Talk:Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh/Archive 1

Archive 1

Part of the Southern Cone?

The status of the non-Episcopal-Church dioceses in San Joaquin and Pittsburgh is controversial; they claim to be part of the Southern Cone, and the primate of the Southern Cone also says so, but the constitution of the Southern Cone explicitly prohibits jurisdictions outside South America, and can't be amended without the approval of the ACC. So this article must not take a view on the question of whether these dioceses are or are not parts of the Province of the Southern Cone. Hence, the wording I started with says that the diocese "claims to be" a part of the Southern Cone. Tb (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The episcopal diocese of pittsburgh (southern cone) is recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates of the Anglican Communion as being a constituent member. There is absolutely no question on the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.68.148 (talk • contribs) 02:43, October 30, 2008

Can you please provide a reference? I have seen none. Tb (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

http://www.sjoaquin.net/News/articles/Archbishop%20of%20Canterbury.htm. In this statement, the Archbishop of Canterbury recognizes the right of a diocese within the episcopal church to realign with the province of the southern cone and continue to be a diocese in full communion with the see of canterbury. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.157.11 (talk) 14:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not a statement by the Archbishop of Canterbury. It's a statement by John-David Schofield. But the statement by the Archbishop of Canterbury contained within it directly contradicts you. It says that Schofield (not Duncan) has been received by the Southern Cone; but it says specifically that his status "remains unclear", and further, it says nothing whatsoever about the diocese of San Joaquin. And, is entirely irrelevant here, because here we are speaking of the Diocese of Pittsburgh. Tb (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This is actually a letter from Archbishop Greg Venables that quotes the Archbishop of Canterbury directly. Everyone acknowledges that we're in uncharted waters, and in a state of international crisis, including Rowan Williams. Dr. Williams' statement acknowledges Bp. Schofield's full membership in the province of the southern cone, and as such Dr. Williams extended him an invitation to the Lambeth Conference. Surely if his brother Archbishop was misquoting him, Dr. Williams would have intervened; if in fact he was not a bishop of a diocese within the anglican communion, Bp. Schofield would not have been able to attend the Lambeth Conference. In recognizing the Diocese of San Joaquin as being in communion with the See of Canterbury, Dr. Williams acknowledges that through the difficult times there is a pastoral way to proceed. This is not just a recognition of John-David Schofield, but of the several dioceses that have come under this temporary affiliation.

The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh has changed its constitution and been accepted into The Anglican Province of the Southern Cone. Nobody is disputing that. Not even the Archbishop of Canterbury. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.157.11 (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The letter does not contain the word "Pittsburgh", and was written before the vote in Pittsburgh. It is not evidence of anything about Pittsburgh, because it does not speak about Pittsburgh. And you offered it as evidence of Rowan Williams opinions (which, btw, are only his opinions and not determinative of anything). The statement speaks only of the person of John-David Schofield, and says nothing of any kind about the diocese of San Joaquin. Still less does it mention Pittsburgh, which is the question here. Tb (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh has been received into The Anglican Province of the Souther Cone. This is a constituent province of the Anglican Communion, and therefore the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh is a constituent diocese of the Anglican Communion. See: http://www.pitanglican.org/news/local/votepasses100408. This has been acknowledged by many of the primates of the anglican communion, and most recently by the Archbishop of Canterbury when he received the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan at Lambeth Palace for meetings. The citation above was merely intended to provide a written statement that Dr. Williams recognizes the dioceses and bishops that have chosen to realign as being members of the communion. It is simply not possible to make the claim that the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Southern Cone) is not a member of the anglican communion when there are more provinces in communion with the episcopal diocese of pittsburgh than there are in communion with The Episcopal Church. The reality is that John-David Schofield was invited to Lambeth -- Gene Robinson was not. Bob Duncan attended the Lambeth Conference as Bishop of Pittsburgh, and as of this moment remains within the Anglican Communion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.157.11 (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Once again, your inference about dioceses based upon personal rolationships is not relevant, and is not a verifiable source. The Archbishop is very careful about his words, and when he speaks of a diocese, he uses the word "diocese". Tb (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

your continued intervention into this article is unethical. I have no personal relationships with this diocese, and am not even living in the same state. I take offense to your comment. Since the sources I have cited are not adequate for you, please provide sources of your own that would give validity to your claim. Please stop changing the content of this article to reflect your personal bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.157.11 (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I cannot understand what is offensive about my comment. The Archbishop spoke of a person, not a diocese; he has studiously avoided saying anything about the diocese. The source you provided as evidence of the Archbishop's opinions--and even then, it is merely his opinion--doesn't show him saying what you said he said. I am not "intervening" in this article, in fact, i created it. But Wikipedia articles are not owned, and I keep pleading with you to follow Wikipedia procedures, and to explain in talk specifics. You just seem to keep making the same edits, over and over, without addressing the arguments I have made--here and elsewhere. I know it's tedious. But it's what has to happen if we are going to work together. Finally, please review WP:NPA. Tb (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Which particular section would you like me to provide a reference on? I will be happy to do so. Which sentence(s) do you believe to be incorrect and in need of sources? You can mark them by putting {{fact}} after them: that's the standard Wiki way. Really, a bit of reading the wikipedia policies I keep pointing you at would be very nice. Can you please do so instead of parrotting terminology without understanding it? Tb (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

