Talk:Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Episcopal Church)

Pittsburgh NA‑class Mid‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Pittsburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pittsburgh and its metropolitan area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PittsburghWikipedia:WikiProject PittsburghTemplate:WikiProject PittsburghPittsburgh
NA	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Recent changes

This page is, as it has been, for the constituent diocese in the Episcopal Church. An editor has recently been trying to make it the page for the breakaway group, which is pointless. As with the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin, this page is for the same thing it has always been: a diocese of the Episcopal Church. Just as with Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin, interested people should feel free to create a page for the new thing, the diocese in western Pennsylvania which claims to be a part of South Africa. Tb (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to delete you, only to reply: The diocese which you are calling a break-away group IS the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, always has been, always will be. Any rump diocese that you are attempting to represent here should start its own Wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babeintheswamp (talk • contribs) 20:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete me? How on earth could you delete me? I assume you meant to say "debate". Wikipedia works by consensus. You are quite new here, so perhaps you are not aware how things go. Debate is the order of the day; if you refuse to discuss the case, that is your prerogative, but the way wikipedia works is by discussion, and if you don't want discussion about your changes, then you can't just keep making them. We have an existing precedent for exactly this case; it was discussed and settled and led to a happy co-existence of Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin and Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin which both unquestionably exist as actual groups of actual people. The page here is, and always has been, about a constituent diocese of the Episcopal Church. Please do not continue making the same edits over and over again. It was reasonable to do so once, but then you encountered objection. Now you must convince the other editors on the page of the rightness of your position. Moreover, since the constitution of the Southern Cone clearly doesn't allow for it to have any dioceses in North America, the best the vote can do is intend something; it cannot accomplish it. For that reason, saying that the conventien "moved" the diocese is incorrect. (And even suggests something very strange, that somehow western Pennsylvania has been lifted up and actually moved onto a different continent.) Finally, I object to your deletion of the material about Simons and the recognition by the Episcopal Church of the continuing standing committee under his leadership. You'll need to engage in discussion. Tb (talk) 06:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Schism neutrality questions

The neutrality of this page is clearly in doubt. It is my belief that its current form is now accurate. This is based on information contained in the website for "The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of The Episcopal Church in The United States of America," www.episcopalpgh.org. speaking objectively, this is the name of the organization, and it currently lists 19 parishes. These 19 parishes have chosen to remain within The Episcopal Church after the Pittsburgh Diocese voted to secede. I invite your further comments on the matter in the spirit of neutrality and factual representation.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.68.148 (talk) 03:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is very confusing. If the page is accurate, what is the complaint? The problem right now with counting parishes is that the Episcopal Church claims *all* the parishes of the pre-schism diocese; the web site is indicating, of those parishes, which places people may go if they want to worship in an Episcopal Church, because the others are currently occupied by the non-Episcopalian breakaways. Text which explains that is all well and good, in my opinion, but simply changing the number would express the POV that the Episcopal Church is wrong in its claims, and I'm not ok with that. Tb (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither you nor I have the capacity to define who parishes belong to. That is a legal issue that will likely take many months and years to resolve. What we do know is this: The corporation known as "The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh" was once a diocese within The Episcopal Church, and now it is a diocese within the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone. A new corporation(which isn't really a corporation yet) with new leaders, new documents(which don't exist yet), and a new website has emerged as "The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh" reorganized within TEC. During this time of transition, it is important that these pages be objective. The website www.episcopalpgh.org has never claimed to have 66 parishes or 20,000 members. That is false information. This is what we do know, and it's wrong for wikipedia to say otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.68.148 (talk) 12:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not determining any parishes. As I said, I'm happy to see text which explains the issue. That means explaining that both entities claim all the relevant parishes and not only some of them. This page is not about a civil corporation, but about an ecclesiastical entity--and, for that matter, the Episcopal Church also disputes which group is in fact the successor corporation, as I assume you very well know. Please review WP:POV; the job of Wikipedia is not to arbitrate who is "the corporation".

The only question I can see that was raised about neutrality was the counting of parishes. I agree that simply saying 66 is problematic, so I have altered the article to explain that this was the pre-schism number in both mentions, explaining that exact counting after the schism is difficult. For the record, the reason it's difficult is, first, that the dust hasn't settled yet, and as well that the Episcopal Church claims that all parishes are constituent parts of the church and cannot, as corporate bodies, leave the Episcopal Church any more than a diocese can. Given these claims by the Episcopal Church, listing nineteen as the number of parishes would be misleading. Basically, there simply isn't any neutral way at present to ascribe any number of parishes to either post-schism group.

