Talk:Episcopal Church (United States)

IP revert of sourced material (comments by the Presiding Bishop) as "editorializing"

Good evening all.

A University of Kentucky IP [[1]] has twice reverted [2] and [3] what is essentially the same addition of comments by the Presiding Bishop, on the grounds that they are "editorializing". This IP address has previously made constructive edits to the article ([4] and [5]), so I do not think this is vandalism, however I do think it is a misunderstanding of the editorializing policy here [6]. The policy says that "Wikipedia should not take a view ..." - ie it is about the encyclopedia maintaining an impartial tone, not about deleting the views of the Presiding Bishop - who we do not expect to be impartial! But perhaps the IP considers that my introduction of the comments is not sufficiently encyclopaedic. I've done my one revert [7], so might some other editors pitch in please?

- is it appropriate to include the Presiding Bishop's comments? and 
- if so, how should they be introduced, and 
- if so, are they appropriate here, or elsewhere in the article?

I will let IP 128.163.236.100 know of the discussion here, and welcome their comments in particular.

With all respect,

Springnuts (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Good Evening,

Your biased statement leads with weasel words (vague generalization in passive voice) and adds nothing valuable to the article. Also, Bishop Curry's quote (minus the editorializing intro), is not appropriate as a lead-in to membership statistics.

"The church’s membership is acknowledged to be in sharp decline"

Acknowledged by whom? The cited article contains no reference to sharp decline. Your edits are lazy writing and violate neutral point of view, with all respect. Try harder!

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Weasel_word

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

128.163.236.100 (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Please don't be WP:RUDE, and please do consider creating an WP:ACCOUNT. I take the point about the word 'sharp'. However to answer your question "acknowledged by whom", it is acknowledged in the quote by the Presiding Bishop, who must be an authoritative source for their own organisation. I disagree that the quote is not appropriate as a lead into the section about membership, as the section covers more than just statistics (it could, for example, have sub-sections on trends, causes, significance, statistics ...). How about:

The church’s membership is in decline, however Presiding Bishop Michael Curry has challenged the significance of this, saying, in 2019: “Yeah, the numbers are going down. So what? Look to the rock!”.

Springnuts (talk) 09:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from other users who have edited this article welcome. Necropolis Hill (talk · contribs), CatcherStorm (talk · contribs), The Sr Guy (talk · contribs), Ltwin (talk · contribs), Surgingfishtank (talk · contribs), Scribley (talk · contribs), Daask (talk · contribs), Textorus (talk · contribs),Florentsalembier (talk · contribs). Springnuts (talk) 09:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I cannot discern an encyclopedic purpose for reproducing the presiding bishop's off-the-cuff exclamation in this article. Surely there can be a neutral way to express the fact that the ecclesial community's membership is in decline (I don't see "sharp" anywhere). Elizium23 (talk) 13:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The remarks were not off the cuff - they are from the Presiding Bishop's sermon at the House of Bishops’ opening Eucharist, and from part of the church's official news service reporting of the event. He "... acknowledged the numbers have not been good, and he nurtured no expectations for a sudden rebound. Instead, he sought reassurance in the immutable Christian values embedded in Scripture. “I don’t know why everybody goes crazy every year,” he said. “Yeah, the numbers are going down. So what? Look to the rock!” Curry said, quoting from Isaiah. “We’re all followers of Jesus!”. The declining numbers provided sober context for the bishops’ sessions Sept. 18 ..." Bishop Curry is giving his view of the wider (than pure statistics) context within which the falling numbers should be interpreted. Springnuts (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Springnuts is once again trying to editorialize on this article. 128.163.239.30 (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your removal. It is quite a non-sequitir quote and serves no encyclopedic purpose. Elizium23 (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23 and IP; I invite you to note that the recent addition of material removed the word "sharp" which I had already acknowledged not to be in the source, and moved the comment entirely away from the lead-in; and to the end of the section. Please could you explain how you feel comment by the church's leadership of the meaning and significance of the figures is other than encyclopaedic? But most of all, please follow the normal protocol here: [[8]] - and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. For example, add another point of view? Let's work together to improve this article. Springnuts (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not have to prove it's unencyclopaedic, I am not the one arguing to include it. You are the one who needs to prove that it is encyclopaedic and can be included. So thanks, but no thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Other stuff doesn't exist

Regarding this removal of LGBT information from the lede, @Necropolis Hill: failed to state a valid reason for removal; just because LGBT is not mentioned for the Methodists does not mean we need to delete it here. It is quite WP:DUE to include something about how the USA ecclesial community fits into the worldwide Anglican Communion's controversy on acceptance and ordinations. Elizium23 (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't meaning the Methodists... I meant other denominations that support LGBT inclusion. The ELCA article doesn't mention their inclusion in the article lead, for example. It just seems weird that the lead for the Episcopal Church would. Necropolis Hill (talk) 01:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The lede is supposed to be an overview of the entire article, WP: Lead. For better or worse, the controversy over sexuality and the Anglican realignment it has accelerated is a big part of the recent history, and the church's stance on LGBT issues is also explained in the social positions section. Can we have a proper overview of the article if this isn't at least briefly mentioned? Ltwin (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Though, looking closer at the paragraph in question, it probably needs to be re-written. The paragraph above it (now the last paragraph in the lead) also mentions the church's LGBT stance, so the last paragraph has some redundancy. Maybe the last paragraph should just focus on the consequences of the church's inclusive stance, such as the fact that a several dioceses and lots of parishes voted to leave and form other Anglican denominations. Ltwin (talk) 01:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