i have provided citations from both the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh and the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone stating that the diocese is a constituent member. If you wish to say that it only "claims" to be, then please cite such a claim other than your own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.157.11 (talk) 01:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that they do not claim this? To say "X claims Y" is not to say that the claim is false, simply that it makes the claim. Nothing more; the citations you have provided are excellent evidence of exactly what the article says: that these are the claims made. But since none of the procedures in the Diocese of the Southern Cone were used, and indeed, the Constitution of that Province prohibits dioceses outside South America, you can see why the claim is controversial. I hope. Tb (talk) 06:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could cite your persistent changes with some evidence to back up your opinion. Maybe you could find a copy of the constitution and canons of that province along with a parliamentary procedure that says the Governing Body cannot allow changes to that document via legislation. Until then I must insist that you are wrong. This is a fact -- not a claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.157.11 (talk) 10:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The correct procedure is to tag sentences you think need verification with {{fact}}. I have guessed at which things you thought needed verification, but better than making someone guess, tag them properly. Oh, and you can see in that document that the Province of the Southern Cone's constitution cannot be amended without the consent of the Anglican Consultative Council. `Tb (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I do appreciate your willingness to cite your sources. And I do recognize that the constitution of the Southern Cone does state that that province is located in South America. However, I do not see any sort of limitation clause that would suggest that the province is constitutionally bound to exclude dioceses in other parts of the world. This is also true of The Episcopal Church's claims to have jurisdictions outside of the united states. Since you have cited a source and made a valid claim, I will not delete it. However, I do think that since you are speaking about the controversy of the realignment process, it would be best located within that portion of the article. I would hope that you agree. If not, feel free to respond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.157.11 (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The Constitution of the Episcopal Church and its Canons do not make any such limitation; therein lies precisely the differenc. I don't care much where that discussion goes, but I do insist that the lead not state that the diocese "is" a part of the Anglican Communion, because it is precisely this which I (and others) disagree with. Some say it is, some say it isn't, and none of the official Instruments of Communion have said anything one way or the other, and the only Province which claims it is being inconsistent. In that context, the article cannot simply say it "is" a part of the Anglican Communion, because that would be expressing one POV of a disputed issue. Saying it "claims to be" a part of the Anglican Communion is surely something everyone can agree on. Tb (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

And, yo, please pay attention when you edit. Three times now you have restored a spelling error I fixed, and now you've reverted text you say you are ok with. What is this, "I will not delete it", at the very same time you do? Tb (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me. I did not delete your sentence. I simply moved it to the "current controversy" section as a explained a few lines up. I do apologize for the spelling error, perhaps you could fix it without changing other pieces of the article to reflect your own bias. Or at least let me know what word it is... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.157.11 (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You still don't get it. You must examine each change when you make it, and be more careful. I have asked that you do this since you began your quest here, and you still can't bother. Maybe if you followed Wikipedia procedure you might see the spelling error--all you have to do is be careful. And, the "own bias", would you please discuss, as I have asked you to do from the beginning, before engaging in an edit war? If you disagree with a source, you must add {{fact}}, not just revert over and over; you must discuss and cease reverting while doing so. I'm getting very impatient with your utter refusal to read any of the Wikipedia policies or even take responsibility for your edits. It's time to start doing so, now, or you'll just end up blocked again. Tb (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The article should not start with The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Southern Cone) claims to be a constituent member of the Anglican Communion through a temporary pastoral relationship with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone. See WP:LEAD. It should begin with describing the basic facts of the diocese, like where it is. State the obvious. The controversy should be explained in a later sentence or paragraph. It is typical in an intro section covering a controversial topic to first give the sympathetic view followed by the other views. Something like, "The diocese says it is part of the X Communion. Bishops of the Y Communion dispute that assertion." But the controversy shouldn't come first. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, see WP:WTA regarding the word "claim". Its use is discouraged because it implies doubt about the assertion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Could you help us formulate some text that would be more objective? I find the text "Tb" has inserted most recently to be extremely biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.157.11 (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, "Tb" cites the Constitution of the Province of the Southern Cone as prohibiting membership of the diocese of pittsburgh. Upon reading the constitutions provisions on membership, I must disagree. It reads, "The Anglican Church of the Southern Cone, which shall henceforth be called The Province, is composed of the Anglican Dioceses that exist or which may be formed in the Republics of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay and which voluntary declare themselves as integral Diocesan members of the Province." As a lawyer, I would say that this could mean that there are two types of diocese. Dioceses within those republics, "AND" thos which voluntary declare themselves members. Perhaps what is in dispute here is not that the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh is a member diocese as much as it is the Constitution of the Province is ambiguous. If that is the case, it should be taken up with the Wikipedia article of that province. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.157.11 (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you please register a username? It's confusing trying to figure out which IP addresses are which editors, and using multiple IPs to avoid 3RR or skew consensus is inappropriate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Will Beback, it would be helpful if the anon could create an account. This is free and does not take more than a minute, see WP:LOGIN. --Elonka 22:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I have created the name RHWC. Sorry for any confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhwc (talk • contribs) 23:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

