Talk:Mass rock

Content of unclear relevance to titular subject

In a recent series of edits, "legacy" sub-sections were added to the sections which deal with Mass rocks (and Mass stones) in "Scotland" and "Ireland".

In the "Scotland > Legacy" section, we now have text which discusses the arrest, hanging and canonisation of John Ogilvie. However, there is nothing to suggest that Ogilvie was arrested at a Mass stone(?) Or was otherwise connected to activities at Mass stones. According to the linked article, he was saying Mass at houses (either private houses or Mass houses) in Glasgow. What is the connection to Mass rocks/stones?

This paragraph is followed by a list of other beatified people (Douglas, Gibson, Ingram), who also don't appear to have been captured at (or for preaching at) Mass rocks/stones? And we have a further paragraph about Alexander Cameron, which also doesn't draw any connection with the titular subject. At all.

What is this content doing here? How is this not a WP:COATRACK for content that, if needed, would be much better covered in Catholic Church in Scotland#History or Forty Martyrs of England and Wales or similar?

(Note: I removed similar text from the "Ireland > Legacy" section. On the basis that it was completely uncited and with no apparent connection to the titular subject). Guliolopez (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• Bump. Any thoughts on the above? If not, I'll likely address by summarising or removing the text which is of unclear relevance to titular subject (Mass rocks/Mass stones/Mass houses). Guliolopez (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Please go ahead with removal. Ceoil (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

OK. Not having heard any other thoughts (other than support for summary/removal) and well over a week having passed, I've removed some of the unsupported/unrelated text. As above, if needed, the Catholic Church in Scotland#History or Forty Martyrs of England and Wales or Penal laws (Ireland) or Penal law (British) or Anti-Catholicism in the United Kingdom or Recusancy or Priest hunter (or other related articles) could be cross-linked from the related sections. And examples of religious suppression/etc covered generally in those articles. Otherwise, per WP:SS and WP:CFORK and WP:COATRACK, this article would ideally focus on the titular topic (Mass rocks/stones) and not become a "catch all" article for everything and anything to with religious suppression in the period. Guliolopez (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

(article creator here), I 'd go further here and reduce parts of the "Later use" and "folklore" sections. And uncited sentences such as "Catholic worship, however, was soon to return to the Mass rocks due to the Exclusion Crisis and the anti-Catholic show trials masterminded by Lord Shaftesbury and Titus Oates." Why the hell is Covid 19 mentioned. Ceoil (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for input. In terms of:

• Folklore. Personally I think this section could do with a review. Even after (yet again) moving the (demonstrably historically inaccurate) folktale about a priest being beheaded at a Mass rock as late as 1829, I think the distinction between fact and "story" remains unclear. And "stories" given a little UNDUE weight.
• COVID. As it happens, I think a short mention of the proposed 21st century use of Mass rocks (as a response to restrictions on indoor gatherings, social distancing and limits on church numbers) probably does warrant at least a sentence. Not least as supported by refs. And, at least, verifiably connected/relevant to the titular subject.

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Your edits seem informed and sensible. Ceoil (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm. See that Priest hunter has also suffered from recent additions. I'm incliended to gut back to at least [1]. Ceoil (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

What direct relevance does any of this have to the subject in question, mass rocks/stones? The definition as given is for rocks used as altars. There is no mention of such a thing in any of this material (though there is one mention of a font, not an altar) unless the definition of a mass stone altar extends to proximal cliffs, caves, outcrops or entire mountains, which seems unlikely. Either the material omits to mention its relevance, its connection to the subject of mass stone, or the unlikely broad definition of what constitutes a mass stone, if this is correct, needs to be laid out. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

While I wonder if some of that text could perhaps be dramatically summarised, rather than removed entirely (as the "cave" and its bullaun stone may have some hallmarks of a "mass rock"), I personally have serious WP:EQ concerns with the edit summary used by K1ngstowngalway1 in its restoration. (Contributors are reminded that unsupported accusations of "bad faith" intentions and/or describing long-term "good faith" editors as engaging in "vandalism" is not OK. If another editor raises a legitimate/explained concern about how the text relates to the titular topic, then it would be best to discuss and/or address the concern. Not baselessly accuse the other (longstanding) editor of bad-faith intentions or vandalism. That's really "not on". At all). Guliolopez (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Accusations of bad faith, refusals to accept any other explanations, cancel culture tactics like taking words and phrases out of context, many other calculated acts of button pushing, baiting, and other personal attacks have have gone the other way far too many times for me to even begin to count. So has similar mass deletes of information on this and multiple other articles, however reputably sourced, including University Press books and articles, rather than merely summarizing, which I am certainly okay with, as this is a collaborative project. I have tried very hard to improve my editing practices to satisfy this other editor and end the cancel culture barrage I have been subjected to, but no effort is ever enough. You, too, would be frustrated and angry.K1ngstowngalway1 (talk) 06:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

K1ngstowngalway1 your out of line here, and not because of "cancel culture" but because of a simple failure to comply with simple guidelines. You'd get a lot better reception if you cool it on the personal accusations and argue on substance. Ceoil (talk) 06:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)