This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
There are going to be huge issues with this box throughout the anglican communion pages. Let's see what's here, shall we?
Classification: Protestant There is an on going dicussion about just how Protestant this Church is. The church no longer refers to itself as Protestant in general. What is more the Protestant Episcopal Church has started using that name and the ECUSA seems quite happy to let them have it.
Orientation: Mainline, Anglican Orientation? What is that? Neologisim from what I can tell. All in the communion would agree that we are Anglican (sorry Scots). Orientation of one sort or another, on the other hand, is splitting the communion in two.
Polity: Episcopal I suppose I can buy that but of course they are "Episcopal" - it is in their name.
Founder: Samuel Seabury Christ was the founder, end of argument. There were Episcopalians here waiting for Seabury when he came from Scotland. He was not a founder of anything other than a line of Apostolic Succession.
Origin: 1789 If the Church is Protestant, why was it founded 100+ years after the Reformation ended in England?
Separated from: Church of England Not seperated, misleading, full communion with Canterbury.
This box just is not a good fit for the ECUSA or probably any other of the daughter Churches of the C of E. Thoughts? -- SECisek 05:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
MOVED FROM MY TALK PAGE I've had far too many arguments with pigheaded Wikipedians who refuse to let other people edit their pages to want to argue this with you. In my opinion, the denomination infobox brings some uniformity and helps to immediately clarify a confusing issue (denominational lineage). I can understand disagreeing with who the "founder" of a church is - in which case, you should just remove the founder box from the infobox. I see nothing objectionable with the rest of the box, and I think it's very rude to revert edits when people are just trying to help.
Adam_sk 12:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Both the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church and the title page of the Constitution & Canons agree that the official name is now the Episcopal Church.
Here is one of the many sites lamenting the change and demanding a return to the old name: episcopalian.org regrets the primary disuse of the old name "Protestant Episcopal Church".
Another group, the TPEC, now sees itself as the real Protestant Episcopal Church and uses that name as well. Note the description of the first hit in this google search.
There is an anon., single purpose IP 71.127.159.171 that exists solely to make edits bluring this distinction, going so far as name dropping PECUSA in insignificant contexts, see the discussion of one such instance here.
Do any editors have thoughts concerning my revert? -- SECisek 09:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
If the names used are either "Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America" or "Episcopal Church," and we all seem to agree it is either one or the other, then why is the article at Episcopal Church in the United States of America? It should be either at Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America or Episcopal Church (United States) (or something equivalent). I'd probably prefer the latter - Protestant Episcopal Church may be the official formal name, but it is rarely used these days. john k 18:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't give anybody any ideas. ;-) -- SECisek 22:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Now you have really done it! ROTFL! -- SECisek 00:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
These aren't church bulletins, but:
As for "soapboxing", thank you for pointing out the speck of sawdust in my eye.-- 72.81.247.125 03:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The problem is it is wrong. It is arguments like this that make me want to quit editing. People (often editing behind an IP address) who push a POV in the face of well known, established facts simply ruin Wikipedia. In 2+ months, I have edited 4 GAs and I have an FA candidate, but of most my time is wasted on rubbish like this. One editor insisted for weeks that Cardinal Pole was the "last" Archbishop of Canterbury and that the see has been vacant since. I am currently involved in a dispute with an editor in fantasy land who insists that St George is not the "real" patron saint of England. Now this. The name is the Episcopal Church in the United States of America. This is not an opinion, it is a fact published by numerous primary, secondary and (see below) tertiary sources. So many trusted and important sources say it is the proper name that if this is not the case then this huge, widespread error-or possibly conspiracy-still warrents mention in the article.
Click on the link, make the image full size, and read the published facts, please. I am not the only editor making this case, we can't all be wrong. Furthermore, with respected sources backing the point, it does not have to be correct as it is verifiable. Would you care to suggest some compromise wording like the kind you reverted. Oh, and please register - I am sick of fighting with SPAs. -- SECisek 17:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I concur with abbreviations being over detailed, but they are used later and a rework would be needed. Constitutions and Canons acknowledges both names as offical, which is what the article states now. I agree with InkQuill and I may have been misunderstood. I am quite pleased with the text as it now stands. --
SECisek
18:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
While anon., single purpose IPs continue to try to "right the great wrong" of PECUSA no longer being used, I would just like to point out that the on-line Encyclopædia Britannica has no entry for Protestant Episcopal Church, but does list that title as an alternate name of the Episcopal Church, USA. This is really getting old. -- SECisek 22:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
" Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another...However, rather than debating controversial names, please consider other ways to improve Wikipedia."
"
Reference works. Check other encyclopedias. If there is general agreement on the use of a name (as there often will be), that is usually a good sign of the name being the preferred term in English.
"
Here is some fun from Wikipedia:Naming conflict:
Criterion | PECUSA | ECUSA |
1. Most commonly used name in English | 0 | 1 |
2. Current undisputed official name of entity | 0 | 1 |
3. Current self-identifying name of entity | 1 | 1 |
1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores. |
Even if Secisek's analysis per Wikipedia:Naming conflict were correct, it would be relevant only to conflicts in determining the name of an article. I have not proposed changing the name of the article. What I did was identify the Church in the article with the exact language the Church uses to identify itself. The language is sourced and verifiable. It is in the document of governance of the Church itself. This primary source is definitive, authoritative, accurate and objective. It is current, being the latest version published in 2006, and is not a generation old. The word which you find objectionable is used in secular publications as well as other Church publications. The text I used is as NPOV as can be as it includes both names being offered as the true name of the Church. -- 72.81.247.125 00:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.
Another "mistaken" source: Columbia Enyclopedia
I don't put much stock in this source, but 72.81.247.125 has cited them elsewhere in this debate. Surely if the beloved Columbia Encyclopedia says the name was changed, then it must be so.