So the reason I use the word "claim" is because there is, in the minds of many, such doubt. Such text has reached consensus on Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin which went through nearly identical real-world process not too long ago. I don't mind different text, but what I object to is that Rhwc seems to think that Wikipedia must assert that the Southern Cone diocese is "real" and that the Episcopal Church one is "not real", in some way or other. If a group of folks in Paris got together, and declared themselves Eastern Orthodox, and got some bishop in Russia to agree, and the rest of the Orthodox disagreed, we would have no hesitation in saying that they "claim to be Eastern Orthodox". The situation here is not as clear-cut, but there is genuine disagreement. And, what really bugs me, is that Rhwc wants wikipedia to declare that the continuing diocese in the Episcopal Church is "not real", in some way. He's stopped persistent reverts on Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Episcopal Church) in which he wanted to delete the history over and over, but we need some kind of resolution. I'm happy with a resolution such as we had over at Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin and Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin, and I see no reason we cannot do the same thing here, except that Rhwc insists that we must legitimate one claim and discountenance the other. I want to see each page explain the following: (1) there is a schism in the diocese, (2) it is controversial whether the "Southern Cone" diocese is legitimately part of the province of the Southern Cone or the Anglican Communion, and (3) both the "Southern Cone" and the Episcopal Church dioceses lay legitimate claim to the past history of the diocese, because both came from the same source. About the legal qusetion, Rhwc insists that a vote in convention settles the matter, but the whole controversy is about precisely that, with the Episcopal Church insisting that such a vote is null and void from its beginning, and the breakaway folks insisting on some right to secede. Tb (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

One solution to the "constituent member" bit is simply to delete it. State the facts that are uncontroversial; if you don't want "claims to be", we can just drop it entirely, and give the full story below. Tb (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Tb continues to disregard the validity of the status of a corporation in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The fact here is that a corporation, acting in legal accordance with all of its governing documents and bodies, took an action. There is a group of people that dispute this action. The proper method to resolve such a dispute is with the civil court. Until a court finds otherwise, this body acted constitutionally and legally. That is why "claims to be" would be a false statement.

I would be happy to include an appropriate and unbiased section on the dispute of this matter, but it does not belong in the opening sentence. I will insist on that point for the reasons stated above. I reject the analogies that Tb has created -- they are not relevant to this article. I would be happy to participate in the enumerated demands that Tb makes so that folks can accurately see what is going on in the diocese.

This is not my dispute, but a dispute that the Episcopal Church has. And, one of the governing documents of that corporation, was the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. But, in any case, I would like a response to what I proposed: drop the "constituent member" part from the lead, and have a fuller discussion later where we don't need such shorthands. Tb (talk) 01:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you be suggesting that it just read "a member of the anglican......" Rhwc (talk) 01:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Existence of schism

An editor deleted all reference to the schism in the diocese. I can see no reason not to explain why there are two distinct bodies, each claiming to be the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. Wikipedia cannot take a stand about which is the "true" successor to the pre-schism entity, but should clearly and accurately document that each claims to be the successor. Likewise, the Cathedral in Pittsburgh is shared by both entities (see its own resolution on the question). One might doubt how well that sharing is going to work out, but it's what is the case now, and there is no reason for the article to pretend it isn't being tried. Tb (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not revert mention of the schism without discussion and agreement. Tb (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Deposition of Duncan

Wikipedia should not be expressing a point of view about whether Duncan's deposition was illegal or not; the point is that it happened, and he has not chosen to contest its supposed illegality. (And what would be the effect of a challenge anyhow, since he does not want to be part of the Episcopal Church?) Tb (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring

The edit-warring on this article must stop. Per Wikipedia policy, no editor may make more than three reverts on an article per day. Two editors here are well past this limit, but since neither one of them appears to have been clearly warned about the policy, they are getting a pass. But if either one of them makes another revert within the next 24 hours, account access will be blocked. Please, work through dispute resolution procedures, don't edit-war. Trying to "force" a particular version of the article is completely ineffective. Instead, engage in discussion at the talkpage, and try to build a consensus, which will result in much longer lasting changes. Thanks, --Elonka 22:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I regret my own transgression and I won't repeat it. I am desperate however; the anonymous user has refused to read policies, to discuss edits, and simply reverts, often restoring spelling errors without even checking the text he reverts. He began by vandalism, for which he was blocked three times (seems to have used IP socking at first), and then the page was protected because of the anonymous blanking. He switch from crude blanking edits to more apparently good-faith edits, but still simply refuses to engage in more than cursory discussion about extraneous topics. I would love some mediation here, and some advice other than just "ignore it", particularly in dealing with anonymous editors who won't follow even the simplest procedural requests. Tb (talk) 23:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Tb, your characterization is offensive. If this dispute is really about spelling errors, then I'm sorely mistaken. I have already apologized for not being aware of wikipedias policies when I first edited this page. My outrage for the bias that was occurring led me to persist strongly. I reject any claim of "anonymous blanking," "sockpuppeting," and "crude edits." From reading your talk page, I do see that you have been involved in such allegations before. Anybody who reads the discussion page of this article will know that I am willing to discuss my changes -- far beyond what you consider "cursory" and "extraneous." I am open to any sort of mediation here, as I am just as frustrated with your impenetrable bias as you continue to revert changes with out any research into your claims. The only thing that I am not willing to do is allow you to recreate this article in your own image. There are facts in this matter, and I hope that we can come to an amicable agreement through mediation. Rhwc (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Folks, for best results here, can we please focus discussions on the content, and not the contributors? A good practice here, is to try and write posts without using the words "you" or "your". It's a simple thing, but it can really help re-focus the direction of the conversation back to the article, instead of other editors. Useful policies here are Civility and No personal attacks. Thanks, --Elonka 00:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, I was frustrated by a week in which Rhwc operated by massive blankings, ignored requests for discussion, engaged in IP socking to avoid blocks, refusal to read wikipedia policies, and did not consider reverts carefully as he was making them. I'm glad that he is now apparently willing to engage in more discussion. I hope you'll stay around and help us. Tb (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"False information"

In the revert [1], the anon editor says "reverted false information." I demand to know which information is supposed to be false. The information reverted says: "Because the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church make no provision for such a procedure, the result was a schism with two bodies claiming to be the true successors of the pre-schism diocese, this one, and the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Episcopal Church)." What is false about this? Tb (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

There are several things wrong with this statement. The first false item was the use of the word "claims" in the opening sentence of the article. Having cited both the governing bodies of the two corporations, there isn't a question of whether this action has taken place or not. Secondly, no anglican body operates under "canon law." This is picky, but as long as you're raising the question I'm glad to oblige. I hope this meets your demands. Rhwc (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll repeat the question, and ask that you focus on the question I asked. About the sentence, "Because the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church make no provision for such a procedure, the result was a schism with two bodies claiming to be the true successors of the pre-schism diocese, this one, and the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Episcopal Church)", what exactly is the falsehood? Or is there none, and we can go ahead and restore this? I am frustrated that I ask about one sentence, and you start talking about a different one. Tb (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The summary statement that I made referred to all of the changes in the article. Not just the one you are specifically citing now. I have explained my summary above. But since you seek again this specific sentence, all I did with that statement was move it to the "Current Controversy" section where it belongs. I can't remember if I reformatted the sentence, but it was not with the intent to change its meaning.

Please do not reply to comments on one topic with explanations about a different comment. There is a good reason for the section headings in this page; they serve to make the conversation easier to have by distinguishing distinct issues. Tb (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe you were citing the summary that I gave on a particular edit to this article. If I am wrong in this understanding, please explain. If not, I do believe that an explanation of such a summary is exactly what was asked for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhwc (talk • contribs) 01:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I was not just pointing at a summary, I was asking a specific question about it. Tb (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Have I answered your question? Rhwc (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, though I'm not quite happy with the text you put in its place. Tb (talk) 02:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I would invite you to discuss what you think it should say in the appropriate location before making changes. Perhaps we can come to an agreement. Rhwc (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"re-elected"

I changed "re-elected" to "again elected", because in English "re-elected" normally connotes an office with a limited term, and person who is elected to succeed themselves upon the expiration of their term. We speak of a president being re-elected, for example. "Again elected" avoids that connotation. The anonymous editor reverted this change without explanation, and I would like an explanation now. Tb (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I note as well, for example, that Grover Cleveland does not refer to him as having been "re-elected" for his second term, while pages for other two-term presidents, e.g. Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan do use the term. Tb (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the first time that Tb has given a reason for this change. In light of this perfectly civil explanation, I have no objection to using the term "again elected" in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhwc (talk • contribs) 00:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"Il"

The anonymous editor changed "Episcopal Diocese of Quincy" to "Episcopal Diocese of Quincy, Il". The abbrevation "Il" is not part of the name, and "Episcopal Diocese of Quincy" is already unambiguous. (and should be wikilinked). I would like an explanation now for why this abbreviation, without period, must be in the reference. Tb (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the first time that Tb has given a reason for this change. I appended the abbreviation of the State of Illinois so that folks who may not be as familiar with the situation as Tb or I could easily identify it. If Tb would like to properly cite the name of the corporation, it should be the "Diocese of Quincy" and perhaps we could add the phrase "in the State of Illinois" so that it might be helpful to others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhwc (talk • contribs) 00:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Please be aware that these pages are not devoted to "corporations" but to dioceses, which may or may not have corporations associated with them for the ownership of property. I believe that references to the Diocese of Quincy in Wikipedia--and dioceses in general--do not much have additional geographic specifiers. That's the joy of wikilinks. Tb (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• The addition of identifying it as in Illinois within the article itself is needed. We would also be helped if people who seek to de-legitimatize the organization would admit they are too biased to be useful editors here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

