Talk:Episcopal Church (United States)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Extra-territorial

The word "extra-territorial" sounds like they are outside the proper territory of the Episcopal Church, which they are not; the term is easily and likely confused with "extra-provincial" which has exactly that meaning. Perhaps the word "overseas" would be better? See http://www.anglicancommunion.org/tour/province.cfm?ID=U2 which uses exactly that term. Or at http://www.episcopalchurch.org/visitors_16976_ENG_HTM.htm?menupage=49678 we find "the United States and related dioceses outside the US". Can you find any official TEC or Anglican-Communion resources which use the term "extra-territorial" to refer to these dioceses? AFAICT that term is used only by Wikipedia in this context. Tb (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I am moving this to the ECUSA talk page where it properly belongs. BTW, I believe I had originally termed these dioceses as extra-provincial, but was quickly corrected. ECUSA is the province of the Anglican Communion that has jurisdiction over the political territory of the US. I think the problem is with the word province. To the rest of the Anglican Communion, ECUSA is a province of the Anglican Communion, but internally we have IX provinces. All of our extra-territorial dioceses are in one of our provinces, so how could they be extra-provincial? The only truly extra-provincial diocese is the Iglesia Episcopal de Cuba, which is under the jurisdiction of our Presiding Bishop and the Primate of Canada and is not counted in our list of dioceses. Of the dioceses in Province IX, only Puerto Rico is US territory :and even that is subject to debate. In Province VIII, Taiwan is certainly not US territory nor is Europe in Province II. I don't think any of the ECUSA websites address this issue. I feel certain, though, that the intent is for these extra-territorial dioceses to become independent eventually. Overseas won't do either. Central and Latin America aren't overseas, while the US State of Hawaii may be. Anyway, for the purposes of this article, I think the term extra-territorial is the most nearly correct choice. clariosophic (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly true that "extra-provincial" is much worse that "extra-territorial".

• The question of "US territory" isn't the point: it's not about whether it's US territory, but whether it's part of the ecclesiastical territory of the Episcopal Church. The term "extra-territorial" has been used to describe, for example, the Southern Cone folks in San Joaquin or the Nigerian folks in Virginia, which are just that: parishes which exist outside the proper geographic territory of the province claiming jurisdiction of them. But that's not the case with Taiwan or Honduras: those are part of the ecclesiastical territory of the Episcopal Church.
• Another question is "the intent is for these extra-territorial dioceses to become independent eventually." That's controversial. They are constituent parts of the Episcopal Church, and they may or may not become independent someday, but that's not a goal.
• I take your point about "overseas", though that is the word that TEC uses. Hawaii isn't overseas, btw, because that normally means a foreign country across the sea.
• But why do we need any word here? My first edit simply expressed that there was no need to make any such distinction; they are all inherent parts of the Episcopal Church, constituent parts, and do not have a secondary, provisional, or temporary status.
• I object fundamentally to a view which says that we must accept an inaccurate word as the "most nearly correct choice". We don't need to make a choice at all; we don't need to figure out a designation. But I would be happy with simply "outside the US" as a replacement for "extra-territorial", which is simple and factual.

Tb (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Tb. Nothing is ever simple, is it? I can go along with "outside the United States". That should fulfill the intent to show the geographic expanse of TEC. clariosophic (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. thanks for bearing with me. :) Tb (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

British Isles/Great Britain

The church of Ireland was already autonomous, and was outside the Kingdom of Great Britain as Ireland was technically a separate kingdom until the creation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. I'm aware that there is some dilike of the term British Isles in modern-day Ireland, but it's a widely known term, and seems to me to be less clumy than writing Great Britain and Ireland at every juncture. David Underdown (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The oaths of allegiance was to the Monarch - and the Monarch's kingdom at that time was named the "Kingdom of Great Britain" - although the full title includes "the Crown and Regal Government of the Kingdoms of England France and Ireland". The point being that this was the first time that an Anglican bishop was appointed from outside the kingdom, and didn't swear the oath of allegiance to the ruling monarch. Using the term "British Isles" does not make this point. The "dislike" of the term British Isles stems from usage which is non-geographic (the uneasy consensus in place currently is that the term is confined to modern geographical and not historical policital). Articles concerning religion or politics should be easily able to substitute historically accurate terms instead, while articles on plants and animals for example continue to use the term correctly. Bardcom (talk) 13:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

But it's simply incorrect to say the first Bishop outside Kingdom of Great Britain, there were many in the Church of Ireland, and all their sees were physically outside that Kingdom. Yes the monarch of Great Britain and the monarchs of Ireland were the same people, but the thrones were merely in personal union until the 1800 Act of Union. We are talking in purely geographical terms here. David Underdown (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The point that should be made is that he was the first bishop appointed to a province in an area not controlled by the British monarch. Substituting a geographical term is not precise. It is not noteworthy to state that it was the first province outside the British Isles - if you're using geographical terms, why not state Europe? It's because the real point is because of the significance of his appointment to an area outside of the monarch's kingdom, and not swearing allegiance. Bardcom (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Any oath sworn in Ireland was to the King in right of Ireland (just as now an oath can be sworn to Queen Elizabeth II as queen of the United Kingdom, or as Queen of Australia or as...). In Scotland, the Episcopal Church was already disestablished (and indeed the Scottish Episcopal Church had ben strongly associated with Jacobitism) and so no oath was required of Scottish Episcopal clergy, which is why the first Bishops of the autonomous church were consecrated by Scottish bishops. Why not use Europe? because we can be more precise. We could say that they were the first in lands outside the control of the British monarch, but that overlooks one of the important points, that in many areas that were under the control of the British monarch sees were not erected until much later - the first was the Anglican Diocese of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island which was created in 1787, the next was I believe the Bishop of Calcutta, the first of whom, T. F. Middleton, was not appointed until 1814, and initially the see covered all the territories of of the Honourable East India Company (and to what extent these territories were actually under the control of the Crown is debateable), and later had Australia added to it. Most other overseas territories were placed under the Bishop of London, and none of these were autonomous until much later 1861 being the main crucial date by the looks of it (Anglican Church of Canada#Autonomy and interdependence). The Church of Ireland however was always autonomous, with the Archbishop of Armagh being in no sense subordinate to Canterbury (and ditto for the Scottish church), though clergy could, and did move freely between the Church of Ireland and the Church of England. I find it clunky, but if you're adamant that British isles is unacceptable, I can live with some variation on Great Britain and Ireland being used instead, but references to Great Britain alone are just plain wrong. David Underdown (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi David, great explanation and thank you.