Again, I refuse to allow and edit to stand that is contradicted by every source that Wikipedia holds dear. Protestant Episcopal Church is for the moment an alternate name of the church. It is a well known, documented fact, the article reflects this. I ask again that this debate be closed and we all move on to better editing. -- SECisek 22:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The church has a prefered name and it is not the one that you account exists solely to advance. The quote you have offered has remained in the text. You have made no case other then an a personal interpretation of a single line from C.&C. that you claims refutes everything else published on the subject. So there is a massive conspiracy to change the name and Oxford, Brittanica, Columbia and all major reference sources are in on it! This deserves an article itself! Tell us, who is behind this cabal that you have uncovered?
In light of everything established on this talk page, a further revert of sourced material without consesus will be seen as vandalism. If you really will not let this go, stick an NPOV tag at the top. -- SECisek 23:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC) -- SECisek 23:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
If we were trying to push a POV out of the article, I could see the problem, but as the article stands right now, the "prevailing" view is prominent and other POVs are represented. -- SECisek 01:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
As I understand it, the Offical names subsection WAS a compromise to head off an arguement/edit war in the lead section. This SPA appeared a few months later and began tampering with the offical names section and, not getting enough satisfaction, moved the fight back to the lead. If we are going to fight over the lead then the compromise Offical names section is really pointless. PECUSA is mentioned in the Offical names. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This is not the place to say, "While the entire world refers to the church as the 'Episcopal Church', it really should be called the 'Protestant Episcopal Church'." There are many blogs that make the case for the return to the old name. Wikipedia is not a blog. -- SECisek 18:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessyear=
, |origmonth=
, |accessmonth=
, |month=
, |chapterurl=
, |origdate=
, and |coauthors=
(
help). The author is the former dean of
Cathedral Church of the Advent, Birmingham, Alabama and the
Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry. This is very much a Protestant view of the TEC. There are references to PECUSA. I will quote in full:Protestant consciousness within ECUSA, which used to be called PECUSA (i.e., the Protestant Episcopal Church in the U.S.A) is moribund..
With the approval and lightening ascent of the 1979 Prayer Book came the end, for all practical purposes, of Protestant churchmanship in what is now known aggressively as ECUSA.
More links for two editors to ignore: http://www.stmarysepisc.org/History/HistoryIndex.html http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/e/ep/episcopal_church_in_the_united_states.html http://www.edow.org/parish/administration/wardens/mdvestryact.htm http://www.christchurch1828.org/?page=about_the_episcopal_church http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9061604/Episcopal-church http://www.anglicanroots.com/ECUSA.htm http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/text/episcopa.htm http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/christ/esp/pec.html http://anglicansonline.org/news/articles/2006/EnglertComplaint.pdf http://www.manta.com/coms2/dnbcompany_6nvcqg http://www.dioceseny.org/~controller/FINANCIALSTATEMENTS.PDF http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/njreligiousstatutes.pdf http://www.ecusa.org/ http://www.nyhealth.gov/facilities/nursing/facility_characteristics/pfi0444.htm -- 155.104.37.17 13:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Please read the text and explanation of resolution A112 published on the official website of the 2006 General Convention, which refers to '...the current official name "The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, otherwise known as The Episcopal Church," as stated in the preamble to the Constitution...' You have now an official publication of the Church stating what is the "official name." Game - Set - Match -- 72.81.218.211 05:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
At no point have I or any editor suggested removing the name PECUSA from the alternate names section of the article. You don't think it the least bit odd that Brittanica, Oxford Press, and the Columbia Enyclopedia are all "in" on our "propaganda campaign"? You removed a statement that was sourced from three well respected publications to advance the only edit your account has ever made - an edit that I no longer can believe is being made in good faith, jusging from your edit history. I am warning you of vandalism on your talk page as a first step in leading you to more constructive editing. --
SECisek
19:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Good grief, IP editor. I am not
SECisek. Actually, Secisek is not even an anonymous editor - the fellow is completely in the open. And yes I read Zahls' book - Zahl, Paul F. (1998). The Protestant Face of Anglicanism. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publish Company.
ISBN
0802845975. {{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessyear=
, |origmonth=
, |accessmonth=
, |month=
, |chapterurl=
, |origdate=
, and |coauthors=
(
help) - cover to cover. I borrowed it from my local library so that I could make a constructive contribution to Wikipedia. Zahl is the former dean of
Cathedral Church of the Advent, Birmingham, Alabama and the
Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry. He is very much of the Protestant view in the TEC. There are references to PECUSA. And I will repeat them. They are quoted verbatim: On page 56 it says,"Protestant consciousness within ECUSA, which used to be called PECUSA (i.e., the Protestant Episcopal Church in the U.S.A) is moribund..." and on page 69 "With the approval and lightening ascent of the 1979 Prayer Book came the end, for all practical purposes, of Protestant churchmanship in what is now known aggressively as ECUSA." I will also repeat myself and say that secondary sources friendly to your position do not agree with your interpretation. Also, I was the one who created the 'Official names' sub-heading so that the article would deal fairly with all possible POVs. It does so. My agenda is to contribute constructively to Wikipedia in as many ways as possible. I go out of my way to read books and to provide references to secondary sources. This has become the strangest name quibble yet. And unfortunately name quibbles are a blood sport on Wikipedia. Once again I invite the IP editor to contribute in other ways to the Anglicanism project. There is much that needs to be done. Cheers!