"the convention of"

Precisely one of the controversial issues here is whether a diocese has the power to leave the Episcopal Church. The Episcopal Church says no, but the leaders of these four dioceses have said, yes. In that climate, to say that the diocese voted to do something is to assume one side in the controversy, that it has the power to take that decision. Accordingly, I changed "the...Diocese of Quincy voted" to "the convention of the...Diocese of Quincy voted". That's surely uncontroversial, and explains the relevant point without getting in to the area which is controversial. I would like an explanation now for why this is not acceptable to the anonymous editor. Tb (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

the Diocese of Quincy does not actually operate with a "convention." they operate with a "Diocesan Synod," of which the most recent was the 131st. If Tb had stated that this was the reason for his changes, I would have been happy to agree on this point.

• The diocese clearly voted to do something. That is not changed by the claims of some editors here that it had not right to do so, the fact it did is an uncontested one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

"Souther Cone"

Several times now, the anonymous editor has changed "Southern Cone" to "Souther Cone" in a reference. I would like an explanation now for why the spelling "Souther Cone" is to be preferred. Tb (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This is again the first time that Tb has brought this spelling issue to light. This is obviously an error, and I have no objection to it being fixed. It was most likely overlooked because this correction was made along with the addition of many statements that I consider either to be false or biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhwc (talk • contribs) 00:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope in the future you'll look more carefully. Tb (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I hope so too. Rhwc (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"capital Letters"

As long as we're making demands - I would like to know why the user, Tb, continues to de-capitalize the words "Diocesan Convention." This is a governing body of the corporation known as the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, and as such it is a proper noun. I demand to know the reasoning behind this egregious act. Rhwc (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Since "diocesan convention" is a type of institution (replicated across each of the dioceses of the Episcopal Church), it should not be capitalized in Wikipedia. See MOS:CAPS#Institutions. In this, Wikipedia usage differs from the usual legal usage, in which terms like this are given capital letters more frequently. And, I repeat, this web page is not about the corporation, but about the diocese. Tb (talk) 01:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh" IS A CORPORATION! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhwc (talk • contribs) 01:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but this page is not about the corporation, it's about the diocese. Tb (talk) 01:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Tb, you simply cannot separate one from the other. They are the same thing, and one in the same. Rhwc (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

There are dioceses without corporations, and there are dioceses that have many associated corporations, and there are corporations without dioceses. They are not just one thing. Notice that the page Episcopal Church (United States) uses a title which isn't any corporation at all. Tb (talk) 01:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand, Tb mentioned just above in the section "Part of the Southern Cone?" that the Episcopal Church was a corporation. I would agree. I would also state that if you were to look up all of the other dioceses in the commonwealth of pennsylvania, Episcopal/Anglican/Catholic or otherwise, they are all registered corporations. If Tb would like to proceed with this claim from The Episcopal Church that the "diocese" is not the "corporation" I would invite him to cite where in the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church it says who can decide who constitutes a diocese. Rhwc (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The corporation was founded in April 2008. Therefore it is not identical with the diocese, which is much older (or somewhat newer, if you start the history at the schism a few weeks ago).--Bhuck (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I believe that the April 2008 date only refers to the most recent update on record. Rhwc (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think here you can read more about that. The articles of incorporation date to 29 December 2006, but the Pennsylvania Department of State moved slowly in responding to the application. They certainly do not date back to 1865.--Bhuck (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Content fork

After comparing Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Southern Cone) to Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, it appears that this article qualifies as a "Content" or "POV fork". That means it largely duplicates material from another article but with a different point of view. The Southern Cone Diocese does not contend that it is the only true diocese dating back to 1755,(or does it?) so that history does not belong here. The controversy over the split will need to be covered in both articles, but even then it is best to have the complete coverage in one article and a short summary in the other article with a link to the longer version. Another option is to merge this article back into the main article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems good to me, but our recent anonymous editor was busy saying precisely that the Southern Cone diocese is the only real one, the only one that is entitled to the history (whatever that should mean). I'm guessing he would not be ok with that. And I certainly would not be happy with the implication that the Episcopal Church diocese is some kind of unreal non-entity, which is what the anonymous editor seemed to want the article to say. Perhaps we need one page for the pre-schism diocese, and then two pages for the two post-schism bodies. I would be quite content with that arrangement. Tb (talk) 01:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that to determine this, one would need a deeper understanding of the complexities that have led to this current unpleasantness. "The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh" referred to in this article, Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Southern Cone) is the same entity that was founded in 1865, and dates back to the early 1700s. It is recognized by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as being that entity(See https://www.corporations.state.pa.us/corp/soskb/Corp.asp?2533165.) This verifies that "The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Southern Cone)" is the same corporation that it has always been(with the same address. The only difference is that it changed its governing documents in 2008 to assert membership in a different province. (This action is disputed, particularly by Tb.) Those persons wishing to continue within The Episcopal Church (USA) have formed a separate group which Wikipedia displays as "The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Episcopal Church)". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhwc (talk • contribs) 01:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I would point out that "entity creation date" in the link to the corporation you provide is April 2008. Apparently, the corporation is not what was founded in 1865.--Bhuck (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, we do not attempt to "determine this". We do not conduct "original research". In the absence of a verifiable source about all of the controversy, we can't just take sides. Indeed, this is a church matter; the opinions of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania can say something about property, but not about the ecclesiastical diocese. Nor do we have those opinions expressed on the questions we are disputing. Indeed, the corporation reference from Pennsylvania doesn't say anything about which group is the rightful heir to the corporation, since it was last updated on April 28, 2008. We do not take sides in Wikipedia. Tb (talk) 01:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