I acknowledge and accept your main points above. My only argument is that the term "British Isles" is being used as a substitute for a more accurate term. If we substituted the word "Europe", we would lose the point that this was the first anglican bishop to not swear allegiance to the British monarch on behalf of a "province" outside the kindoms controlled by the British monarch (in enemy territory). The scottish anglicans were still within the area (Kingdom of Great Britain). As a note, the relevance is those two points taken together - not swearing allegiance *and* not being in an area controlled by the monarch.

BTW, what is the connection between the consecration of Samuel Seabury and the founding of the new province? Is it assumed that the new province was recognized immediately? If so, what is the relevance of representative clergy from nine dioceses meeting in Philadelphia to ratify the church's initial constitution in 1789? Is this the actual official founding of the province?

If you are happy to substitute the term with kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland as a compromise, I am fine with that. Bardcom (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I still don't fundamentally see British Isles as being inaccurate, but I still have trouble seeing all the objections to it - having only come across them via Wikipedia. I guess that the 1789 meeting is the formal creation of the province as a group of dioceses, I guess that up until then each diocese was effectively operating independently, it after all took some time for civil government in the US to settle on federal government, the states initially maintained a degree of independence, so it wouldn't entirely be surprising if church government simialrly took a while to evolve. I note that curiously the 3 bishops consecrated after Seabury were consecrated by CofE bishops, though no particular indication is given of how the problems with oaths were resolved. David Underdown (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[Indent out for readability] Hmmm...does that mean that mean that a province existed in Nova Scotia (1787) before the formal creation in America? And it is interesting that the other three bishops were consecrated by CofE bishops - this implies that they swore allegience to the king ... I wonder what oaths subsequent bishops consecrated in America took initially, or did it depend on which bishops were ordaining the new bishop... I can understand why you might have difficulty seeing how the "British Isles" is inaccurate, but I see the significance of the first bishop not swearing allegience to the king, and from an area not claimed by that king, as being more significant. For this point, using a geographical term is inaccurate as the monarch of the day also claimed France as a kingdom. Bardcom (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Nova Scotia was only a diocese, and the Church in Canada doesn't seem to have been fully autonomous until much later, as previously mentioned, I think the bishops there would have seen themselves as under the jurisdiction of Canterbury. I had forgotten that the titular claim to France survived so long, though by this period it was obviously an empty claim, and the monarch obviously didn't exercise any actual jurisdiciton there. As I've said, Im perfectly happy to see Great Britain and Ireland listed jointly. David Underdown (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool - and thanks for the education David. Bardcom (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I was onlhy a few steps ahead of you - though I probably had a better idea where to start looking for specifics of dates and so on. David Underdown (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be continually revisiting this question. Let's be done with it and just say the neutral Great Britain and Ireland. Thank you from an Episcopalian who is a citizen of both the USA and the Republic of Ireland. BTW on my visits to my father's home parish church in Monaghan, I have found the members referring to themselves as Episcopalians, not Anglicans. clariosophic (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC) clariosophic (talk) 04:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC) correcting link to the Republic.

user:Bardcom trolls around articles making contentious name changes that deal with the term British Isles. I have run across him before and have found that in dealing with him, it is best to just rephrase the edit to discuss only the island of Great Britian, if possible. -- Secisek (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Secisek, I see on your user page a link to the policy on being civil. How ironic. If the term "British Isles" is correctly used, I have no problem with it. At all. It is a geographic term. Unfortunately a great many editors use it as a policital term through ignorance. For example, as an alternative to naming Great Britain and/or Ireland when this is not always the intended meaning (esp. when discussing politics/religion.) If you want to keep up with the most recent discussions, please join in on the talk page of the British Isles. Bardcom (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "Great Britain and Ireland" is also wrong. The isle of Man, which is neither Great Britain nor Ireland, had a C of I Bishop ("Sodor and Man") for a long long time. The correct term is, in fact, "British Isles", whether User:Bardcom thinks that's "interesting" or not, it exactly and precisely states the point. Tb (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The text reads "the kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland" as the monarch had multiple crowns. The Isle of Man is not a province, but an extension of the Church of England. The notability of this event and choice of words was discussed above. Bardcom (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The Isle of Man is not an "extension of the Church of England"; it is an island. The diocese of Sodor and Man is not an extension, but an integral part of the Church of England. It is not, however, part of Great Britain or Ireland, nor is it part of the "kingdom of Great Britain", being a separate crown territory. Tb (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Despite what User:Bardcom said in the edit log, the Isle of Man was not a part of the Kingdom of Great Britain; it is not now, nor has it ever been, a part of the United Kingdom, it is a Crown dependency as indicated on that page. It is, of course, part of the British Isles, as is Ireland, Great Britain. Tb (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

We have been over this before, this deals with geography, not politics. You need to re-read Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Controversial names which, while dealing with article title, in theory applies to your edits here. Since this is not the first time I have had to correct you on this, I will quote you the passage:

“ Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain. Especially when there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail. Any proposal to change between names should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and discussed on talk pages before a name is changed. However, debating controversial names is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia. ”

Please respect this policy and it will be easier to assume good faith on your part in the future. Best, -- Secisek (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not reasonable that we should be cowed by a single-issue editor who is unwilling to discuss. He has decided that "British Isles" is wrong, even when that is exactly the right term, and has run roughshod over many factual errors so far in his haste. He has now reverted four separate editors, and nearly every edit in his edit history is about one and only one issue: objection to the term "British Isles" in just about any and all contexts. We do not need to let him dictate to us what our consensus must be. Tb (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

TB, you've made threats on my talk page, and you are attempting to bully and intimidate me and other rational editors. You make wild allegations without a shred of evidence to back anything up. Bardcom (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is the case for using "kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland". Before the American Civil War, bishops in the Episcopal Church in the United States of America used to swear allegience to the monarch of the kingdom of Great Britain. This caused problems. When the clergy of Connecticut elected Samuel Seabury as their bishop in 1783, he sought consecration in England. The Oath of Supremacy prevented Seabury's consecration in England, so he went to Scotland, where he could be consecrated without giving the oath. This event is notable for two reasons. The first reason is that he represented a diocese from a territory not controlled by the British monarch. The second reason is that he didn't swear allegience to the British monarch. The way to express the first notable reason is to use the term that refers to the area controlled by the British monarch, and this term is the "kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland". The kingdom of Great Britain controlled the Isle of Man by that date. Look at it another way. Let's suppose that the British Monarch waged successful war and at that time ruled territory that included France. You wouldn't say "first province outside the British Isles and France". The notability isn't a geographical location, it's the territory. Bardcom (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether you enjoy the fact or not, the Isle of Man was not part of the Kingdom of Great Britain, any more than Canada is now. It was and is a Crown dependency, that is, a separate country ruled by the same monarch, with its own legislature, the Tynwald. Indeed, it is destructive that you have altered, for example, History of Jersey to suggest that Jersey is or was a part of the United Kingdom, thus destabilizing the article which otherwise, as does Jersey and Crown dependency makes clear that the island in question is not a part of the United Kingdom. You say, The notability isn't a geographical location, it's the territory, and interestingly, that territory happens to have been the British Isles. That's the territory; that's what the monarch ruled: that's an exact specification of the territory in question at the time. Tb (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Isle of Man was not part of the Kingdom of Great Britain? You're right. I've checked. I'm mistaken, and it was a true mistake - I hold my hand up. And I made this mistake with Jersey too. I am truly sorry for this error.