Wassupwestcoast
14:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Clariosophic's version is fine with me.-- 71.179.100.71 00:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The addition of the word "still" in the lead makes the desperation of your position very clear. -- SECisek 19:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
IP editor 72.81.218.211 and 72.81.247.125 (and maybe also edited from 71.127.159.171 and 155.104.37.17). What is there to say? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 13:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
"The full legal name of the national church corporate body is the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America"
I'm unconvinced by this. It seems pretty clear from Canon 3 that this is the name of a separate organisation, with the same membership as the church. "The Constitution of the said Society, which was incorporated by an act of the Legislature of the State of New York, as from time to time amended, is hereby amended and established so as to read as follows". Can anyone offer a justification for the assertion that this is the proper name for the 'corporate body' of the church itself? TSP 18:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
As above, I believe InkQuill to be correct. -- SECisek 19:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I have NO idea what happened there what so ever. I was removing a delete category, perhaps I was looking at an old version of the page. -- SECisek 20:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I removed the following as unhelpful:
List of colleges and seminaries affiliated with the Episcopal Church
I created its own article. Thoughts? -- SECisek 09:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Wassupwestcoast, why are you reverting my changes regarding membership? The current statement that membership is flat for the last few decades, with no ASA discussion (far better indicator) and people removing discussion of age trends is highly biased. Even pro-TEC folks don't believe this distorted view. There can be no doubt that we have shrunk. The only question is how much and what is the most accurate measure. -- User:ReasonandRevelation 21:56, 12 September 2007
On the three-year loss of 115,000 members, James B. Lemler, Episcopal director of mission, said in an interview that the totals "are not more than we expected." Lemler also said that officials were heartened that average Sunday attendance in 2005 did not decline as it did in the previous two years. The average Sunday worship attendance in 2005 was 787,000 people, down only 8,500.
I understand your points, but even the most ardent pro-TEC supporters like Louie Crew acknowledge that TEC has hemorrhaged members over the last 40 years and TEC itself admits drops since 2003, as my links (and the links previously posted) pointed out. While there may be an argument that there is more to the story, the current discussion of membership is completely biased in favor of TEC (and I am an Episcopalian, but I am pretty tired of the spin).
Shoot, this year alone the Virginia secessions are larger than several dozen whole dioceses. I’d like to see some support for the proposition that it has been flat since 2003. And it’s not a post hoc fallacy to suppose that it was partly based on Gene Robinson. His consecration is the single most disruptive thing to happen to our church in my lifetime. I have never been in a Wikipedia edit war, and I admit that I am not that committed, but it is a shame that ideology trumps objectivity. The edits I made were incredibly cautious and arguably don't even begin to tell the story of the exodus that has happened in the last 3.5 years.
I don't know where you are getting your stats from, but just look at TEC's own self-reported stats: 846,000 in 2002 (the year before Robinson), and 787,000 ASA in 2005. Conspicuously absent from TEC is official reporting from 2006, even though we're almost done with 2007, and, as noted above, 2007 has witnessed a hemorrhage of whole churches leaving. Furthermore, this is on the back of major declines in attendance in the last 40 years.
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/Average_Sunday_Attendance_1995-05_by_Domestic_Diocese.pdf
It's not accurate to chalk these major numbers changes to methodology. Also relevant to my church's story is the alarming increase in the average age, now somewhere around 57.
Respectfully,--ReasonandRevelation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReasonandRevelation ( talk • contribs) 18:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, OR must be avoided. Do not speculate anything that cannot be cited. -- SECisek 05:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
All I have done is cite pure statistics. I think that yall are coming up with methodological shortcomings to justify yourp position. It is equally highly suspect that TEC has had flat membership in the last 40 years and conspicuously biased to let that be the whole story. If you want to add to the tale, do so, but it is virtually beyond debate that we have lost members and churches in alarming numbers in the last 3.5 years--TEC ITSELF admits that.
I note you have not contradicted the stats I provided above (nor the links that were several times deleted).
For the record, Robinson's consecration and the aftermath far outstrips anything that occurred 30 years ago. Far more people and churches leaving, and the Anglican Communion on the brink of collapse. At any rate, if you are more adamant than I about this Wikipedia article, you will win the edit war, but that does not make it right. If you think that 2003 is an inappropriate date from which to analyze, you should participate in telling a balanced story for the last few decades. I have made very cautious changes that have been edited out many times. This is why Wikipedia is a propaganda tool for controverial topics. --ReasonandRevelation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReasonandRevelation ( talk • contribs) 14:08, 17 September 2007
“ | The bishop acknowledged the conservatives in her church - those people jarred by 35 years of constant change from the ordination of women through the inclusion of children to revisions in the prayer book - are fuelling the outrage of some outspoken African bishops over the open acceptance of gays and lesbians. However, Jefferts Schori, who calculates the disgruntled at one half of one per cent of her 2.4 million-member church, calculates the international disgruntlement at a similar level |
” |
“ | Asked if her position as the first female primate adds fuel to the fire, Jefferts Schori acknowledged female leadership runs out of step with the culture in some places in the Anglican Communion. But, she added, with a strong glint of humour, “they treated my predecessor (Bishop Frank Griswold) the same way they treated me.”
|
” |
We are getting into an editing war in this section with flat liners versus precipitous decliners. Perhaps we need to expand this section to lay out some basic stats and then give the various interpretations of what these stats mean. clariosophic 20:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC) clariosophic 20:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
There is an editing war going on. It is between those who can read data honestly and those who obfuscate. When an editor quotes Hadaway, the director of research for pecusa and then balks at his characterization of the drop in membership as "precipitous," we have a bias problem. The 2.2 number is from Hadaway. The description "precipitous: is also from Hadaway. The escalating losses in 2003-2005 is from official pecusa documents. Let the truth be told. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyseel ( talk • contribs) 02:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Your selective use of the 3 revert rule is interesting. My first edit was removed because I didn't cite sources. When I cited sources that were already being used, my edit was still removed. What you call dated is more recent information than what was cited previously for the 2.3 million number and my figure is from the director of research for pecusa (btw, I use pecusa because it is the official name and it identifies the sectarian nature of recent innovations. You may not remember the lawsuit that 815 filed or threatened to file against Bp. Wantland in order to retain this name). The fact that you are clinging to outdated numbers speaks volumes. This will all be settled when pecusa releases the 2006 figures. This argument is not about accuracy, because if it was you would acknowledge the most recent figures. It is about maintaining a position not founded in fact - that position is that pecusa is not losing thousands of members a year. pecusa is losing thousands of members a year and your attempts to cover this up will ultimately fail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyseel ( talk • contribs) 14:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
"
An anon has posted some data for 2006, I've reverted initially, mostly becuase the link they had posted was broken (though I have managed to track down what they were trying to put in). Also the way it was included ratehr messed up the existing referencing, by adding the calculated drop on to the figures previously reported in the Chrisitan Century report, without adding new references to that para, which is rather misleading.
