Talk:Scottish religion in the seventeenth century/Archive 1

Archive 1

Nationalist bias

References to the relationship between Scotland and England in the Background section of this article omit certain facts (not opinions, facts). The timing and slant of the original entry in 2014 suggest the motivation is largely related to current events. The past doesn't mean the current Union is right (if modern Scotland wants independence, fine by me) but equally shouldn't colour interpretations of events in the 17th century. As originally written, it is hard to understand why religion was so important or the distinction between doctrine and church government such as whether control of the Kirk was exercised by the General Assembly or bishops.

These omissions include how James' political vision drove the imposition of Episcopalian standards on the Kirk and its influence on 17th century Scottish religious debates, why it was resisted and the impact. This includes the Covenanter demand that the English Parliament agree to a Presbyterian Union between Scotland and England as the price of their support. It was the rejection of that Union by Cromwell and the English Independents which resulted in 'alienation from the Parliamentary regime.'

The descriptions of the Second and Third Civil Wars avoid mentioning the fact both were directly caused by the Scots seeking to undo the result of the First and restore first Charles I, then Charles II to the English throne by military force. Without this detail, Cromwell's exasperation with divisions within the Kirk, his decision to incorporate Scotland into the Commonwealth and Scottish reactions to that don't make any sense.

The centrality of religion to political differences between the Scots and English, why it drove attempts to impose Union by James I, the Covenanters in 1643, 1649 and 1651 and the Scottish Episcopalians in 1689 and why the English Parliament rejected them cannot be properly understood without this revised Background.

Robinvp11 (talk) 07:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Your changes create a number of problems in this article, which has gone through a process to have 'good article' status. By changing the lede you have made it no longer a summary of the article, which is the aim here, but it immediately leaps into what are not very netural interpretations of concepts. You have also misunderstood quite a lot of what the article was saying. I think you have seen an issue you disagree with, but these edits unbalance the article, impinge on its neutrality and create a number of problems with standard formatting in Wikipedia.

I suggest that you carefully think about what changes you feel might be made and why, so that they can be discussed and this issue resolved.--SabreBD (talk) 15:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm interested in parts of history I know something about (in this case, the Wars of the Three Kingdoms) but have areas I've always been unclear. So I'm learning as I go through. I'm not deliberately trying to start fires although it is incredibly hard to find topics in Wikipedia obscure enough not to do so even inadvertently. How does 'Good article' status impact this? Is there a special process I need to know about?

On reflection, my first rewrite was driven by irritation and I'm willing to own that but I flagged my concern on the Talk, the page hasn't changed in three years, nobody said anything, I put in a lot of time. This is a collaborative work site so I expected comments but I was annoyed at having it reversed within 5 minutes of posting with no constructive criticism other than 'Horrific' which I assume means 'I don't agree.'

I'll be open - I'm concerned by your comment not very netural interpretations of concepts....misunderstood quite a lot of what the article was saying' because while that might not be your intent, it conveys a specific viewpoint ie the article's good, doesn't need changing.

We should identify trends, not react to one offs; I've looked at a lot of Wikipedia articles on Scotland because of other edits and there is a consistent disconnect between events, their context and the use of highly selective wording. Re Neutrality, my rewrite was extensively referenced, far more so than the original and I did my best to use modern Scottish sourced material. More importantly, Neutrality is also affected by what you leave out, not simply what you include and that is the issue here.

Rather than 'failing to understand what it was about' I suggest it's not me who's missed the point. The two fundamental issues about religion in this period aren't even mentioned ie the close connection between religious belief and political ideology and the struggle for power between two radically different concepts of divine authority. It's not a small detail; conflict over this killed 30% of the European population between 1524-1648 and one in eight of the British male population between 1640-1652. To modern readers, it is impossible to understand the centrality of religion in Scottish life without that context or why so many were prepared to die for it. It's like writing about Bosnia in the 90s by saying 'yeah, a lot of people died' and leaving out why they died. 'Interpretation' would be making a value judgement on who was right. Which I didn't do.