But I believe my point about using a geographical term when you mean "territory ruled by the British monarch" is still valid. Because they overlap, it may seem like the same thing, but it's not. Strictly speaking, you shouldn't use the term "British Isles" to refer to these territories. Bardcom (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect you are not sincere. You have made many changes of "British Isles" even when the reference is not political in any way (such as the location of mint); moreover, at the time in question the British Isles were exactly the territory ruled by the British monarch. If you only changed "British Isles" when it refers to a political context, your statement would have plausibility. But since you do so, even incorrectly, whether it has a political context or not, I suspect your reason is specious, and you have some other reason. Perhaps you simply object to the term "British Isles" in any and all contexts. I don't know. Tb (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Is my edit to the "mint" article incorrect? I have changed a bunch of articles that were using the term "British Isles" inaccurately or incorrectly. Is this wrong? At this stage I've reviewed probably most of the articles that link to the article "British Isles", and I've corrected a number of these articles. For those that are interested, the vast majority of articles used the term perfectly correctly. I am sincere, and these edits are being made in good faith. Bardcom (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's consider [1]. What exactly was incorrect about "British Isles" in that case, that excluding Man and the other British Isles was necessary? Tb (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition to your factually incorrect edits here and at History of Jersey it took me a short time to locate four other edits, just from today's log, in which you altered "British Isles" for reasons which destabilize articles, alter factual claims in significant ways, or otherwise show apparently no regard for the context. Tb (talk) 02:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

actually Man was even more anomalous at the period of time in question, the Lordship was taken by the Crown in Victoria's reign I think, at the period in question it was still held by the Stanley family as Earls of Derby. See Thomas Wilson (bishop) for some fo the issues thi caused the church. Never-the-less it was not autonomous in church terms, but an integral part fo the Church of England (not the Church of Ireland as someone said earlier), so the description of TEC as the first autonomous province outside the kingdoms... is still correct in the lead, but it is not true to describe Seabury as first bishop outside the kingdoms... David Underdown (talk) 08:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

For the Isle of Man, the key date was 1765 - easy to check by looking at the article! So this means IoM was part of the jurisdiction of the British monarch in 1784. The text does not state that Seabury was the first bishop outside the kingdoms - it states "jurisdiction of the British monarch", which is correct, and more correct that using the term "British Isles". Your edit has been reverted for now. Please discuss here why the current test is not correct first. Please read discussions above as to why "jurisdiction of the British monarch" is notable. Bardcom (talk) 11:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

David, just to summarize/clarify. The notable point about Seabury is twofold. He was the first bishop ordained from an area outside the jurisdiction of the British monarch, who didn't take the oath of allegiance to the British king. You make points such as "even areas under the jurisdiction of the British Monarch outside the British Isles didn't have their own bishop's at this date", which I fail to understand the relevance. While your statement is true, it doesn't invalidate the statement made in the article that you reverted. Bardcom (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I should have checked the exact date on Man, sorry. The point about the jurisdiction is this, whilst the whole of Great Britain and Ireland (inc crown dependencies) was under the British monarch, that was not the limit of their jurisdiction, the British crown also held sway in what is now Canada, and the crown colonies in the Caribbean islands, and the East India company already dominated much of the Indian sub-continent and so on (although these areas were not strictly under the jurisdiction of the monarch, though Crown forces did operate there). As previously mentioned, none of these areas had bishop until after Seabury either, without this clarification readers might assume that bishops had existed in those areas. Does that make more sense? Put another way, the only geographical area in which Anglican bishops had sees prior to the consecration of Seabury, was the British Isles, or whatever alternative we come up with. Within this geographical area, though subjects of the monarch, Scottish episcopal Bishops already took no oath of allegiance.David Underdown (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Good explanation, I understand the point you are making about India, etc. But as you point out, these areas were not under the jurisdiction of the British monarch. The significance of Seabury is that he was from "enemy" territory, not under the jurisdiction, and not even in friendly territory. I can't see any evidence that any bishops from those other territories (Canada, India, etc), were ordained - but if they were, it wouldn't be as significant as these bishops would probably have sworn allegience. Using the term "British Isles" misses this point, and uses a geographical term to make a point where we are really trying to make a more political point. Just my 2c. I'm happy to hear what other contributers have to say too. Bardcom (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I'm not sure if I'm articulating the point I'm trying to make very well. Let's say that in 1784, some bishops from different parts of the world were ordained. An English bishop - nothing notable because he swears allegience, and is within the jurisdiction. A Scottish bishop - mildly notable because he doesn't swear allegience, but is still a subject and within the jurisdiction. An Indian bishop - pretty notable? Why? Does he swear allegience? Probably. He is outside the jurisdiction. If he didn't do both, then it's more notable for the same reasons as our American bishop.