The doc they were trying to reference was this http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_91421_ENG_HTM.htm which itself references http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/GC_2006_membership_and_ASA.pdf and http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/2005-2006_Statistical_Totals_for_the_Episcopal_Church.pdf what's really confusing me though is that the 2005 figures given in all these documents (2,372,008), from which they've derived the figures for a further major fall (mostly due to events in Virginia) don't correspond to the previously published figures for 2005 (2,369,477) which we already have in the article. Anyone any ideas as to how we can reconcile them? David Underdown 20:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Isn't it time for us in the ECUSA to have our own WikiProject or at least our own subproject? clariosophic 14:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
“ | The average Wikipedian on English Wikipedia is (1) male, (2) technically inclined, (3) formally educated, (4) a native or non-native English-speaker, (5) white, (6) aged 15–49, (7) from a nominally Christian country, (8) from an industrialized nation, (9) from the Northern Hemisphere, and (10) likely to be employed in intellectual rather than practical or physical jobs (see Wikipedia:User survey and Wikipedia:University of Würzburg survey, 2005) | ” |
I question the statement about Massachusetts Bay Colony 1620. It seems to forget about the Plymouth Colony, which was settled in 1620. Massachusetts Bay came later. Massachusetts Bay annexed the Plymouth Colony in 1691. clariosophic 09:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Tell them you are correct and cite an accepted source to prove it. If you can fix it, do so. -- SECisek 22:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I am again adding the ECUSA Province Template with links the 9 provinces. There seems to be some controversy over why it starts with Province 1. There are 9 templates and they are all interlinked. I could put in all 9 in tiers as they do in Great Britain and Ireland. Isn't it simpler just to have one template? Which one it starts with is immaterial, so why not do it numerically starting with 1. Without the template, there is no easy way to navigate the provinces from this article. Please do not delete again without some discussion and a consensus. clariosophic 23:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I undid a revision to the second sentence of the intro which added: when it was forced to break with the Church of England on penalty of treason. No reference was given. This statement seems to assume that all Anglicans in the 13 colonies were Loyalists and not Patriots.
Please do reinsert this language without further discussion and consensus. clariosophic 14:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC) clariosophic 14:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Why is there little to no mention of Anglican realignment and the Continuing Anglican Movement on this page? There is a lengthy discussion about the controversies but not one mention of the Continuing Anglican Movement, which came about as a result of these controversies. And there is only a brief mention of Anglican realignment: "Since the ratification of Robinson as bishop, some clergy and lay members have left the Episcopal Church (see Anglican realignment)." While I don't think there should be a lengthy or thorough discussion of these movements in this article, I cannot understand why so much weight would be given to the controversy, without some mention of what happened as a result of the controversy. I am sure these movements are, in themselves, controversial but that doesn't mean they are not relevant and should be excluded from this page. The Continuing Anglican Movement itself has approximately 670 Anglican parishes across approximately 20 affiliated bodies of churches.
User:Secisek stated, in response to my edit, including these movements in the article, that: "article is about Episcopal Church in the United States of America" and "They are in the See also section already, which is where they belong in this article." I do not dispute what the article is about, and while I respect that this was not a complete argument, I reject the argument that any mention of these movements belong in the See also section. I would appreciate an open discussion on this point by editors who favor neither viewpoint. Sweetmoose6 ( talk) 03:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Could someone please repost some of the waning membership information on the discussion page? I realize the large quantity of comments on the page needed to be archived, but the reality is that when people want to know what's really happening with an institution which may be embroiled in a controversy, they look to the discussion page. Right now, all I see is a comment or two from a few people who seem extremely dedicated to concealing information they deem controversial. Hectard ( talk) 03:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, who's in charge of deciding when archiving happens? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hectard ( talk • contribs) 03:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Threads on talk pages can and should be archived when the discussion grow cold. There has been no discussion about membership figures here since last October. The talk pages exist to discuss improvements of the articles, not as a place for people who "want to know what's really happening with an institution which may be embroiled in a controversy". How do you feel the article conceals information? -- SECisek (talk) 05:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Not a bad article, but I couldn't avoid noticing that the article reads as if it was part of a press release from TEC, when it comes to the controversies. "Taking the first steps to maintain their claim to..." is a curious euphemisim for bishops sueing their own parishes. They have in fact sued the lay volunteer members of those parishes, and also are trying to seize properties which built before TEC existed or built by the people now being sued. These actions have been copiously documented online, and seem to have created enormous bitterness. But they are facts. Virtue Online documents the letters, the lawsuits, and the results. Some of the lawsuits they won, some they lost.
I can understand that TEC doesn't like the bad publicity that such oppressive actions creates. But if TEC is happy to do these things, then the article needs to say so, without undue deference to TEC. TEC doesn't *have* to run lawsuits against people who can't stand what it has become. It is a *choice*, after all. Shouldn't Wikipedia document that choice? Roger Pearse 12:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
There are going to be huge issues with this box throughout the anglican communion pages. Let's see what's here, shall we?
