![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. ( non-admin closure) — Amakuru ( talk) 20:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
– In common modern usage the term "Free Church of Scotland" overwhelmingly refers to the current denomination that bears that name. It is the primary topic. The history of the Free Church of Scotland (1843-1900) is important and deserves its own article, especially given the partial mergers that occurred in the 1900. The Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) is not generally referred to as the Free Church of Scotland without qualification. Greenshed ( talk) 01:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
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. St Anselm ( talk) 02:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I have no attachment to the surprising. The Wee Free is a long standing insult and since it's before 1900 shouldn't be in the lead in this article unless the intention is to be insulting as you seem to want to be. Try searching the phrase "the free kirk, the wee kirk, the kirk without the steeple". I don't think that Scotch or for that matter nigger were always offensive. Nor should they be used with anything other than a great deal of care.
The two phrases are not independent. The "Wee" part was always meant to be insulting and is, and was, taken that way. None of the sources you quoted discussed the offensiveness of the term. When the term is trotted out in the media it's almost always with weasel words like "commonly" or "popularly" meaning a lot of people do it. Nevertheless it remains an offensive term and you perhaps should do some more reading before reverting my edits. If you're told you're being offensive why don't you err on the side of caution and avoid the phrase? I didn't start an edit war. I removed an offensive term which you keep replacing whatever your intentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehdeejay ( talk • contribs) 05:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
You know the Moderator of their General Assembly found it offensive. Perhaps you think he was speaking in a private capacity rather than as a representative of his denomination when he made this plain as reported in the media. The link to a reliable source is there. I didn't put it there. I did therefore remove the offensive term. You did replace it - twice. I don't see the need to attempt to prove everyone finds it offensive. Is it not enough to know many people take it that way as shown in the link? Do you take this approach every time you see a potentially pejorative term? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehdeejay ( talk • contribs) 05:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
The designation as you call it is: "If used in reference to the present-day Free Church of Scotland, it is seen as a derogatory and offensive slur." [1] The media know this as is shown by the BBC using the term they're reporting on as being offensive in their headline. I would expect better things on Wikipedia and from someone with a name and past Wikipedia history like yours. As far as I'm concerned you have the link and the one here I've just quoted. If you will not listen to them then I suppose you will not even listen if someone rises, looks you in the eye and tells you it is so.
References
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)