Does that help? Bardcom (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(move to left fot readability) I think the present wording is the best so far. I like Bardcom's analysis that it is a political, not geographic, issue and that Seabury's consecration by the Scottish bishops was a really radical and unprecedented action. clariosophic (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Whilst the British Empire had not reached its apogee (territorially speaking) at this stage, and of course had just been considerably diminished by the loss of the American colonies, it was still a considerable territory, it seems to me that pointing out that it wasn't just the first Anglican diocese outside areas under British control, but the first outside these islands, just underlines how radical a step it was. Indeed, Church of England dioceses had just the same boundaries as in the reign of Elizabeth, which with the exception of the remerger of Westminster into London, were the same as those set under Henry VIII, who introduced several new dioceses, prior to that the boundaries were essentially unchanged from those that developed shortly after the Norman Conquest. In Ireland Dioceses in the Church of Ireland were identical to pre-reformation sees, in Scotland, some dioceses were merged, and Edinburgh created when Charles forcibly restored the Episcopacy, but they were still largely based on the pre-reformation sees, so this ws in fact the first new Anglican Diocese of any sort for over a century, and whilst as discussed higher up this page, Nova Scotia would follow just a few years later, and Calcutta a little after, the first changes in (English) CofE dioceses were not to be until the creation of Ripon in 1836. Also the Scottish Episcopal Church functioned in territory that was under the jurisdiction of the Crown, but was essentially disestablished, and due to its previous involvment with Jacobitism still under a degree of official suspiscion, and so not under direct Crown jurisdiction in the same way as in the Church of Ireland and the Church of England where the appointments of bishops were (and still are in England) a Crown appointment. To most readers the issues of who had to swear oaths and to whom will seem pretty nit-picking, but the territorial aspect is easy to understand. We should not forget that the wording under most dispute is that in the lead, which is supposed to serve as an introduction to the article, we already mention the difficulties caused by the clergy no longer being able to swear allegiance to the Crown, so that introduces the political aspect, but a dicoese is essentially a territorial division, so we do need to touch on that aspect too. David Underdown (talk) 10:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi David, I agree with the history recap, and I agree with your assertion that a diocese is essentially a territorial division. But you're are not giving sufficient weight to the political point. Before the American civil war, there were already bishops being consecrated in the USA. By your logic, these bishops are notably as being the first (possibly) outside the British Isles. But they're not notable (per se - because they swore allegience, etc). But that would make the usage of "British Isels" inaccurate. Regardless, the political point is not nit-picking, it is very important - without the political ramifications, there would never have been a need to split in the first place.... Anyway, I don't want to be perceived as ramming a point against anyone's will. It would be good if other contributes voiced their opinions too... Bardcom (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, we're talking American Revolutionary War 1775-83, not Civil War 1861-5. What other Bishops? The idea had been talked about, but so far as I can see no-one was consecrated before Seabury (1784), then in 1787 we have Provoost and White in the US (now consecrated by CofE bishops rather than the Scottish bishops) and Charles Inglis for Nova Scotia, which was an extra-territorial Church of England dicoese. No bishop could actually be consecrated in the US until there were three bishops avaialble there - the first ones all travleed to Great Britain for their consecration. David Underdown (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what I get for dashing off a quick response while rushing! A rambling point. Apologies. I'll clarify my rambling below. Bardcom (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an awful lot of effort being expended to change a statement that is correct as is. The scholarship all agrees that Seabury was the first Anglican bishop outside the British Isles. No scholar contests this. Do you have a citation to the contrary? So far your arguement has consisted of nothing other than synthesis and OR. --Secisek (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Another typical contribution. But that's pretty typical of you - assumptions, insinuations, vagueness, not assuming good faith, acidic, etc. Try engaging in the discussion rather than stone-throwing and name-calling from the sidelines. Bardcom (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you are so intrested in the subject, I invite you to help me edit Nonjuring schism to GA. I am sure I will see you there. -- Secisek (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not disputing that Seabury was the first Anglican bishop outside the British Isles. That's a fact. Equally, he was the first Anglican bishop outside of Europe. My point is that you are using a geographical description like "British Isles", when what you really mean to use is a term that describes the jurisdiction of the British monarch. You are using the term British Isles only because at the time, there was an overlap between the geographic location and the jurisdiction. But the notability is the jurisdiction, not the geographical entity. You can't separate the politics from the event of Seabury's consecration. From the article, this makes the connection: William Smith made the connection explicit in a 1762 report to the Bishop of London. "The Church is the firmest Basis of Monarchy and the English Constitution", he declared. But if dissenters of "more Republican . . . Principles [with] little affinity to the established Religion and manners" of England ever gained the upper hand, the colonists might begin to think of "Independency and separate Government". Thus "in a Political as well as religious view", Smith stated emphatically, the church should be strengthened by an American bishop and the appointment of "prudent Governors who are friends of our Establishment"

Using a geographical term would miss this point - unless you expect the readers to make the connection between the geographical term "British Isles" and the jurisdiction of the British monarch during that period. Or perhaps you mean to imply notability due to a geographic area (which I doubt). Given that the term today does not mean the jurisdiction of the British monarch, I believe it's clearer to avoid the usage of the term. Bardcom (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

But the geographic area was actually only a very small part of his overall jurisdiction, and as we keep saying, the Scottish Church was in a very real sense, not subject to that jurisdiction, despite being physically located within in, the geographic and political are inextricably woven, and both need to be given due weight - to me the geographical element by itself would be notable, it was the first step from what had very much been a local Church, physically dependent on a small bunch of islands just off the European mainland, turning into the third largest Christian grouping in the world. The political aspect is also noteworthy because it forced the American church to become autonmous much ealier that it would otherwise have done. Just saying outside the jurisdiction of the British Crown requires the reader to know that there weren't even any other Dioceses outside these islands for them to appreciate the full import of the step. David Underdown (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi David, I don't understand what you mean about the dioceses - I believe there were other dioceses in the USA at the time. Regardless, thank you for discussing and helping me understand your point (which I believe I do)

Trying to summarize - This church was the first autonomous province. That much we agree on. But outside of what?

You say the British Isles (geography). I agree that this is factually true, but I don't think that this is notable. If you substituted another geographical areas like Northern Europe, I think you start to see what is lost.

I believe that it's much more notable and in line with the article when you consider the political landscape and the oath of allegiance. For that reason, I believe the correct term should refer to the the jurisdiction of the British monarch.

I've pretty much made whatever points I can. I know there are other editors that have contributed to this article, and I'm happy with whatever decision is made. Bardcom (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. BTW, when you say there weren't any other Dioceses outside the islands, what exactly do you mean? I was under the impression that there were a number of dioceses already in existence at that time.

Name these other Anglican dioceses, other than the American Diocese, Nova Scotia claims to be the first, which as has been stated repeatedly on this page wasn't founded until 1787. We've agreed that dioceses are essentially a territorial unit. The territory covered was co-terminous with what can most succinctly be described as the British Isles - nothing larger, which is why substituting another term such as Europe is meaningless, it simply has no bearing on where the dioceses were actually located. All other Anglian clergy at this time came under the Ordinary jurisdiction of the Bishop of London, but on an extra-diocesan basis, his see did not actually extend beyond England. Compare with the current Bishop to the Forces, who is not a Dicoesan, but carries out most day to day Episcopal functions relating to Anglican padres in the British armed forces, or Parish of the Falkland Islands, which is an extra-diocesan and extra-territorial parish reporting direct to Canterbury (unless a Commissary is appointed). It appears some non-juring bishops visited America, but as has been pointed out to you on other talk-pages, any acts they carried out there were ultra vires, not having permission of the Bishop of London (interesting parallels with some of the current events in the US I note). David Underdown (talk) 07:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There were bishops (and I'm therefore inferring dioceses) outside of the jurisdiction before 1787. Perhaps they were extensions of a diocese in England? For example, when Seabury was consecrated, for what diocese?