Classification: Protestant There is an on going dicussion about just how Protestant this Church is. The church no longer refers to itself as Protestant in general. What is more the Protestant Episcopal Church has started using that name and the ECUSA seems quite happy to let them have it.
Orientation: Mainline, Anglican Orientation? What is that? Neologisim from what I can tell. All in the communion would agree that we are Anglican (sorry Scots). Orientation of one sort or another, on the other hand, is splitting the communion in two.
Polity: Episcopal I suppose I can buy that but of course they are "Episcopal" - it is in their name.
Founder: Samuel Seabury Christ was the founder, end of argument. There were Episcopalians here waiting for Seabury when he came from Scotland. He was not a founder of anything other than a line of Apostolic Succession.
Origin: 1789 If the Church is Protestant, why was it founded 100+ years after the Reformation ended in England?
Separated from: Church of England Not seperated, misleading, full communion with Canterbury.
This box just is not a good fit for the ECUSA or probably any other of the daughter Churches of the C of E. Thoughts? -- SECisek 05:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
MOVED FROM MY TALK PAGE I've had far too many arguments with pigheaded Wikipedians who refuse to let other people edit their pages to want to argue this with you. In my opinion, the denomination infobox brings some uniformity and helps to immediately clarify a confusing issue (denominational lineage). I can understand disagreeing with who the "founder" of a church is - in which case, you should just remove the founder box from the infobox. I see nothing objectionable with the rest of the box, and I think it's very rude to revert edits when people are just trying to help.
Adam_sk 12:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Both the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church and the title page of the Constitution & Canons agree that the official name is now the Episcopal Church.
Here is one of the many sites lamenting the change and demanding a return to the old name: episcopalian.org regrets the primary disuse of the old name "Protestant Episcopal Church".
Another group, the TPEC, now sees itself as the real Protestant Episcopal Church and uses that name as well. Note the description of the first hit in this google search.
There is an anon., single purpose IP 71.127.159.171 that exists solely to make edits bluring this distinction, going so far as name dropping PECUSA in insignificant contexts, see the discussion of one such instance here.
Do any editors have thoughts concerning my revert? -- SECisek 09:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
If the names used are either "Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America" or "Episcopal Church," and we all seem to agree it is either one or the other, then why is the article at Episcopal Church in the United States of America? It should be either at Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America or Episcopal Church (United States) (or something equivalent). I'd probably prefer the latter - Protestant Episcopal Church may be the official formal name, but it is rarely used these days. john k 18:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't give anybody any ideas. ;-) -- SECisek 22:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Now you have really done it! ROTFL! -- SECisek 00:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
These aren't church bulletins, but:
As for "soapboxing", thank you for pointing out the speck of sawdust in my eye.-- 72.81.247.125 03:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The problem is it is wrong. It is arguments like this that make me want to quit editing. People (often editing behind an IP address) who push a POV in the face of well known, established facts simply ruin Wikipedia. In 2+ months, I have edited 4 GAs and I have an FA candidate, but of most my time is wasted on rubbish like this. One editor insisted for weeks that Cardinal Pole was the "last" Archbishop of Canterbury and that the see has been vacant since. I am currently involved in a dispute with an editor in fantasy land who insists that St George is not the "real" patron saint of England. Now this. The name is the Episcopal Church in the United States of America. This is not an opinion, it is a fact published by numerous primary, secondary and (see below) tertiary sources. So many trusted and important sources say it is the proper name that if this is not the case then this huge, widespread error-or possibly conspiracy-still warrents mention in the article.
Click on the link, make the image full size, and read the published facts, please. I am not the only editor making this case, we can't all be wrong. Furthermore, with respected sources backing the point, it does not have to be correct as it is verifiable. Would you care to suggest some compromise wording like the kind you reverted. Oh, and please register - I am sick of fighting with SPAs. -- SECisek 17:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I concur with abbreviations being over detailed, but they are used later and a rework would be needed. Constitutions and Canons acknowledges both names as offical, which is what the article states now. I agree with InkQuill and I may have been misunderstood. I am quite pleased with the text as it now stands. --
SECisek
18:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
While anon., single purpose IPs continue to try to "right the great wrong" of PECUSA no longer being used, I would just like to point out that the on-line Encyclopædia Britannica has no entry for Protestant Episcopal Church, but does list that title as an alternate name of the Episcopal Church, USA. This is really getting old. -- SECisek 22:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
" Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another...However, rather than debating controversial names, please consider other ways to improve Wikipedia."
"
Reference works. Check other encyclopedias. If there is general agreement on the use of a name (as there often will be), that is usually a good sign of the name being the preferred term in English.
"
Here is some fun from Wikipedia:Naming conflict:
Criterion | PECUSA | ECUSA |
1. Most commonly used name in English | 0 | 1 |
2. Current undisputed official name of entity | 0 | 1 |
3. Current self-identifying name of entity | 1 | 1 |
1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores. |
Even if Secisek's analysis per Wikipedia:Naming conflict were correct, it would be relevant only to conflicts in determining the name of an article. I have not proposed changing the name of the article. What I did was identify the Church in the article with the exact language the Church uses to identify itself. The language is sourced and verifiable. It is in the document of governance of the Church itself. This primary source is definitive, authoritative, accurate and objective. It is current, being the latest version published in 2006, and is not a generation old. The word which you find objectionable is used in secular publications as well as other Church publications. The text I used is as NPOV as can be as it includes both names being offered as the true name of the Church. -- 72.81.247.125 00:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.
Another "mistaken" source: Columbia Enyclopedia
I don't put much stock in this source, but 72.81.247.125 has cited them elsewhere in this debate. Surely if the beloved Columbia Encyclopedia says the name was changed, then it must be so.
