Talk:Elizabethan Religious Settlement/Archive 1

Modern Take
Need some summary of contemporary scholarship that brings nuance to the term and even questions of its validity. Dan Knauss 15:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

English Reformation merger
This artile should be merged with that on the English Reformation. Roger Arguile 16:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Roger Arguile. It duplicates the English Reformation article and should be merged with it for the benefit of both. In any case the last paragraph,with no footnote page references, is to me meaningless. What does it mean? Should it not be either rewritten or deleted? I have read Haigh to try to understand it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederick jones (talk • contribs) 16:25, 1 July 2007
 * I also agree, somebody be bold. -- SECisek 07:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have done some work on this article and now think it should stay independent. -- SECisek 22:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Prayer Book
How can the 1559 Prayer Book be regarded as a compromise between 1549 and 1552 when it is in fact 1552 with a few amendments? For an excellent article by an Evangelical scholar on the relationship between the two books try Google (PDF)Churchman 116-3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederick jones (talk • contribs)


 * Can we not agree that it is a compromise in wording? that leaves open the disputed question of whether they teach a different doctrine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederick jones (talk • contribs)

Can we have a page reference for the last footnote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederick jones (talk • contribs)

Puritan choir
I'm concerned that the Puritan choir material is inadequately sourced (see Talk:Puritan choir) and may have been given undue weight. A.K.Nole (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused Bobbiebaileyxxm (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Rollback to remove original research
See also an analogous situation at Talk:Roman diocese. Mathglot (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Rollback 1
I am planning a rollback of the article to revision 869853588 of 20:16, November 20, 2018 by in order to remove a large amount (18.7kb) of unsourced original research added in the last few days. This rollback will remove 90 intermediate revisions, 88 by and two by Magic Links bot. You can view a diff of the two versions, but it's difficult to see what's going on in a diff of this magnitude. A side-by-side comparison may be easier to handle, for some of it. Any material that was supported by valid sources and is removed due to the rollback, will be restored afterward; I think there are a couple of such cases. No references were added in the series of edits. If you have any objection to the rollback, please state them now. Please don't make any edits to the article while this matter is pending, as new edits will likely be removed as part of the rollback. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 11:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC) updated by Mathglot (talk) 12:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ugh, it looks like it goes back further than I thought; there were four other flurries of unsourced additions; around June 19, July 23, August 25, and October 16. Will just have to deal with things one at a time. Mathglot (talk) 12:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Rollback completed; see User talk:DuckeggAlex for additional info. Mathglot (talk) 00:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like further rollbacks will be needed. User  made edits to the article of a very similar nature which will also need to be rolled back. However, any new edits to the article at this point, good or not, complicate clean-up of the already existing damage to the article by earlier unsourced original research which still needs to be investigated and removed, because further rollbacks would remove new edits including good ones, which would need to be reinstated after the rollback. Accordingly, as a courtesy I'm asking everyone for their indulgence for a while, and posting this notice:
 * When things are back to normal, I'll strike the text above. This is just a request, as I can't tell anybody what to do or not to do, but further edits will cause an additional burden on editors trying to clean up the article. (If this message is still present after a long period, please ping me, in case I forget to strike it.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC) updated for strikeout text, by Mathglot (talk) 12:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * When things are back to normal, I'll strike the text above. This is just a request, as I can't tell anybody what to do or not to do, but further edits will cause an additional burden on editors trying to clean up the article. (If this message is still present after a long period, please ping me, in case I forget to strike it.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC) updated for strikeout text, by Mathglot (talk) 12:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Rollback 2
I am planning an additional rollback of the article to revision 846412200 of 16:24, June 18, 2018 by User:ToBeFree in order to remove a large amount (10kb) of unsourced original research added between June 18 and the previous rollback point of 20:16, November 20, 2018. This rollback will remove 52 intermediate revisions (diff) including 33 by DuckeggAlex, two substantive edits by other users (the rest are vandalism, reverts, or minor):
 * edits by +22b 24 July 2018 (diff)
 * edit 861966952 of 08:55, October 1, 2018 by +49b (diff): this edit added &lt;ref> tags around existing, in-line citation material, [note added here by Jonesey95:] fixed and templated an ISBN, added an ibid tag, fixed a broken harv reference, and added a "full citation needed" tag.

Doing a reference comparison between the two versions: It turns out that the difference in footnotes can be accounted for by edit 861966952 by Jonesey95, who placed &lt;ref> tags around existing material that provided citation info, but which did not appear in the "References" section, because they lacked &lt;ref> tags. The rollback will wipe out these two edits, which will need to be reinstated afterward. There appear to be no other cases of citation info inline that is missing ref tags in order to appear as footnotes.
 * DuckeggAlex earliest edit to Elizabethan Religious Settlement is revision 846564146 of 14:52, June 19, 2018 (17,157 bytes) at which time there were 12 footnotes:
 * at the previous rollback point 869853588 of 20:16, November 20, 2018 (27,221 bytes) there were 18 footnotes

Following this rollback, another may be required, in order to deal with a large amount of OR material added by. Mathglot (talk) 10:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Since I was pinged from here, I am here to say that I have no problem with any of this. You are welcome to reinstate my edits once you are done with the rollbacks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I'll wait a bit and if no objection, I'll carry it out. Mathglot (talk) 01:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Rollback to revision 846412200 of 16:24, June 18, 2018 was performed. Reinstatement completed for such portions of the edit by User:Jonesey95 that involved material existing before the rollback point. No reinstatement required for the Blackwood edit, as it involved exclusively material that was rolled back. A few other edits were made subsequently to the last rollback that were examined: the spelling fixes by User:Johnsoniensis have been reinstated to the extent they apply to material not rolled back. As to the category edit by  I do not believe it needs to be reinstated, but have contacted her on her Talk page about it. This completes Rollback #2. Mathglot (talk) 11:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Rollback 3
As stated above, a third rollback may be required, in order to deal with a large amount of OR material added by between 23 Nov 2014 and 13 Dec 2017. Mathglot (talk) 12:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The ibid thing
The "ibid" (see banner on article) was introduced in revision 682741456 of 18:28, September 25, 2015  by, who also made these other edits at ERS between 2014 and December 2017. Domanda also made many edits to Roman Diocese, and stopped editing in May 2018. started editing in June 2018. I believe they are sock puppets of each other. Mathglot (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably with no malicious intent, though. I noticed the same pattern at Roman diocese, where first you saw, then , then a couple of IPv6's continuing the same pattern for a few weeks, and then starts up, with no overlaps. I think this is probably just a case of someone forgetting their password, and starting over. Mathglot (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why the above message was posted on the talk page. I have fixed the citation with "ibid" and removed the tag. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * After having been removed previously, the tag was inadvertently restored in the most recent rollback; thanks for the fix! Mathglot (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)