No matter - I think we've each given a good account of our reasoning which I summarized above. Thanks again David, I appreciate the time you've spent educating me, and the patience you've shown. Bardcom (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Who are these other Anglican Bishops? Not all bishops are Diocesans in any case. David Underdown (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There were no Church of England bishops outside of the British Isles who were not under the jurisdiction of the bishop of London before Seabury. Ditto Church of Ieland. The non-jurors seem to have created some Episcopi vagantes, although their status was non-canonical. If you somehow proved that Seabury wasn't the first bishop, we still couldn't change the article as it would be WP:OR. You are uselessly challenging a fact that is accepted, cited, and well known. Let this one go. -- Secisek (talk)

Nice one Secisek. What assumption are you making now? What do you whink I'm challenging this time? This is a civil and polite discussion on whether a geographical terminology is more appropriate than a political terminology, and we're touching on other topics as we go. Your tone is just needlessly inflammatory - lay off. Curious choice of words too - so if something was proved, you'd ignore it? Probably not what you meant to say. But you have highlighted the point I made earlier. I didn't say or claim that there were any bishops outside of the jurisdiction of the bishop of London. But the assertion/assumption that there were means that the statement "making him the first Apiscopal bishop outside the British Isles" isn't correct. A question - if there were bishops outside of the jurisdiction of the British monarch - let's say ministering in USA, or France, or wherever - what diocese were they operating in? For example, (c/w)ould it have been the "parish of Boston", but the "Diocese of somewhere-in-England"? Bardcom (talk) 11:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

They would have been operating under the authority of the Bishop of London - if there were such bishops. I have explained time and time again why I have such great difficulty assuming good faith on your part. I continue to run across you disturbing the peace all over the encylopedia because of a personal crusade to right the great wrongs of geography. When we were discussing the History of Christianity in the British Isles template, I suggested it might be a candidate for deletion, you responded by saying in so many words that you didn't care what happened to it so long as it didn't have the phrase "British Isles" on it. I've asked you to help me edit Pelagius to GA and thus far all you have done is keep your argument going on the talk page. When I asked you to help me improve the Nonjuring schism article you confessed on my talk page that it is beyond your ability to do so. We know why you are here and it has nothing to do with your intrest in Seabury. How can you expect us to take you seriously? -- Secisek (talk) 11:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not an expert on Religious matters. I have never professed to be, and I don't pretend to be. I have no doubt though that you are an expert. While you want to write and expand the religious articles on wiki, I want to make the encyclopedia more accurate (including usage of the term "British Isles"), and less spammy (removing blatent commercial promotion). I regularly contribute on matters where I do have expert knowledge. I am more than happy to help with articles outside my domain of expertise where possible, but it would not serve the collective interests if a non-expert significantly contributes to articles outside their domain. But I'll say again, I am happy to contribute where and when I can, and I will try.

Again, your language is unnecessarily goading and inflammatory. A personal crusade. Right the great wrongs of geography. Keep your argument going. I never use this type of language and I doubt that there are any kind intentions behind people who do.

Have you a particular interest in keeping the term "British Isles" even when it's not correct or accurate? If not, why be so nasty? If so, as I suspect, your name-calling and personal attacks are seen in a different light.

I've made my point above. Several editors commented, we had a discussion. I do want to see greater accuracy in usage of the term "British Isles", regardless of the type of article. I don't want it removed though, and I don't give two hoots for any of the political discussions surrounding the term (I've never participated in any political discussions, only geographical ones). And if it's a trivial point to you, why are you getting all worked up? It's not a trivial point for some, including me, but you shouldn't ridicule good faith discussions and edits. If some editors want an explanation, and want to explore the reasons I put forward, that's OK too - I'm happy to engage, and you won't see me resort to name-calling or incivility if they don't agree. Bardcom (talk) 13:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

My "particular interest" is confined to not having to deal with tendentious editing. In case you don't click on the link here are some highlights:

“ What is tendentious editing?

Axe to grind? Try the hardware store. Wikipedia is the wrong venue for this...On Wikipedia, the term...carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors. A single edit is unlikely to be a problem, but a pattern of edits displaying a bias is more likely to be an issue, and repeated biased edits to a single article or group of articles will be very unwelcome indeed. This last behaviour is generally characterised as POV pushing and is a common cause of blocking. It is usually an indication of strong opinions.

”

Sound like anybody we know? You continue to violate policy:

“ Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another...debating controversial names is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia. ”

You "suspect" that I have a particular interest in keeping the term "British Isles" even when it's not correct or accurate. We have established that you will edit a page just to remove it even when it is correct and accurate. When it is used properly, I have seen you alter the surrounding text to set up a straw man arguement to ease its later removal. If I cared about the term I would spend all my time chasing you around and reverting your every edit. As it is, I do everything in my power to avoid you. I was serious when I said after our first meeting that I hoped to never run across you again. I suspected that wouldn't happen. As for my "curious choice of words" above, that was exactly what I meant to say. Yes, if there was a cited, accepted, and published fact that you somehow "proved false", you would still have to have your findings published per WP:RS before we could alter something as well established as the name of an island chain or the fact that Seabury was the first Anglican bishop outside the British Isles.

Lastly - on the lighter side - the disengenuious intrest of a wide variety of subjects that your crusade force you to feign is delightful. Watching you research arcane subjects by the seat of your pants, between post, in attempt to wikilawyer British Isles out of articles is a source of hilarity, however it is growing tedious here and at Pelagius and I again suggest you move on to easier marks. Best of luck, -- Secisek (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for ease of editing

The key importance of Seabury is as a permanently resident, Dicoesan bishop, bishops in America prior to Seabury were, as discussed, visiting, whether the non-jurors, acting with doubtful validity, or any duly appointed suffragans of London. It is the erection of the See, and the consecration of a Bishop for that See which is what makes it unique, and the territorial nature of a Diocese is what makes the geographical aspect valid. On the political/jurisdictional point, I note from reading around that the Scottish Episcopalians did not even recognise George III as the rightful monarch until 1788 (after Seabury, and after the creation fo the Diocese of Nova Scotia), after the demise of Bonnie Prince Charlie lef the Jacobite claim with a Roman Catholic Cardinal. Until the passage of the Scottish Episcopalians Relief Act, 1792, members of the church, and particularly it's clergy were subject to similar penal laws to those that applied to Roman Catholics, and even after the passage of the Act, their Orders were not fully recognised, unless they happened to have been ordained by a Bishop of the Church of England or Ireland. So though they were resident within the jurisdiction of the British Crown, their loyatly to it was obviously held to be extremely doubtful

Bardcom, I really don't think that an American (i.e. Secisek) has any particular vested interest in the term (now me with an Ulster Scot great-grandfather, I doubtless have some unconcious bias). David Underdown (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi David, thank you. Perhaps Secisek was merely trivializing my discussions, but his choice of language leaves much to be desired.