I looked at this page thinking 'What's my takeaway?' The first paragraph as written has a clear flow ie Charles imposed a English prayer book, to make him head of the church, the Bishops Wars created an independent Scotland, defeat in the English Civil Wars led to annexation etc.

Specifically, comments on the first paragraph, every single one of which is specifically related to Scottish Religion in the 17th century;

...a predominately Calvinist national kirk, which was strongly Presbyterian in outlook... What's the difference? .... James VI favoured doctrinal Calvinism, but also episcopacy....again, why did it matter? ....Charles I authorised a book of canons that made him head of the Church....factually incorrect (the monarch was already head of the Church hence the problem of James II being a Catholic) and why did Charles want to impose it anyway? ....The Covenanters intervened on the side of Parliament....why?.....but became increasingly alienated from the Parliamentary regime....why? ...Scottish defeats in the subsequent Second and Third civil wars....why were the Scots involved in 'English Civil Wars?' ....led to English occupation and incorporation in a Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland led by Oliver Cromwell from 1652....why did Cromwell incorporate Scotland into the Commonwealth having conducted a military coup two years earlier to prevent it? ...the imposition of religious toleration for Protestants...I thought the Scots were Protestants so what does that mean? And why was it an issue so important it merits inclusion in the Background?

I didn't know the answers and it inspired me to find out so I've achieved my aim but it seems a shame not to share that in a way that can be of value to others. I've rewritten this to fit into the format used for 18th century religion and I can tweak it to reflect the detail below (although there are several factual errors in them). So what's the best way of doing this? Would you like to see it first? Should I do the corrections to the body first or what?

Robinvp11 (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Suggested Corrections on Covenanter

Just for fun (waiting for a plane) here are my detailed observations on the Covenanter section. As mentioned previously, this should contain at least some explanation of why James and Charles wanted to impose shared liturgies.

…the King authorised a book of canons that made him head of the Church… He already was Head of the Kirk so I’m not sure what this means.

The Scots and the King both assembled armies and, after the two Bishop's Wars of 1639 and 1640, the Scots emerged the victors….'

‘Scots’ should be replaced by ‘Covenanters.’ Per Wikipedia, the first war was a Scottish civil war of Covenanters versus their domestic opponents in NE Scotland, a conflict that endured into the next century and is thus extremely relevant while Scots implies a unity that isn’t correct.

The Covenanters sided with Parliament and in 1643 they entered into a Solemn League and Covenant, guaranteeing the Scottish Church settlement and promising further reform in England.

...guaranteeing the Scottish Church implies the Covenanters main objective was simply to ensure an independent Kirk which is extremely misleading. They wanted to embed Covenanter supremacy in Scotland.

...promising further reform.. A very misleading and anodyne statement for imposing a Presbyterian Union on the majority of English people who didn’t want it. It matters, because both English and Scots saw the other as aggressive and that drove policy.

…the hardline "Kirk Party" and fell under the control of those willing to compromise with the King…. The resulting Engagement... 

All sides were wiling to do a deal with the King; the issue was Charles I’ refusal to take the Covenant himself. It matters because otherwise it's hard to understand why the Kirk Party fundamentalists rejected Charles I but were happy to crown his son.

The terms he agreed with the Engagers may not have been exactly what they wanted but if these had been proposed by the English to the Scots, I can only imagine what people's reaction would be;

Impose Presbyterian church government in England for a three-year period; Suppress the Independent sects. All acts passed by the Scottish Parliament since 1644 would be ratified and Scotsmen would be guaranteed greater influence in the government of England, with a view to eventual union of the two kingdoms. In return, the Scots would undertake to bring the King to London to negotiate a personal treaty with the Westminster Parliament. If Parliament refused to co-operate, the Scots would send an army into England to enforce the King's authority.

Plus the Kirk Party crowned Charles II King of Scotland and Great Britain, which was more or less a declaration of war given England was then a Republic.