There cannot be an heir to a corporation that has not died. The corporation known as The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh is very much alive and well, and proceeding with the mission of the Gospel. Rhwc (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

At the very least the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania verifies that the "Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Southern Cone) is the same entity as the "Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh" was before the schism. Rhwc (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by that, except that as you surely know, records are not updated without a court order in such a case. There is no "verification" from that about the legality of the actions of the "Southern Cone" people. Tb (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If you dispute the legality of this action, then you need to file a petition with the courts, not create a claim using Wikipedia. Rhwc (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you please stop personalizing this? It is the Episcopal Church which disputes the legality of the action. Tb (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Then please cite where the Episcopal Church disputes this legality, and demonstrate what legal action that have taken to correct it. Otherwise, it is your claim. Rhwc (talk) 02:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

See [2] in which Simons is spoken of as "the rightful ecclesiastical authority of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh"; see Simons earlier letter at [3] in which he asserts his status in the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, which he claims as something which "still exists" and which he continues to be a leader of. See the press release at [4] in which Simons and others with him are recognized as "the rightful Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh". Clearly the Episcopal Church disputes the legality. Tb (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You have demonstrated to me that one individual, namely Rev. James Simons, asserts to be the "Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh in The Episcopal Church." However, that is not what I asked in the question above. I don't see anything here on the part of "The Episcopal Church." You have not demonstrated any legal action that has been taken, or anywhere that says that The Episcopal Church can recognize Rev. Simons as being the only member of the standing committee, and thusly the ecclesiastical authority of The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. Rhwc (talk) 02:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

And the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, don't forget, the same sort of authority you appeal to when the primate's name is Venables. In the case of San Joaquin, which we both agree is analogous, you'll see as well that the Executive Council agrees. Oh, and all the other bishops in Pennsylvania. Do we need the Presiding Bishop's chancellor? Tb (talk) 02:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I will restate my question once again, saying please demonstrate what authority to "recognize" a diocese, standing committee, or ecclesiastical authority the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church give to the Presiding Bishop, Executive Council, or the Presiding Bishop's Chancellor. You have so far failed to do so. Rhwc (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to get drawn again into a dispute about who is right--you are simply proving that there is a dispute. I get it. There's a dispute. That's the point. When there is a dispute, Wikipedia should describe the dispute. Since this whole sub-thread arose out of my request that you stop personalizing it and saying "you" as if the issue is some weird claim that I and nobody else are making, I take it my point is now established; this is not some weird claim that I am making, but one that the entire national leadership has made. What is really frustrating in talking to you is that you think that Venables can admit dioceses no matter what the constitution of his province says; you think that statements by Williams about Schofield are to be interpretated as statements about the Diocese of San Joaquin; you think that it is illegitimate to ask whether the convention of the diocese of Pittsburgh had the legal authority or power to do what it claimed to do, but suddenly, the ability of the Presiding Bishop and Executive Council to speak for the Episcopal Church are suspect. Regardless, they have done so; your complaint is with them, not with me, and I hope you will stop personalizing this. Tb (talk) 03:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Since Tb would like for me to use the third person in this discussion, I will. I would ask Tb that if he would like to report something on Wikipedia that he have a valid source to back up his reporting. It seems that from the previous statement he does not. I take issue with persons, specifically Tb, changing information on this article without having and proof to back up their argument. I have stated my willingness to participate in discussion to formulate an unbiased reporting of this controversy, but as is evidenced by the above comment, not all "claims" in this controversy have any credence to them. I would hope that from this point forward all changes to this article, especially related to the current controversy, would be accompanied by appropriate citations. I might add that while Tb requests that I not make this personal, he has referred to me as "you" several times in this thread alone. Rhwc (talk) 03:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's not what I requested. I requested that you distinguish my claims (that Wikipedia should not take sides in the dispute) from the claims of the leadership of the Episcopal Church. The leadership of the Episcopal Church says that the Southern Cone diocese is ultra vires and without legal foundation; I am saying that Wikipedia should take neither side in the dispute. Tb (talk) 06:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