Question. I have seen references, predating Seabury, to parishes existing in USA. If so, which diocese would these belong to? If they belonged to a diocese in the British Isles, it would make sense why bishops might be visiting..

Also, your clarification on the precise notability of Seabury is noted - especially the significance of being permanently resident. But is it true that the erection of the See also occurred at this time (or is that inferred?).

Your point about British Isles and Scotland, etc, is in line with my point about not using a geographical term when it's more meaningful to use a political term, etc. The Scottish bishops were still resident in an area under the jurisdiction of the British monarch. The jurisdiction also overlapped with the area encompassed by the term "British Isles". But as I've said previously, I'm happy to have made my point, and for the consensus to decide what the article should say. Bardcom (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A parish need not be in a diocese, I've already linked on this page to a current example in the Anglican Communion Parish of the Falkland Islands, chapels on British military bases (particularly overseas) are a similar case (though not strictly parishes). Within England we still have Royal Peculiars, such as Westminster Abbey and St George's Chapel at Windsor Castle which though physically within dioceses (obviously) are not subject to any diocesan jurisdiction. Prior to the mid-nineteenth there were many more Peculiars of various sorts, lying within one dicoese but for various historical reasons, under the ordinary authority of the bishop of quite another diocese - these though were all tidied up at the same sort of time they started creating new dioceses in the Church of England itself (within England).

So, just prior to America gaining its independence we have in the geographic area of the British Isles, Ireland with the Church of Ireland maintaining all the ancient pre-reformation dioceses, and holding the ancient churches and cathedrals, and so far I know these dioceses completely cover the island (and immediately adjacent ones), and no more. In Great Britain, the Church of England, which then also covered Wales (until 1921) whose dioceses cover the whole of England and Wales, including more distant areas such as the Scillies (in modern times in the Diocese of Truro, as recently seen on the BBC, then in the Diocese of Exeter), and also the crown dependecies of the Isle of Man (Diocese of Sodor and Man), and the Channel Islands (an Archdeaconry of the Diocese of Winchester). Clergy in both Ireland and the Church of England are required to subscrive tot he thirty-nine articles and swear allegiance to the Crown. In Scotland we have the disestablished Scottish Episcopal Church, it no longer holds the ancient churches and cathedrals, but is attempting to maintain some sort of diocesan structure. Following the nonjuring schism, and it's association with Jacobitism, this church does not recognise George III as the rightful monarch (until 1788), and certainly does not swear any oath to him. In name at least, this church extends to the Outer Hebrides and the Orkneys.

Outside the British Isles we have various anglican congregations, in North America, both in what will become the US, and what will become Canada, in the Caribbean, (which are all Crown colonies) in India (which is controlled by the East India Company, which though it operates under a Royal Charter and receives some support from the forces of the Crown maintains its own armed forces, and has a considerable degree of autonomy, though is subject to some parliamentary oversight. Some RN ships also carry chaplains (though often the commanding officer leads the legally required Sunday service). The clergy of these scattered congregations are under the Ordinary jurisdiction of the Bishop of London, but on an extra-diocesan basis, the Diocese of London still does not extend beyond England. In general clergy are ordained in England (Seabury himself was ordained in St Paul's Cathedral), unless there happens (in rare cases to be a visiting bishop available).

Following the revolution, clergy in the new US find themselves in a difficult situation, they can no longer look to England due to the political imperatives of allegiance, and nor can they expect any new clergy to be ordained in England and sent to replace those who die, or those who have opted to move to the remaining British colonies in Canada. Yet to break Apostolic Succession is unthinkable. Somehow they have to get there own bishops so they can maintain the Episcopal polity within their church. Clergy in Connecticut meet, and select Seabury as their candidate for the all new Diocese. He travels to Great Britain, no-one in England will ordain him, since the consecration of a bishop requires the Royal Licence, and that's hardly going to be forthcoming for a rebel, and in any case he cannot swear the requierd oaths without being deemed a traitor at home. However, in Scotland we have another group of Episcopalians, similarly separated from allegiance to the British Crown by their refual to swear allegiance to the Hanoverians, they agree to ordain him, creating the first bishop with a See whose territory is outside the geogrpahic area of the British Isles - but not the first not to have sworn allegiance to the British Monarch. David Underdown (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A minor disagreement with one point here: "Yet to break Apostolic Succession is unthinkable." Perhaps for us, yes, for Seabury, yes, but for William White, no. White was content to break Apostolic Succession, and would have done so if events had not made it pointless. Tb (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That'll teach me to make assumptions - but it doesn't actually seem to be mentioned anywhere at the moment, either in this article or in White's own. It seems to me that it is a significant thread in the development in the new church. An interesting comparison with Methodism too, since it was Wesley's breaking of the Succession which had a lot to do with the final break between Methodism and the CofE. David Underdown (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well done sir, well done. -- Secisek (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Starting Over

Finding the ongoing discussion sterile, I haven't joined in. But one thing becomes abundantly clear upon taking some time back and thinking over the whole thread. "The British Isles" as a geographic category had long been the only place where Anglicanism existed; and even when Anglican congregations began to thrive elsewhere there were still no bishops for them until Seabury. Seabury's ordination broke a log-jam of thinking in the Church of England, which couldn't figure out how bishops could work without their traditional secular role, and it wasn't clear how that role could be worked in other places. But after Seabury, it became obvious not only that it was OK to ordain White and Provoost and so forth, but also that it was OK to ordain bishops in Canada. In other words, part of the deal was a geographic question. And part of the deal was a political one, obviously in the matter of the oath of supremacy, but in a thousand smaller ways too. It is interesting and relevant that Seabury was the first Anglican bishop not located in "those isles", and also interesting and relevant that he was the first one not under the jurisdiction of the British monarch. Both are interesting and relevant, and neither subsumed under or implied by the other. (For, of course, there can be bishops outside the British isles still under the monarch, and, of course, bishops within "those isles" who are not under the monarch.) Seabury is the antecedent, the first one, for both categories. Asking "which is correct" is barren, because both are true, and neither duplicates or replaces the other. The fact that the non-jurors (of course) did not swear allegiance isn't quite the point: because the non-jurors were still British subjects. Tb (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

