which covers C of S under the heading "Presbyterian." at [1] Richard Jensen 08:40, 8 October 2007 (CDT)
It is not a solution, because it would discourage people from writing an article on Presbyterianism. The page needs to be visible, with a stub. Not a redirect. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 19:18, 8 October 2007 (CDT)
- OK, I just wrote a short article on Presbyterian that may do the job. Richard Jensen 19:53, 8 October 2007 (CDT)
- Thank you, I really do think this was a better way to go. As with WP, a stub encourages people with an interest to add to it, which should be an intrinsic part of CZ. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 20:00, 8 October 2007 (CDT)
- OK, I just wrote a short article on Presbyterian that may do the job. Richard Jensen 19:53, 8 October 2007 (CDT)
Established church
It still is, according to every authority I've ever come across till now. Perhaps some change was made in the nature of the establishment in 1921, but that's a different matter. Peter Jackson 17:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Primary evidence:
- The Regency Act 1937 says a regent cannot give royal assent to an act of parliament to change the establishment of the C of S, implying parliament in 1937 didn't believe it had disestablished the church in 1921.
- The Queen, on her accession, had to sign a promise to protect the establishment of the C of S.
Peter Jackson 16:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)