In general inclined to agree with Elizium23 (talk) and Ltwin (talk): both WP:DUE and appropriate in the WP: Lead as a "prominent controversy" - but not as a separate paragraph, and with a focus on the controversy over, not on the issue of. Springnuts (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Crosses Bottony?

I am currently looking at the "Logos, Shields & Graphics" page of the official website for the Episcopal Church. They provide color codes for the specific colors that make up the shield, as well as pictures of the shield - but I find the mini crosslets in the upper-left corner of the shield are different from the ones on this Wikipedia page. I don't know technical heraldic terms, but it doesn't appear to be a "cross bottony" with the knobs. I'm not sure of the origin of the Wikipedia page's variant and thus whether I should attempt to change it. I'm including the version of the shield from the website for comparison.

https://www.episcopalchurch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/12/Shield.png

2610:48:100:1A9E:0:0:0:DC (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

This has been fixed! Garnet Moss (talk) 02:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The heraldic definition of the shield and flag is "Argent, a cross gules, on a canton azure nine cross-crosslets argent in saltire". The differentiation between "cross-crosslet" and "cross-bottony" wasn't made until late in the heraldic period so the version with the cross-bottony isn't, heraldically speaking, incorrect; it's just a poor representation of what's actually in use by the church. Pattleboats (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

legal cases Fort Worth

under 'separations' in 'recent history' - The Epixopal Diocese of Fr Worth lost the court case. https://www.episcopalnewsservice.org/2021/02/22/fort-worth-loses-fight-for-church-properties-as-us-supreme-court-declines-to-hear-dioceses-case/ 142.163.195.154 (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

"The Episcopal church" at start of article should all be bold.

The word "the" is part of the official name, hence TEC. 2600:8800:5E82:FD00:1526:97D4:22E1:AD3B (talk) 23:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia style guidelines (see MOS:INSTITUTIONS):

The word the at the start of a name is uncapitalized, regardless of the institution's own usage (researchers at the Ohio State University not researchers at The Ohio State University)

We do not bold the word the in article titles.Hope that answers your question. Ltwin (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The info box at the top of this page is too large

Instead of text in the info box going on multiple lines, the info will only use one line continuously and this makes the info box large and unwieldy and more difficult to read the main body text next to it that is now spread out over many lines. It is even weirder as if you go into visual editing the info box issue is fixed and it is normal and how it should be. This should be fixed as it will make the page easier to read and digest TheMightyShipp (talk) 23:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

never mind, it seems to be fixed now TheMightyShipp (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Article issues

I was admonished one time that I didn't need to be so zealous in reassessing B-class articles for fairly minor issues. This made sense so I changed a few things. I tend to attempt talk page discussions first. The "B-class criteria" (#1) states: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. This article has "Articles with unsourced statements" tags from February 2013, April 2020, and now January 2024 that has not been addressed. The last three paragraphs of the "Ecumenical relations" section are unsourced. It also has an "Articles needing additional references" tag from April 2015, "Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases" from March 2017, and "Vague or ambiguous time" from March 2017. It is not unreasonable to consider B-class criteria (#2), The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies is relevant. Unsupported content, that has been tagged can be removed. However, there is the concern of original research.

The last paragraph in the "Governance" subsection is unsourced but links to ecclesiastical courts and again to "Ecclesiastical courts" Episcopal Church in the United States of America. It mentions "the Canons" and the General Convention, but I could not seem to locate "Title IV of the canons" in the links. Another issue, that is not uncommon on Wikipedia, is unsourced sentences placed after sourced content.

Lastly, I am confused at the "Worship and liturgy" section, three paragraphs with the wording "In theory:" followed by content of "High Church", "Low Church", and "Broad Church" with an inline citation "Grace Church in Newark", (currently Citation #156 "How the Episcopal Church Teaches the Catholic Faith") following the last paragraph. The source content includes, Furthermore, it allows its members great freedom in the interpretation of its official teaching and is extremely tolerant of deviation from that teaching, and list of various and sundry things but nothing, that I found, to support the content.

I am sure I might have made some errors that I am equally sure will come to light, but I don't feel I am mistaken in my consideration that a review is in order, substantial edits are needed, and/or a reassessment. The article has enjoyed "1,634 editors with 460 watchers". This page has 460 watchers so I hope someone has the time to look at this. -- Otr500 (talk) 07:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)