After being (once again) educated by David, and yourself, I agree. It's clear to me now why being the first outside the geographic region is also a notable and important event. Thank you both. It makes sense to use the term "British Isles" in this context. Bardcom (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed then that Seabury was the first bishop outside these islands, but was he not also the the first who was not a subject of the King? While the Scottish bishops may not have had to swear allegiance to the King, weren't they still his subjects under whatever crown he then wore in Scotland? clariosophic (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

de facto yes, but until 1788 (after the consecrations) they did not even recognise George III as the legitimate monarch, though no doubt they did still see themselves as subjects. We could push this too far though. David Underdown (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the additional statement because the citation right next to it does not say what the article claims it says. We may have OR'ed that it is so, but it may not be cite-able and it certainly is not cited in the work noted (which I own). -- Secisek (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

well it's hardly a novel synthesis, we could just move the position of the cite to make it clearer what is entirely supported there. David Underdown (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's synthesis none the less and the "proof" of how we scholars arrived at this conclusion is here on the talk page for all to see. If we were close to GA, I make a big deal out of this, but as it stands it can be uncited until we get close to another GA nomination. If somebody wants to restore it, move out of the citation or find a real cite. -- Secisek (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's more of the order of pure logical deduction. US outside Crown control - yep. All British Isles under Crown control (at the time), and this could be cited from any work on British history if someone did actually challenge it. So first dicoese outside British Isles, + US outside Crown control => also first outside crown control (I knew the maths degree would come in useful some day). David Underdown (talk) 08:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, all of this to and fro is sterile. The reference needs checking. The reference given (# ^ Sydnor, William (1980). Looking at the Episcopal Church. USA: Morehouse Publishing, 73. ) does not state anything about Seabury being the first bishop with a see outside either "The British Isles" or anything else. The text in the preceding few pages simply describes how the Episcopalian Church split from the Church of England. The text referring to Seabury himself simply states that he was consecrated in 1784. Unless there is an actual reference to his being the first outside "The British Isles" or anything else (no OR please) then the text that you are all arguing about should be removed as unsupported, because it is unsupported. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, the other main reference on this page, Hein and Shattuck, makes no mention of anything about Seabury and The British Isles. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Review WP:SYN which states:

“ ...if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing. ”

I have to look to see exactly what the book says, but it was probably one of my cites and it almost certainly does not violate WP:SYN. If you have better sources then the existing ones, please start rewriting and citing the history section. This discussion seemed to be ending, so I encourage you to let it die if you have come here for the sole purpose of violating WP policy:Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Controversial names. Please, feel free to rewrite and cite the history section, but if your edit is going to consisit of only removing or "changing one controversial name to another", you will be probably be reverted as consensus has just about been reached here. Sorry for the warning in advance, but as with bardcom, if you didn't race around the encyclopedia looking for places to engage in this "sterile" arguement, it would be easier to assume good faith. Best wishes, -- Secisek (talk) 09:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Boy, you're quick off the gun with accusations. Actually, I'm looking at various of the places where Bardcom was attacked recently and finding that he's generally been accurate in his changes or that the places where he's been changing things are places where the use of "British Isles" is unsupported by reference or is simply in the article from "habit". He's been tarred with all the same accusations that you're already throwing at me, and it's apparent from many of the articles that the accusations are totally wrong. I don't know why you're so aggressive, but it's not nice As for WP:SYN, I said nothing about it. I said that the assertion about being the first outside the British Isles is unsupported by the references. It is unsupported, so consensus doesn't matter. Reference matters. As for me finding the reference, it's not up to me, it's up to whoever put the text in. If that's you, then go get references. Otherwise the whole section should be deleted. It's an alternative way of sorting out the fuss. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for my tone and withdraw my comment in full. Item is now cited and quoted. I am truly sorry for my tone, but this has gone on long enough. -- Secisek (talk) 10:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Good solution for the citation lower down! However, the piece in the intro is still unsupported since the intro is about the autonomous province, not about the bishop. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you place a {{cn}} tag? I am uncertain what you are refering to. I will be happy to cite the material in question. Part of what was frustrating about all this was these are not contentious points. It took me, what 5 minutes to cite it with a verbatium quote? Seabury as the first bishop outside of the Isles? This is like aruging if George Washington was the first president of the U.S.A. - it is an uncontested and well known point of American history. Look at this page, this was a tremendous amout of wasted time over an accepted and easily cited fact. Even if it had not been the intention from the start, it really did go off the deep end into bad faith tendentious editing. I regret not being more pro-active sooner and perhaps I have found a new way of dealing with this situation, which I regret seems to find me from time to time. -- Secisek (talk) 11:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've cited it from the book Tom Hennell mentioned on your talk. It actually describes it as a separate church, rather then province, but that's a semantic issue. David Underdown (talk) 11:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, in the lead! Most of my work is done with an eye for GA and current GA conventions forbid citations in the lead except for direct quotes. I was looking in the wrong place. I hope this at an end. We archived this page at the begining of the month and it is going need to be done again at the end of it. -- Secisek (talk) 11:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in the lead. The new references STILL don't mention The British Isles. They reference things like "outside Britain and Ireland". This is exactly the kind of potentially careless editing that Bardcom was questioning. Meantime, don't blame me for the talk page getting too long. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it's certainly not the first one to be placed in the lead of this article. Convention seems to be somewhat flexible on this point in any case. umm the first new ref does specifically mention British Isles. The latest one does (inaccurately as pointed out elsewhere on this talkpage) merely speak of Britain and Ireland - it ignores the presence of the Church of England in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, the sloppiness is in the book, rather than the article. Taken together, however, the point is conclusively proven, again given simple logical deduction, if nothing else. David Underdown (talk) 11:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The new reference in the lead (i mis-typed above and should have said "the new reference still doesn't mention...". I had already congratulated secisek on his edit further down) doesn't mention the British Isles, it mentions Britain and Ireland. As for the reference "inaccurately" saying Britain and Ireland and not the British Isles, who says it's inaccurate? You? Sorry, but that doesn't count. Besides, if you quote the ref you can't turn around in the next breath and say it's inaccurate so the article should include something you know rather than something the reference actually says. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

As is, the lead doesn't pass WP:LEAD, at least not for a GA article, and will have to be complete rewritten when the article is beaten into GA shape. I urge everyone to let the lead stand per David's alterations as it is not remotely in a finished form as it is and is merely serving as a stop-gap until the article itself is improved. It is certainly not worth fighting over a citation that will be eliminated at some point in the near future. -- Secisek (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I cannot even follow my own advice. I figured removing a well know fact in the face of all of the above bullying might be worth it to keep the peace, but then I thought about the message it would send to tendentious editors everywhere. I broke down, took another 5 minutes, and found a quote and a citation from an offical publication in my possesion. Done. In the future, I urge all editors to take two minutes and quote and cite proper usage of this controversial term. That should prevent these discussions in the future. I do think the phrase should be avoided, if possible, however we should not encourage people to violate policy which - one last time - states, "Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another....debating controversial names is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia."