Again, I refuse to allow and edit to stand that is contradicted by every source that Wikipedia holds dear. Protestant Episcopal Church is for the moment an alternate name of the church. It is a well known, documented fact, the article reflects this. I ask again that this debate be closed and we all move on to better editing. -- SECisek 22:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The church has a prefered name and it is not the one that you account exists solely to advance. The quote you have offered has remained in the text. You have made no case other then an a personal interpretation of a single line from C.&C. that you claims refutes everything else published on the subject. So there is a massive conspiracy to change the name and Oxford, Brittanica, Columbia and all major reference sources are in on it! This deserves an article itself! Tell us, who is behind this cabal that you have uncovered?
In light of everything established on this talk page, a further revert of sourced material without consesus will be seen as vandalism. If you really will not let this go, stick an NPOV tag at the top. -- SECisek 23:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC) -- SECisek 23:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
If we were trying to push a POV out of the article, I could see the problem, but as the article stands right now, the "prevailing" view is prominent and other POVs are represented. -- SECisek 01:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
As I understand it, the Offical names subsection WAS a compromise to head off an arguement/edit war in the lead section. This SPA appeared a few months later and began tampering with the offical names section and, not getting enough satisfaction, moved the fight back to the lead. If we are going to fight over the lead then the compromise Offical names section is really pointless. PECUSA is mentioned in the Offical names. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This is not the place to say, "While the entire world refers to the church as the 'Episcopal Church', it really should be called the 'Protestant Episcopal Church'." There are many blogs that make the case for the return to the old name. Wikipedia is not a blog. -- SECisek 18:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessyear=
, |origmonth=
, |accessmonth=
, |month=
, |chapterurl=
, |origdate=
, and |coauthors=
(
help). The author is the former dean of
Cathedral Church of the Advent, Birmingham, Alabama and the
Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry. This is very much a Protestant view of the TEC. There are references to PECUSA. I will quote in full:Protestant consciousness within ECUSA, which used to be called PECUSA (i.e., the Protestant Episcopal Church in the U.S.A) is moribund..
With the approval and lightening ascent of the 1979 Prayer Book came the end, for all practical purposes, of Protestant churchmanship in what is now known aggressively as ECUSA.
More links for two editors to ignore: http://www.stmarysepisc.org/History/HistoryIndex.html http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/e/ep/episcopal_church_in_the_united_states.html http://www.edow.org/parish/administration/wardens/mdvestryact.htm http://www.christchurch1828.org/?page=about_the_episcopal_church http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9061604/Episcopal-church http://www.anglicanroots.com/ECUSA.htm http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/text/episcopa.htm http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/christ/esp/pec.html http://anglicansonline.org/news/articles/2006/EnglertComplaint.pdf http://www.manta.com/coms2/dnbcompany_6nvcqg http://www.dioceseny.org/~controller/FINANCIALSTATEMENTS.PDF http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/njreligiousstatutes.pdf http://www.ecusa.org/ http://www.nyhealth.gov/facilities/nursing/facility_characteristics/pfi0444.htm -- 155.104.37.17 13:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Please read the text and explanation of resolution A112 published on the official website of the 2006 General Convention, which refers to '...the current official name "The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, otherwise known as The Episcopal Church," as stated in the preamble to the Constitution...' You have now an official publication of the Church stating what is the "official name." Game - Set - Match -- 72.81.218.211 05:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
At no point have I or any editor suggested removing the name PECUSA from the alternate names section of the article. You don't think it the least bit odd that Brittanica, Oxford Press, and the Columbia Enyclopedia are all "in" on our "propaganda campaign"? You removed a statement that was sourced from three well respected publications to advance the only edit your account has ever made - an edit that I no longer can believe is being made in good faith, jusging from your edit history. I am warning you of vandalism on your talk page as a first step in leading you to more constructive editing. --
SECisek
19:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Good grief, IP editor. I am not
SECisek. Actually, Secisek is not even an anonymous editor - the fellow is completely in the open. And yes I read Zahls' book - Zahl, Paul F. (1998). The Protestant Face of Anglicanism. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publish Company.
ISBN
0802845975. {{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessyear=
, |origmonth=
, |accessmonth=
, |month=
, |chapterurl=
, |origdate=
, and |coauthors=
(
help) - cover to cover. I borrowed it from my local library so that I could make a constructive contribution to Wikipedia. Zahl is the former dean of
Cathedral Church of the Advent, Birmingham, Alabama and the
Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry. He is very much of the Protestant view in the TEC. There are references to PECUSA. And I will repeat them. They are quoted verbatim: On page 56 it says,"Protestant consciousness within ECUSA, which used to be called PECUSA (i.e., the Protestant Episcopal Church in the U.S.A) is moribund..." and on page 69 "With the approval and lightening ascent of the 1979 Prayer Book came the end, for all practical purposes, of Protestant churchmanship in what is now known aggressively as ECUSA." I will also repeat myself and say that secondary sources friendly to your position do not agree with your interpretation. Also, I was the one who created the 'Official names' sub-heading so that the article would deal fairly with all possible POVs. It does so. My agenda is to contribute constructively to Wikipedia in as many ways as possible. I go out of my way to read books and to provide references to secondary sources. This has become the strangest name quibble yet. And unfortunately name quibbles are a blood sport on Wikipedia. Once again I invite the IP editor to contribute in other ways to the Anglicanism project. There is much that needs to be done. Cheers!