And my request that is if you're going to report on an argument, you should cite the facts. If you wish to include this "claim" of the Episcopal Church, you should cite where in their constitution/canons it says they can do such a thing. If not, then its meaningless.Rhwc (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, sorry, that's not how Wikipedia works. The "you should cite the facts" is not the point; wikipedia is about verifiability, not about "the facts". As an example, you haven't cited where in the Southern Cone constitution/canons it says that their house of bishops can admit dioceses, or where it says they can have any dioceses outside South America, or where it says they can have "temporary pastoral relationships" of this sort. Since you seem to simply be an attorney working for the Duncanites, I'm not sure why you are ashamed to present this information. Do you lack it? Tb (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I am still under the impression that Wikipedia supports articles that contain true information. Correct me if i am wrong about that. The constitution of the southern cone allows membership to dioceses outside of south america in section 2, titled "Membership." the use of the word "and" between the geographic locations and the clause on voluntary membership creates two distinct qualifiers for membership. The diocese of pittsburgh upholds this part of the constitution when Diocesan Convention declared themselves to be an "integral Diocesan member." As for you second claim about the allowance of a temporary pastoral relationship, I would refer you to http://www.trurochurch.org/files/SouthernConeRes_110707.pdf, a copy of the resolution passed by the Province on the inclusion of dioceses like pittsburgh on an "temporary" "emergency" and "pastoral" basis. ......I await your response about the claims of the Episcopal Church. Rhwc (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

A simple parse of the sentence does not bear your interpretation. The predicate reads, "is composed of the Anglican Dioceses that exist or which may be formed in the Republics of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay and which voluntary [sic] declare themselves as integral Diocesan members of the Province." I assert the parse is:

• "is composed of the Anglican diocese that
  • exist or which may be formed in the Republics of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay and
  • which voluntary declare themselves as integral Diocesan members of the Province."

Under that parse, these are clearly two distinct requirements, joined by "and". To support the parse you want, the "and which" would need, at the least, "and that" which would at least render it ambiguous. However, if you would like "seems to be", that would be great. Please propose alternative wording if you think it should be changed. And please stop the sniping about "true information."

As for the second point, is it your claim that a simple resolution can amend the canons of the Province without following the procedures given for amending the canons? Tb (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No, that is not what I said. There are a number of ways to interpret the constitution of the province of the southern cone. Tb and I seem to have differing interpretations. That does not mean either one of us can use Wikipedia to assert our interpretation as being correct. Rhwc (talk) 03:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

[E/C] Though it would take three articles, having a page each for the earlier body and the two current bodies would be the simplest solution in some respects. However if the diocese hasn't actually split then it'd be better to merge the articles. I haven't read over this material fully yet, and I'm not interested in becoming an expert on it. But one way or another the forking must be corrected. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that three pages may be the best solution. Rhwc are you ok with that? Tb (talk) 01:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it most certainly has split. There is no un-splitting that is going to happen. We are in exactly the same position as the San Joaquin case. Tb (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, not exactly. As cited by the commonwealth of pennsylvania, the episcopal diocese of pittsburgh is the body that it was before the "schism." the reality is that a split has occurred from within that body, and as a result there will likely be two dioceses where there once was one. Rhwc (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there is no dispute about the second part of this, and there is dispute about the first part. And the dispute is not between Rhwc and me, but between two groups of people in Pennsylvania and between two provincial structures in the Anglican communion. The most Wikipedia can do as regards the first is remain neutral. Tb (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I also find it curious that Tb fought furiously when I used the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin as an example, but now seems to be saying the two are comparable. Rhwc (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

When on earth did I do that? Tb (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