I'm commenting on the material in this article; if that material is relevant (which I'm assuming is the case) then it needs greater balance. I'm happy to do the work, you can review it, make changes whatever. I've learned a lot (which was my objective) I've enjoyed it and I'd like to share some of that as part of a collaborative effort to improve this page, which I assume is an object we can all agree on.

Robinvp11 (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Commonwealth; specific comments

After the execution of the King in January 1649, England was declared a commonwealth and the Scots declared his son king as Charles II. The English responded with an invasion...

This makes it seem the English were the aggressors and simply didn't fancy the Scots having a King. Which is false; (a) the Covenanters objected to Charles I's execution because they believed the institution of monarchy was divinely ordained, an extremely important distinction with the English Radicals, (b) the Kirk Party crowned Charles II King of Scotland and Great Britain which as England was then a Republic was a pretty clear message and (c) in the 1650 Treaty of Breda, agreed to provide Charles II with military support to restore him to the English throne in return for him agreeing to impose Presbyterianism on England. Which made Cromwell's invasion pre-emptive and is extremely important when it comes to understanding the Restoration Settlement.

And why isn't a Scots army of 14,000 crossing into England in August 1651 also an invasion? Worcester is a long way from the border.

...the Resolutioners, who were willing to make an accommodation with royalism, and the more hard line Protesters who wished to purge the Kirk of such associations...

Factually incorrect; the issue was not Royalism but the Covenant. The 1649 Act of Classes banned Royalists and Engagers, not because they were Royalists but because they had agreed to support Charles I even though he didn't take the Covenant.

Resolutioners supported the Kirk's December 1650 Resolution that permitted the re-admission of Royalists and Engagers into the army once they had undergone suitable penance. Protestors refused to allow these elements back into the government of Scotland regardless. That bitterness explains why the Restoration went the way it did.

The terms of the union promised that the Gospel would be preached and promised freedom of religion. The regime accepted Presbyterianism as a valid system, but did not accept that it was the only legitimate form of church organisation....Which regime? This is a key point because the main reason why large parts of the Kirk refused to accept the Commonwealth was religious tolerance for non-Presbyterian Protestants like Quakers.

The administration tended to favour the Protesters, largely because the Resolutioners were more inclined to desire a restoration of the monarchy and because the General Assembly, where they predominated, claimed independence from the state. Which administration?

This statement is essentially the opposite of the truth. Protesters argued that Resolutioners had irrevocably corrupted the Kirk but most significantly, refused to accept the Commonwealth at all because it enforced religious tolerance for non-Presbyterian Protestants like Quakers. All parts of the Kirk favoured monarchy (see above), not just the Resolutioners. The administration (whoever they were) didn't 'favour' the Protestors, they got fed up with all of them.

Again, I'm commenting on what's written here, not adding or making stuff I can provide sources from Scottish historians for every single one of these. I'm not suggesting deliberate bias because I wouldn't have known the difference myself a few weeks ago, nor does all this need to be included but it does need balance.

Robinvp11 (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Suggested Approach

I shouldn't have rewritten the Background without explaining why first and it was really stupid of me to headline it Nationalist Bias - my bad and I owned that. Let's reset; as explained in detail above, the article as written fails to explain the centrality of religion in this period or what the divisions were. And by leaving out important facts, it lacks balance.

The rewrite took me hours and was reversed because it was 'horrific.' Hard to work with that but ok. In response, I explained my concerns on the Talk page in detail. No response. So I started with one section; I spent hours on an expansion (not simply a rewrite) that is both balanced and contains substantial references from multiple and current sources because it's a lot easier to respond to a specific edit than argue abstruse points. I asked for Comments. Once again, it was simply reversed without any discussion. What am I not doing?

The lack of comments and the speed of reversal suggests that content is not the issue. And if that's the case, then please just be honest. We've all got better things to do. I've tried being polite, assuming positive intent - but that is a two way street. How about some in return?

Robinvp11 (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)