Wassupwestcoast
14:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Clariosophic's version is fine with me.-- 71.179.100.71 00:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The addition of the word "still" in the lead makes the desperation of your position very clear. -- SECisek 19:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
IP editor 72.81.218.211 and 72.81.247.125 (and maybe also edited from 71.127.159.171 and 155.104.37.17). What is there to say? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 13:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
"The full legal name of the national church corporate body is the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America"
I'm unconvinced by this. It seems pretty clear from Canon 3 that this is the name of a separate organisation, with the same membership as the church. "The Constitution of the said Society, which was incorporated by an act of the Legislature of the State of New York, as from time to time amended, is hereby amended and established so as to read as follows". Can anyone offer a justification for the assertion that this is the proper name for the 'corporate body' of the church itself? TSP 18:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
As above, I believe InkQuill to be correct. -- SECisek 19:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I have NO idea what happened there what so ever. I was removing a delete category, perhaps I was looking at an old version of the page. -- SECisek 20:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I removed the following as unhelpful:
List of colleges and seminaries affiliated with the Episcopal Church
I created its own article. Thoughts? -- SECisek 09:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Wassupwestcoast, why are you reverting my changes regarding membership? The current statement that membership is flat for the last few decades, with no ASA discussion (far better indicator) and people removing discussion of age trends is highly biased. Even pro-TEC folks don't believe this distorted view. There can be no doubt that we have shrunk. The only question is how much and what is the most accurate measure. -- User:ReasonandRevelation 21:56, 12 September 2007
On the three-year loss of 115,000 members, James B. Lemler, Episcopal director of mission, said in an interview that the totals "are not more than we expected." Lemler also said that officials were heartened that average Sunday attendance in 2005 did not decline as it did in the previous two years. The average Sunday worship attendance in 2005 was 787,000 people, down only 8,500.
I understand your points, but even the most ardent pro-TEC supporters like Louie Crew acknowledge that TEC has hemorrhaged members over the last 40 years and TEC itself admits drops since 2003, as my links (and the links previously posted) pointed out. While there may be an argument that there is more to the story, the current discussion of membership is completely biased in favor of TEC (and I am an Episcopalian, but I am pretty tired of the spin).
Shoot, this year alone the Virginia secessions are larger than several dozen whole dioceses. I’d like to see some support for the proposition that it has been flat since 2003. And it’s not a post hoc fallacy to suppose that it was partly based on Gene Robinson. His consecration is the single most disruptive thing to happen to our church in my lifetime. I have never been in a Wikipedia edit war, and I admit that I am not that committed, but it is a shame that ideology trumps objectivity. The edits I made were incredibly cautious and arguably don't even begin to tell the story of the exodus that has happened in the last 3.5 years.
I don't know where you are getting your stats from, but just look at TEC's own self-reported stats: 846,000 in 2002 (the year before Robinson), and 787,000 ASA in 2005. Conspicuously absent from TEC is official reporting from 2006, even though we're almost done with 2007, and, as noted above, 2007 has witnessed a hemorrhage of whole churches leaving. Furthermore, this is on the back of major declines in attendance in the last 40 years.
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/Average_Sunday_Attendance_1995-05_by_Domestic_Diocese.pdf
It's not accurate to chalk these major numbers changes to methodology. Also relevant to my church's story is the alarming increase in the average age, now somewhere around 57.
Respectfully,--ReasonandRevelation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReasonandRevelation ( talk • contribs) 18:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, OR must be avoided. Do not speculate anything that cannot be cited. -- SECisek 05:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
All I have done is cite pure statistics. I think that yall are coming up with methodological shortcomings to justify yourp position. It is equally highly suspect that TEC has had flat membership in the last 40 years and conspicuously biased to let that be the whole story. If you want to add to the tale, do so, but it is virtually beyond debate that we have lost members and churches in alarming numbers in the last 3.5 years--TEC ITSELF admits that.
I note you have not contradicted the stats I provided above (nor the links that were several times deleted).
For the record, Robinson's consecration and the aftermath far outstrips anything that occurred 30 years ago. Far more people and churches leaving, and the Anglican Communion on the brink of collapse. At any rate, if you are more adamant than I about this Wikipedia article, you will win the edit war, but that does not make it right. If you think that 2003 is an inappropriate date from which to analyze, you should participate in telling a balanced story for the last few decades. I have made very cautious changes that have been edited out many times. This is why Wikipedia is a propaganda tool for controverial topics. --ReasonandRevelation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReasonandRevelation ( talk • contribs) 14:08, 17 September 2007
“ | The bishop acknowledged the conservatives in her church - those people jarred by 35 years of constant change from the ordination of women through the inclusion of children to revisions in the prayer book - are fuelling the outrage of some outspoken African bishops over the open acceptance of gays and lesbians. However, Jefferts Schori, who calculates the disgruntled at one half of one per cent of her 2.4 million-member church, calculates the international disgruntlement at a similar level |
” |
“ | Asked if her position as the first female primate adds fuel to the fire, Jefferts Schori acknowledged female leadership runs out of step with the culture in some places in the Anglican Communion. But, she added, with a strong glint of humour, “they treated my predecessor (Bishop Frank Griswold) the same way they treated me.”
|
” |
We are getting into an editing war in this section with flat liners versus precipitous decliners. Perhaps we need to expand this section to lay out some basic stats and then give the various interpretations of what these stats mean. clariosophic 20:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC) clariosophic 20:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
There is an editing war going on. It is between those who can read data honestly and those who obfuscate. When an editor quotes Hadaway, the director of research for pecusa and then balks at his characterization of the drop in membership as "precipitous," we have a bias problem. The 2.2 number is from Hadaway. The description "precipitous: is also from Hadaway. The escalating losses in 2003-2005 is from official pecusa documents. Let the truth be told. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyseel ( talk • contribs) 02:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Your selective use of the 3 revert rule is interesting. My first edit was removed because I didn't cite sources. When I cited sources that were already being used, my edit was still removed. What you call dated is more recent information than what was cited previously for the 2.3 million number and my figure is from the director of research for pecusa (btw, I use pecusa because it is the official name and it identifies the sectarian nature of recent innovations. You may not remember the lawsuit that 815 filed or threatened to file against Bp. Wantland in order to retain this name). The fact that you are clinging to outdated numbers speaks volumes. This will all be settled when pecusa releases the 2006 figures. This argument is not about accuracy, because if it was you would acknowledge the most recent figures. It is about maintaining a position not founded in fact - that position is that pecusa is not losing thousands of members a year. pecusa is losing thousands of members a year and your attempts to cover this up will ultimately fail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyseel ( talk • contribs) 14:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
"
An anon has posted some data for 2006, I've reverted initially, mostly becuase the link they had posted was broken (though I have managed to track down what they were trying to put in). Also the way it was included ratehr messed up the existing referencing, by adding the calculated drop on to the figures previously reported in the Chrisitan Century report, without adding new references to that para, which is rather misleading.