when you disagreed above with my citation of Dr. Williams' treatment of Bp. John-David Schofield saying that it didn't contain the words Pittsburgh and was therefore irrelevant. Rhwc (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If it established anything about the diocese of San Joaquin (which it doesn't; it's about Schofield, not the diocese) it would be worth mention to say that the situation was probably similar or something to that effect. But you offered it as proving not that the case was similar, but simply your assertion that Williams agrees with your position--which he has said nothing of the kind, either here, or about San Joaquin. And what is particularly odd is that Williams and Venables are authorities for you, and Jefferts Schori is some sort of irrelevant party. If you think that an Anglican primate counts as a determinative authority, then she is actually the primate of this part of the world. Tb (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I would remind you that sections are titled for a reason, and this section is for the content fork discussion. However, I was not asserting that Dr. Williams agreed with my position -- I've never spoken to him about it. I was also not speaking of Dr. Jefferts Shori. If you would like to know my particular view about her and her office, I would invite you to inquire about it on my talk page. Rhwc (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Unless there is an agreement on another plan I'll go ahead and move the articles so that there is an article on the old diocese, and one each on the new dioceses. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the stakeholders here were ok with that plan, but it is unclear what a good title would be. "History of the Episocpal Diocese of Pittsburgh" only invites edits about post-schism news, which is what we want to avoid in the shared article. Tb (talk) 06:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of something like "Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (1755—2008)". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That should be fine; even then, more developments are expected this year surely, so the lead (I hope) will have an italicized preface saying that the history there only covers up to the "realignment" vote. Tb (talk) 07:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The only problem that I have with this idea is that "The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh" is the same entity now as it was before the 2008 vote. the only difference is that now there is another group claiming the same name. I would cite again the register of the commonwealth of pennsylvania, verifying that the "Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh" that existed before october 2008 continues to be the same "Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh" under the province of the souther cone. The creation of three articles would suggest that this entity ceased to exist on october 4th, and has now split into two different entities. I don't think that is what the facts reflect. Rhwc (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the commonwealth of pennsylvania has not said which group at all is the contiuing one. The question has simply not been presented. Tb (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If Rhwc has a better suggestion I'm all ears. So far, that's the best way I can see for handling the problem. For what it's worth, we often split articles and by itself it doesn't mean anything. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If Tb would like to challenge the official records of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, he should file a petition with the courts. If not, then the "Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Southern Cone)" is the rightful owner of the history of the diocese. "Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Episcopal Church)" has only come into existence since October 2008 as a break-away group from the previous organization. I would not suggest that they don't have the right to break away and form a diocese within the Episcopal Church, but as far as fair reporting is concerned, (Southern Cone) is the owner of the motto, history, etc. Perhaps the (Episcopal Church) article could be updated to be more descriptive of the important issues it has addressed since its inception in October of 2008. Rhwc (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not about my claim, but about the claim of others. I have repeatedly requested that you observe the distinction between what I claim and what others claim. I repeat that request. It is others who make this claim, and wikipedia which should document the various claims that have been made. I cannot believe that you are unaware of the claims that have been made, and I would appreciate it if you would join me in taking the task of Wikipedia being to document the claims, and not to adjudicate between them. Tb (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If *ANYONE* would like to challenge the official records of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, he or she should file a petition with the courts. If not, then the "Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Southern Cone)" is the rightful owner of the history of the diocese. "Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Episcopal Church)" has only come into existence since October 2008 as a break-away group from the previous organization. I would not suggest that they don't have the right to break away and form a diocese within the Episcopal Church, but as far as fair reporting is concerned, (Southern Cone) is the owner of the motto, history, etc. Perhaps the (Episcopal Church) article could be updated to be more descriptive of the important issues it has addressed since its inception in October of 2008. Rhwc (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The "official records" to which you are referring seem to be about a corporation that is not yet a year old, and bears the name "Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh", not about the diocese itself. Furthermore, if we create a separate page for the pre-2008 history, it should not start at 1755 but at 1865, since prior to that year, Episcopal churches in Pittsburgh were part of the Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania. I am not sure what diocese the Southern Cone churches in Pittsburgh prior to 1865 were part of.--Bhuck (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, if you cite Calvary church's publications -- it will be biased. The reality is that every diocese in the commonwealth of pennsylvania, episcopal-catholic-and others, are all registered in the same way with the commonwealth. The registration was not intended to date the organization to the 1800s, it was intended to set a legal president that the realigned diocese of pittsburgh is the same diocese of pittsburgh that it was before it realigned. This it has done, and nobody can say with a legal standing that the "Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Southern Cone) is not the same diocese of pittsburgh that has always been the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. Rhwc (talk) 14:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

What would you like to cite to determine that the corporation you are talking about was founded in 1865? Calvary church published a photocopy of an application bearing Bishop Duncan's signature, dated December 29, 2006. If the corporation was 141 years old at that time, why was Bishop Duncan making an application? Are you trying to imply that Calvary Church forged his signature?--Bhuck (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Now please, lets try to maintain some sort of civility in our comments so that they can be helpful to the greater objective. Nobody objects that Bishop Duncan's signature appears on paperwork filed with the commonwealth in 2006. It is for this very reason that we are able to determine that the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh that existed in 2006 is the same Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh that exists today. As I stated before, every diocese within the Commonwealth has done exactly the same thing--some more recent than others. The fact is that this registration wasn't disputed legally in 2006 or in 2007, but now after the diocese has changed its constitution different groups are claiming to be the "Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh." It is for this reason that we are able to point to the records of the commonwealth of Pa to determine that the diocese is the same diocese today that it was in 2006. Rhwc (talk) 04:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

None of that is relevant to this article. Indeed, it simply undercuts your assertion that theEpiscopal Diocese of Pittsburgh article is about any corporation, since the article itself predated the paperwork in question. It sounds as if you are arguing a legal case here. Are you an attorney? Are you involved in any way with the legal counsel for the corporation whose interests you seem most interested in defending? At this point, I demand an answer. Tb (talk) 04:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Name change

This diocese is now a member of the Anglican Church in North America and the article title should be changed to reflect that. Thanks. Ltwin (talk) 04:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you suggest a short, easily identifiable name? If need be, we could move it to Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Anglican Church in North America), but that's rather long.   Will Beback  talk  05:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Do we really need the "Episcopal" bit on the front now, Dicoese of Pittsburgh (Anglican Church in North America), is slightly snappier. David Underdown (talk) 09:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

In response to David Underdown, I think we do if its the case that the diocese hasn't changed its name. Will Beback, I'm not sure. Perhaps Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Anglican)?Ltwin (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, there own website uses this designation. Ltwin (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

They have changed their name to the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh. There new website is here. Ltwin (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)