As the person who started this article as separate from the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, I wanted to distinguish between #1: the historic and undisputed diocese; #2: the current diocese of the Episcopal Church; and #3: the autonomous diocese. There was a separate article for #2 but no separate article for #3, and I sensed an edit war was beginning with Kotobagaari over how to treat #3# in the article for #1, so created the new article to avoid it. While I think it's inconvenient to have three articles for the same disputed diocese(!), I think it is the most neutral approach, at least until legal disputes are resolved. If the Episcopal church wins in court, we can then merge articles #1 and #2, and perhaps keep #3 for separatist churches; if the autonomous diocese wins, we can merge #1 and #3 and keep #2 separate. At least, that's a thought. -- Wikibojopayne ( talk) 16:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- My view is that we actually already had articles for #2 and #3. The history (i.e., #1) is housed mostly in #3 but is also linked from #2. The autonomous diocese is legally and colloquially known as the "Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina". Having its article entitled "Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina (autonomous)" strikes me as non-neutral. Since the historic diocese and the current autonomous diocese are both properly known by the same name, I think it is least confusing and most neutral to cover both subjects in a single article under that name. I think the article currently under that name does a reasonably good and neutral job of explaining the difference between the pre- and post-schism situation. A third article needlessly complicates things. If we must have a third article, I suggest calling it "Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina (historic)," or something similar. It would need to be carefully worded to avoid POV related to the events of the split, or post-split history.
Dunncon13 (
talk)
21:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- Also, note that in every other case of diocesan splits that I have seen on Wikipedia, there are two articles, not three. At the time of the split, the original articles have split, to give us one about the loyalists and another about the secessionists. None that I am aware of have a third article about the original pre-schism diocese.
Dunncon13 (
talk)
21:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- I did not know that; I defer to your judgment here. I just want to have an article for each diocese settled in a way all parties can agree. -- Wikibojopayne ( talk) 00:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- Also, note that in every other case of diocesan splits that I have seen on Wikipedia, there are two articles, not three. At the time of the split, the original articles have split, to give us one about the loyalists and another about the secessionists. None that I am aware of have a third article about the original pre-schism diocese.
Dunncon13 (
talk)
21:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
This article will likely be deleted tomorrow, so I'm turning it into a redirect to Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, just as has been done for Diocese of South Carolina (Anglican). Wikibojopayne ( talk) 14:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
As the person who started this article as separate from the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, I wanted to distinguish between #1: the historic and undisputed diocese; #2: the current diocese of the Episcopal Church; and #3: the autonomous diocese. There was a separate article for #2 but no separate article for #3, and I sensed an edit war was beginning with Kotobagaari over how to treat #3# in the article for #1, so created the new article to avoid it. While I think it's inconvenient to have three articles for the same disputed diocese(!), I think it is the most neutral approach, at least until legal disputes are resolved. If the Episcopal church wins in court, we can then merge articles #1 and #2, and perhaps keep #3 for separatist churches; if the autonomous diocese wins, we can merge #1 and #3 and keep #2 separate. At least, that's a thought. -- Wikibojopayne ( talk) 16:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- My view is that we actually already had articles for #2 and #3. The history (i.e., #1) is housed mostly in #3 but is also linked from #2. The autonomous diocese is legally and colloquially known as the "Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina". Having its article entitled "Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina (autonomous)" strikes me as non-neutral. Since the historic diocese and the current autonomous diocese are both properly known by the same name, I think it is least confusing and most neutral to cover both subjects in a single article under that name. I think the article currently under that name does a reasonably good and neutral job of explaining the difference between the pre- and post-schism situation. A third article needlessly complicates things. If we must have a third article, I suggest calling it "Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina (historic)," or something similar. It would need to be carefully worded to avoid POV related to the events of the split, or post-split history.
Dunncon13 (
talk)
21:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- Also, note that in every other case of diocesan splits that I have seen on Wikipedia, there are two articles, not three. At the time of the split, the original articles have split, to give us one about the loyalists and another about the secessionists. None that I am aware of have a third article about the original pre-schism diocese.
Dunncon13 (
talk)
21:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- I did not know that; I defer to your judgment here. I just want to have an article for each diocese settled in a way all parties can agree. -- Wikibojopayne ( talk) 00:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- Also, note that in every other case of diocesan splits that I have seen on Wikipedia, there are two articles, not three. At the time of the split, the original articles have split, to give us one about the loyalists and another about the secessionists. None that I am aware of have a third article about the original pre-schism diocese.
Dunncon13 (
talk)
21:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
This article will likely be deleted tomorrow, so I'm turning it into a redirect to Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, just as has been done for Diocese of South Carolina (Anglican). Wikibojopayne ( talk) 14:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)