Talk:The Falls Church

Proposed Merger

I am proposing that the articles on The Falls Church (Anglican) and The Falls Church (Episcopal) be merged into this parent article. The information in the three articles largely overlaps, and is not enough to justify splitting due to content. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked at too closely but it seems to me that The Falls Church and Falls Church (Episcopal) could be / should be merged now that it's clear that the Episcopal faction will be remaining at the original property. On the other hand now that FC Anglican is off on its own, and its connection to the Church building is historical and receding, maybe it warrants its own article still. (With a lot of cleanup and some references, sheesh - the article's not a place for propagation or prostelytizing). JohnInDC (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with JohnInDC for the merge of The Falls Church (Episcopal) into The Falls Church if the Falls Church (Anglican) had made the decision of not going to appeal with the US Supreme Court. Since they have not made such decision yet, and are still reserving themselves the right to go to the US Supreme Court, the merge proposed by John is most likely what is going to end up making sense, but for now is probably premature. --Newchildrenofthealmighty (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, referring to the breakaway group as Anglican is confusing because both churches belong to the global Anglican Communion, of which the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States is the principal national body. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Hm, no. As the article explains, the Falls Church (Anglican) does not belong to the Anglican Communion. It rather belongs (through the Anglican Church in North America), to the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, the global network of conservative Anglican churches which formed in 2008 as a split from the Anglican Communion. --Newchildrenofthealmighty (talk) 01:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Curious, what is the difference between "Anglican" and "Episcopal"? Isn't Episopal just the American name for Anglican? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notwillywanka (talk • contribs) 05:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I strongly agree that The Falls Church (Episcopal) should be merged into this article. Is there anywhere else in Wikipedia where there are separate articles for a church building and the congregation that worships within it? I understand the legal issue caused a problem, but that is now resolved. On the question of whether The Falls Church (Anglican) should be merged, I don't have a strong opinion. If it continues as an independent congregation, and especially if it builds or acquires its own building, it should probably have its own article. If it fades in importance, or members disperse to other churches, then it probably does not need an article.Dunncon13 (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree - now that the Episcopal Congregation and the church building are reunited there's no reason for separate articles. JohnInDC (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Having reviewed the The Falls Church (Episcopal) a little more carefully, I really see nothing there that is 1) not present here or 2) appropriate for inclusion. We don't need for example a listing of the doctrines of a traditional Episcopal Church here - particularly in an article that focuses on the building. I found one useful ref there and added it here, and, absent objection in the next couple of days will redirect that article to this one. JohnInDC (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I redirected The Falls Church (Episcopal) to here, and removed the merger template discussion from here and The Falls Church (Anglican). JohnInDC (talk) 11:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Most of the "The Falls Church" page's content is an exact copy of the home page at http://www.thefallschurch.org/history/. There is too much material copied verbatim while not a single reference is given to the actual page it was copied from. The material copied word-for-word starts at "The New Brick Building" and it ends only where "Legal issues" starts (close to the bottom). Only some bold sections' content headings have been slightly modified, but the entire content under these sections remain exactly the same as the source (ie. http://www.thefallschurch.org/history/ ). If one editor is to copy the same material from another website, the least the editor should do is to place the material within quotations and then cite the source; but there is just too much material copied to make it a citation. To learn more, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plagiarism 179.159.181.96 (talk) 08:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yup. I'd noticed this before and then forgot to do anything about it. I took a crack at rewriting some of the sections - did it without reference to the source, so that I wouldn't be tempted to follow it, but I may not have fixed it well enough. If anyone would like to spend some more time with it, feel free. I also completely removed the more extensive section about the church and grounds because it appeared to be a straight lift from the source and I didn't feel like going through it line-by-line to fix it. Thanks for the reminder. JohnInDC (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)