Moreover, the objector who added the neutrality tag also agrees (see above) that counting parishes is something neither he nor I have the power to do; more important, it's not something Wikipedia needs to be involved in. Since the current page no longer makes the problematic claim, I am removing the neutrality tag. If it is re-added, then of course please accompany it with a clear statement of exactly which things in the article are not neutral in some fashion that a discussion can be had about them. Tb (talk) 06:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an observer, I agree that this page is somewhat problematic. The website for this group clearly lists 19 parishes, not 66. And while everyone has the shared history of being one group, the reality is that this group of parishes came into being very recently. Mr. Simons and his supporters from Across the Isle have only been exercising these "offices" since Oct. 4. The contributer above is correct, the dust has not settled and it's not wikipedias place to announce the result. For the time being, restraint must be exercised. Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry and the many mission organizations in Pittsburgh do not belong to this group. They have their own constitutions and accede nothing to a diocese or national church. The diocesan "motto" is clearly something set by the previous "deposed" bishop. Not something that belongs to the people who ousted him. The sections on the realignment/reorganization seem to be very slanted. My reading of this article would make it seem like just a few leaders decided to throw in the towel and leave, when in reality it was the majority of diocesan convention who made the decision. Convention being the official legislative body of the diocese must be respected, even if you dispute its legality. The corporate soul of "The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh" still legally lies with the leadership now associated with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone. If the courts in Pittsburgh decide to change that, then by all means change this website. But it would be too hasty for folks to just log on and claim to be "The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh" without any legal standing as such.

What you say expresses well the point of view of the followers of Duncan in Pittsburgh. It is, however, exactly that: their point of view. The "corporate soul" is irrelevant, and it is in fact the position of the Episcopal Church that those claiming to be in the Southern Cone are in fact in illegal possession of the diocese's assets. Surely you are aware of this. So what does that mean? Careful work, piecemeal detailed editing, but not wholesale editing. And, especially in this context, not simple reverts, not massive blanking, but careful discussion of the points you think should be changed. I would note that, in fact, Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry still holds itself out as a seminary of the Episcopal Church. It would be quite surprising indeed if the Community of Celebration chose to join the Southern Cone crowd, for example, and until any such groups have declared themselves to be outside the Episcopal Church, they clearly remain in it. It is this kind of care that you are not showing, after a week of repeated blanking and vandalism. You need to look at individual cases, and not simply blank whole text--and each time, you need to engage in discussion, which you have manifestly failed to do, both here and at Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Southern Cone). The way to begin is to create separate sections here with the particular things you think are in need of fixing, so that they can be repaired. For example, if you believe that Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry is no longer affiliated with the Episcopal Church, you can provide references, and then it should indeed be removed here, as well as at List of colleges and seminaries affiliated with the Episcopal Church, and Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry. Likewise, the history of the diocese is relevant to both post-schism groups, and not just one. Convention "must be respected", and the page does in fact give the vote totals; you can hardly complain that the page makes it "seem like just a few leaders decided to throw in the towel and leave" when, in fact, it lists the vote totals and identifies Simons clearly as the only member of the Standing Committee to remain in the Episcopal Church. Finally, your use of a different IP address to avoid a block on the first one, and your deceptive "as an observer", is a serious violation of Wikipedia policy. Please, really, please, take a step back, and engage in discussion, instead of your current method. Tb (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name of this page

There is no Pittsburgh outside the US; in the context "Diocese of Pittsburgh", the specifier "Episcopal Church" is entirely unique. Moreover, there is no entity called "ECUSA", at all. I am open to other names, but "ECUSA" is extremely problematic. Tb (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ECUSA is the commonly used and understood acronym for The Episcopal Church in the United States of America. clariosophic (talk) 18:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no church body called "Episcopal Church in the United States of America", despite the clear fact that some people think there is. See the Prologue to the church's Constitution, or the discussion in Episcopal Church (United States). The acronym in question has nearly left the scene; "TEC" has come into play once the problems with "ECUSA" became more widely known. Tb (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the disambiguation title should not use an abbreviation if at all possible, anyhow. Is there any actual ambiguity with "Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Episcopal Church)"? Is there some other body called the "Episcopal Church" with a Diocese of Pittsburgh? I know of none, and the article is clear in the first line. So I'm having trouble understanding your objection. As far as I can see, "ECUSA" is simply incorrect (and an abbreviation, which is a bad idea in page titles); "Episcopal Church" is entirely unambiguous in this context, and at least correct. However, if there is a better name--a correct one--I'm happy to agree to it. In other words, "Episcopal Church" is the actual name of something, "ECUSA" isn't the name of anything. Tb (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Diocese of Argyll and the Isles (Episcopal) for a similar precedent where the word "Episcopal" is used without qualification in the Scottish context. Tb (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it sort of redundant to call it "X Diocese of Pittsburgh (X Church"? Argyll and the Isles (Episcopal) has no such redundancy. Also no other mission, dependency or whatever of the Southern Cone calls itself an Episcopal Diocese. As I understand it, the Diocese of Pittsburgh voted to leave TEC and align with the Southern Cone. Why then would or should it want to cling to the word Episcopal? clariosophic (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the convention of the Diocese of Pittsburgh did that. Whether the diocese can do that is a subtly different question about which there is a big difference of opinion. :) Anyhow, what is clear is that both post-schism bodies are calling themselves "Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh". I can't tell you why the Southern Cone folks want that name, but unquestionably, it is the name they are using. I'd rather they called themselves the "Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh", at least following the example of San Joaquin, but they haven't done that. It may well be that as the dust settles, better and clearer names show up, but for now, we have two groups claiming identical names, which forces the disambiguation in parens here. Tb (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]