What a waste of time: article content Status quo ante bellum. -- Secisek (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

At last. A verified source (I hope). Nice one Secisek. I too urge people to make sure to spend a little time to get the right quotes and references. Although Secisek might feel this was a waste of time, for me I think it proved very useful. Although I've no idea what he means by "one controversial name to another" - what other controversial name has been editted in? If people bothered to get things right in the first place, there wouldn't be so many citations to validate.... Bardcom (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"Right the first time"? The content was correct, these are well known and uncontested facts. This was Wikipedia:Gaming the system at some of its worst. All 60-some kb of discussion has resulted in is article content Status quo ante bellum. I think everyone should move on. --Secisek (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct maybe, but definitely unsourced and unverified (until now). And we have also in the meantime winkled out the notability issues from both a political and a geographical POV. Very useful. At least now, we have a very good and firm reason for stating things as they are, rather than bluster and posturing. And if more people treated this as a collaborative discussion and less like a hostile argument, blood pressures all around would have been at safer levels. Not pointing any fingers, but some editors treat any questions or alternative viewpoints as a personal insult.... Bardcom (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Subtle...but have the last word, good sir. This dispute here is over. -- Secisek (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Boy, such righteous indignation! Let's see;- such "well known and uncontested facts" about the Episcopalian Church are now apparently verifiable only by a verbatim quotation from an unnamed person and from an internal Church of England document;- the other scholars cited in the article are apparently "inaccurate" unless they mention the British Isles;- the whole (and interesting) political point about the first see outside the control of the British Monarch has been buried to ensure that "British Isles" stays in the article;- the lead paragraph is butchered with quotation marks;- one of the editors persists in making all sorts of obnoxious accusations and insulting remarks against editors who request references and challenge an unreferenced status quo. Worse, instead of maintaining status quo, the lead has now been made clearly worse through the determination of one editor to maintain a couple of words that are irrelevant to the interesting political aspect of the subject. Well done secisek! [2] Your attitude is a credit to Wikipedia. Well done indeed. Your ownership of this article is obviously precious to you. The more I look at the areas where Bardcom was being accused of making inappropriate edits, the more amazed I am. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I offered to let Bardcom have the last word on this, but I feel I should respond to the above accusations.

"The determination of one editor" did nothing, I came here after the facts were more or less settled by a number of other editors to provide the references needed to end the debate. As for ownership, I have edited this article 4 times this year, once to revert vandalism and three time to provide the citations requested by Bardcom, which you claim "butchered" the article. Perhaps your anger is misdirected. The facts in this article have not changed but, due to the refusal of some editors to get the point, their presntation has. As for "righteous indignation" over "well known and uncontested facts", last time I checked a horse still has only four legs and Wikipedia should reflect that. I don't think it should be have to be quoted and cited, but some editors demand such extremes.

This is done here. I hope it does not occur again elsewhere, but if it does, at least we now see how to end it quickly. That is, if this ends. Unwilling to let this go, one intrested editor has been reduced to suggesting that "it could be argued that Seabury was probably not Anglican..." on my talk page. Please read that "four legs" essay I linked above. Best, -- Secisek (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Only four times this year but dozens of times in 2007. As for what you present as the ridiculous suggestion about Seabury not being an Anglican, I don't know who made it but I believe some of the reference in the article discuss how his ordination as a bishop wasn't always accepted as valid by Anglicans because the Scottish Bishops that consecrated him were regarded by some as schismatic (perhaps like today's issues with women and gays in the Anglican Communion) but you probably know better - and you still miss the point. Bye now. Wotapalaver (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Economic justice: unions/workers organizing/etc.

In the section on economic justice, the following statement was mentioned:

"In 1988 the Convention rejected a resolution in support of the right of employees to organize and engage in collective bargaining."

I have deleted this statement, and will give my reasoning here.

In researching this statement, the resolution it refers to is 1998-D157 (Affirm the Right of Employees to Organize and Engage in Collective Bargaining). This resolution was indeed rejected, but this was a case where the "resolution died with adjournment" of the Convention, not because of a vote.

In other instances, The Episcopal Church has supported organizing/unions/bargaining. Examples:

Executive Council resolution EXC10991.22 (Support for Labor Rights).

General Convention resolution 2006-C008 (Reaffirm the Right of Workers to Organize and Form Unions).

General Convention resolution 2006-D047 (Support Worker Unions and a Living Wage).

The bullets in the Social Issues section of this article were pulled from the "Social Teaching/Contentious Resolutions" document mentioned in the introduction to the section, and were selected by the contributor from approximately 200 items contained in the document. The "rejected a resolution..." statement is correct in a technical sense, but I believe it is misleading in the overall scope of this article. To amend it to be accurate information will take it beyond the scope of the source of the bullet items. It would also require adding text and references that would make an already lengthy article even longer. I would be comfortable retaining a rejection by vote of a resolution, but the way this issue was expressed could be confusing/misleading to a reader.

Spanky dreamr (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleting "Episcopal Cross" image

I've deleted the image entitled "Episcopal Cross" (USVA headstone emb-07.svg) from the Worship and liturgy section. Its position there strongly suggests that this is some kind of official symbol of the ECUSA; but I've never seen this particular cross used in ECUSA churches or publications at all.

It may well be that there is a cross shape (there are dozens and dozens of them) called "episcopal cross" (small e); but this is the first time I've seen such. If I'm wrong about this being an official symbol used by the ECUSA, feel free to restore it with an appropriate citation documenting its use.Textorus (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have restored it. It is the symbol approved by the VA for use on government grave markers for veterans who were Episcopalians. clariosophic (talk) 05:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Umm, so you say. Where and when did that happen? Got any documentation on that, bud? Want to put a proper citation in the image box? "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable," ya know.

But you still have not addressed my concern about the implication that this particular cross shape is authorized by or represents the ECUSA. The Veterans' Administration does not speak or act for the Church. (And I find it hard to believe that the VA would approve one particular cross for one small Christian denomination, to the exclusion of all others.)

Please do a little more work and properly explain/document/cite your use of this image in the ariticle, or I will delete it again.Textorus (talk) 05:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The full list of approved symbols can be found here, on which it appears under the title 'EPISCOPAL CROSS' alongside many symbols of other faiths and denominations. Why the Department of Veterans Affairs thinks that this cross is particularly Episcopal (or episcopal), I've no idea. TSP (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting; but as you say, the site does not explain why this cross was chosen; I'm still unaware of any official use or recognition of this particular symbol by the ECUSA; the image on the article page still has no citation; and it does not belong in the Worship and Liturgy section as it is illustrating nothing at all to do with that section. A puzzling piece of trivia, but no official connection with the Church, is what it seems to me. Textorus (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've now removed the dubious "episcopal cross" image and replaced it with a photo from an Episcopal service, which is not only more official, but also more appropriate to the Worship and liturgy section.Textorus (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)