The doc they were trying to reference was this http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_91421_ENG_HTM.htm which itself references http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/GC_2006_membership_and_ASA.pdf and http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/2005-2006_Statistical_Totals_for_the_Episcopal_Church.pdf what's really confusing me though is that the 2005 figures given in all these documents (2,372,008), from which they've derived the figures for a further major fall (mostly due to events in Virginia) don't correspond to the previously published figures for 2005 (2,369,477) which we already have in the article. Anyone any ideas as to how we can reconcile them? David Underdown 20:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Isn't it time for us in the ECUSA to have our own WikiProject or at least our own subproject? clariosophic 14:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
“ | The average Wikipedian on English Wikipedia is (1) male, (2) technically inclined, (3) formally educated, (4) a native or non-native English-speaker, (5) white, (6) aged 15–49, (7) from a nominally Christian country, (8) from an industrialized nation, (9) from the Northern Hemisphere, and (10) likely to be employed in intellectual rather than practical or physical jobs (see Wikipedia:User survey and Wikipedia:University of Würzburg survey, 2005) | ” |
I question the statement about Massachusetts Bay Colony 1620. It seems to forget about the Plymouth Colony, which was settled in 1620. Massachusetts Bay came later. Massachusetts Bay annexed the Plymouth Colony in 1691. clariosophic 09:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Tell them you are correct and cite an accepted source to prove it. If you can fix it, do so. -- SECisek 22:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I am again adding the ECUSA Province Template with links the 9 provinces. There seems to be some controversy over why it starts with Province 1. There are 9 templates and they are all interlinked. I could put in all 9 in tiers as they do in Great Britain and Ireland. Isn't it simpler just to have one template? Which one it starts with is immaterial, so why not do it numerically starting with 1. Without the template, there is no easy way to navigate the provinces from this article. Please do not delete again without some discussion and a consensus. clariosophic 23:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I undid a revision to the second sentence of the intro which added: when it was forced to break with the Church of England on penalty of treason. No reference was given. This statement seems to assume that all Anglicans in the 13 colonies were Loyalists and not Patriots.
Please do reinsert this language without further discussion and consensus. clariosophic 14:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC) clariosophic 14:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Why is there little to no mention of Anglican realignment and the Continuing Anglican Movement on this page? There is a lengthy discussion about the controversies but not one mention of the Continuing Anglican Movement, which came about as a result of these controversies. And there is only a brief mention of Anglican realignment: "Since the ratification of Robinson as bishop, some clergy and lay members have left the Episcopal Church (see Anglican realignment)." While I don't think there should be a lengthy or thorough discussion of these movements in this article, I cannot understand why so much weight would be given to the controversy, without some mention of what happened as a result of the controversy. I am sure these movements are, in themselves, controversial but that doesn't mean they are not relevant and should be excluded from this page. The Continuing Anglican Movement itself has approximately 670 Anglican parishes across approximately 20 affiliated bodies of churches.
User:Secisek stated, in response to my edit, including these movements in the article, that: "article is about Episcopal Church in the United States of America" and "They are in the See also section already, which is where they belong in this article." I do not dispute what the article is about, and while I respect that this was not a complete argument, I reject the argument that any mention of these movements belong in the See also section. I would appreciate an open discussion on this point by editors who favor neither viewpoint. Sweetmoose6 ( talk) 03:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Could someone please repost some of the waning membership information on the discussion page? I realize the large quantity of comments on the page needed to be archived, but the reality is that when people want to know what's really happening with an institution which may be embroiled in a controversy, they look to the discussion page. Right now, all I see is a comment or two from a few people who seem extremely dedicated to concealing information they deem controversial. Hectard ( talk) 03:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, who's in charge of deciding when archiving happens? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hectard ( talk • contribs) 03:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Threads on talk pages can and should be archived when the discussion grow cold. There has been no discussion about membership figures here since last October. The talk pages exist to discuss improvements of the articles, not as a place for people who "want to know what's really happening with an institution which may be embroiled in a controversy". How do you feel the article conceals information? -- SECisek (talk) 05:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Not a bad article, but I couldn't avoid noticing that the article reads as if it was part of a press release from TEC, when it comes to the controversies. "Taking the first steps to maintain their claim to..." is a curious euphemisim for bishops sueing their own parishes. They have in fact sued the lay volunteer members of those parishes, and also are trying to seize properties which built before TEC existed or built by the people now being sued. These actions have been copiously documented online, and seem to have created enormous bitterness. But they are facts. Virtue Online documents the letters, the lawsuits, and the results. Some of the lawsuits they won, some they lost.
I can understand that TEC doesn't like the bad publicity that such oppressive actions creates. But if TEC is happy to do these things, then the article needs to say so, without undue deference to TEC. TEC doesn't *have* to run lawsuits against people who can't stand what it has become. It is a *choice*, after all. Shouldn't Wikipedia document that choice? Roger Pearse 12:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)