Talk:Anglican Diocese of South Carolina/Archive 1

Statistics
I have put the current stats from the diocesan website. These show slightly fewer congregations, somewhat more members, and many fewer clergy. I suspect the clergy figure given originally, from the TEC national site, includes retired clergy. Springnuts (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible Departure
There are very strong chances that the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina will vote to leave the TEC and to join the ACNA: .Mistico (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think you are jumping the gun here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. I don't think its wise to put conjecture (no matter how likely) in an encyclopedia article when we still don't know what will happen. Ltwin (talk) 01:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree totally but I invite you to read the article carefully. I am not doing "futurology". I agree that we'll have to wait to see what will happen in the near future, but those who have followed later developments certainly wouldn't be surprised with what will most likely happen.Mistico (talk) 02:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You're putting speculation in the article. What is so wrong with waiting to see if it happens before mentioning it in the history section of the article? The article already notes that there is tension and conflict between the diocese and the national church. But I don't think its appropriate for Wikipedia to forecast events like this. Ltwin (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I changed the tone of the part of the article concerning most recent developments, removing speculation. I think its more accurate this way.Mistico (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Secession
The Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina decided to officially secede from the TEC on October 2, 2012, by a motion unanimously approved. This is the official document that states it: We need to wait for new developments concerning their immediate future and the most likely request to join the ACNA.Mistico (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Respectfully to those who may know more than I: In my reading of current events, the Board and the Standing Committee did not vote to secede on Oct 2nd. Rather, they passed a resolution stating that if TEC acted against SC, THEN SC would do the following... I think this nuance is important to understanding the dynamics of the situation. Thank you. Knwpsk (talk) 11:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

This just came out, it seems that it was the TEC to exclude the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina:. The article also states that the dioceses properties are protected under South Carolina legislation.Mistico (talk) 14:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting that, Mistico Knwpsk (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina is no longer a part of the TEC. They released this official document on 20 October 2012: The future is still unclear but it will be defined soon.Mistico (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Property Ownership
It should be noticed that the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina property ownership is protected under South Carolina legislation: "The diocese is also protected by South Carolina law. The state’s Supreme Court has struck down the national Church’s property rules, the “Dennis Canon”, holding they have no legal effect in the state. While the national Church has set aside a $3million war chest to fund litigation, canon law experts tell The Church of England Newspaper it is unlikely to prevail in a fight to seize church property." That's why I removed speculation. This issue is still ongoing and we just need to wait for new developments.Mistico (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Creation of Diocese and joining of TEC
There have been several edits made to this article which attempt to portray the founding of the Diocese as occurring as a result of the creation of the Episcopal Church. As the article shows, this is false. The Diocese of South Carolina is older than the Episcopal Church. It's first convention was held in 1785. The Episcopal Church does not really come into being until 1789. And then the Convention in South Carolina did not accept the national Constitution until 1790. Please, stop trying to rewrite history. Ltwin (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Lets have a rational discussion on the lead section
First, as I have said above and in edit summaries repeatedly, the first state convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in South Carolina was held in 1785. The Church in South Carolina did not join TEC as a diocese until 1790. This is indisputable. It is a historical fact.

Second, I removed "is a diocese of the Episcopal Church" from the first sentence as a compromise. The first sentence currently reads, "The Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina is a diocese." This accurately reflects the condition of the diocese, since what it actually is is disputed at the moment.

Third, the phrase "the majority of the elected members of the diocese voted to withdraw from the Episcopal Church" is confusing and ambiguous. Who are the "elected members of the diocese?" I assume that means the members of the diocesan convention. However, in this case, that is not how the withdrawal was affected. It was the standing committee of the diocese that determined to withdraw, which is what is discussed in the body of the article.

Fourth, Islandrector (or another editor) keeps inserting the following into the lead section, "The Episcopal Church argues that while individuals are free to join or leave, a diocese is a part of its organizational structure and may not depart. Establishing legal and denominational verdicts is expected to take several years." While I do not doubt that this is TEC's position (in fact I know it is) or that there likely will be legal disputes and years of litigation over property, these statements are unattributed. There is no source given, either in the lead or elsewhere in the article. Everything in the article has to be verified (See WP:Verifiability). I do not mind having this fact noted in the article, but there needs to be a source given as elsewhere in the article. Also, this should not be discussed primarily in the lead. It should be discussed in the body of the article, while summarized in the lead.

Fifth, considering that TEC will have to rebuild any diocesan framework in the SC lowcountry, does anyone seriously think that stating "It claims to be 'one of the fastest growing Episcopal dioceses in the United States,'" is really appropriate given the diocese's current situation? Ltwin (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with all that you basically said, except that the property ownership of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina is protected under South Carolina law and the idea that there will be "years of litigation" like the other user suggested, which is, by itself, OR, is rather unlikely, specially considering that the TEC excluded the diocese and by that seems to reject any claims over their property.Mistico (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that without a source, any statement about years of litigation is original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia under WP:No Original Research. However, I don't agree with you that years of litigation is unlikely. Yes, South Carolina's adherence to neutral principles of law in church property disputes, its Supreme Court's ruling in the Pawleys Island case, and the fact that the SC Diocese gave quit-claim deeds to its parishes gives the diocese a stronger position relative to other dioceses that have left TEC. However, it is possible (and I know that there are Episcopalians who've made this argument) to construe the Supreme Court's Pawleys Island ruling as being about one specific parish that existed before the creation of the diocese and the national church and was issued a quit-claim deed by the diocese before the Dennis Canon was passed. Therefore, its possible that TEC could believe it worth it to pursue litigation through the state legal system, which could take years to resolve. Of course, until we have as source saying that litigation is likely, the issue is moot. Ltwin (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand your points but like I showed before the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina property is protected by South Carolina legislation, who doesn't recognize the "Dennis Cannon". I also think we should advise a certain user to stop trying to insert a POV in the opening paragraph. This is a very controversial matter and the discussions about the nature and the future of the diocese doesn't belong there.Mistico (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think saying that the position of TEC is that dioceses cannot leave is pov, as long as we make it clear that that is the opinion of TEC. It also needs a source behind it, and we have yet to see that. I have left messages on Islandrector's talk page requesting that he or she come here to discuss the repeated insertions of unverified material into the lead section. I haven't heard anything back, so I'm not sure if Islandrector really wants to contribute to the article in a healthy way. Ltwin (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

U.S. church property law
Islandrector once again added unverified material to the lead section about the opinion of TEC regarding withdrawal of dioceses from the national church. In the edit summary, Islandrector wrote: "Under establised US Law, dating back to an 1864 US Supreme Court decision of a case between a Kentucky Presbyterian congregation and its denomination, the EDSC cannot depart it's denomination without that "General" Church's approval." I assume that Watson v. Jones (1871) is referred to. In that case, the US Supreme Court basically established the "deference" approach to solving church disputes. According to the deference approach, civil courts must determine if a church is congregational or hierarchical. If a church is part of a hierarchical organization, the civil court must defer to the ecclesiastical authorities. That is one approach that the Supreme Court has approved. In Jones v. Wolf (1979), the Supreme Court approved another method of resolving church disputes. It is called the "neutral principles of law" approach. In this approach, "Church disputes that are resolved under the neutral principles of law approach do not turn on the single question of whether a church is congregational or hierarchical. Rather, the neutral principles of law approach permits the application of property, corporate, and other forms of law to church disputes." In All Saints Parish Church Waccamaw v. the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina (2009), the South Carolina Supreme Court stated, "We hereby explicitly reaffirm that, when resolving church dispute cases, South Carolina courts are to apply the neutral principles of law approach." See under "Law/Analysis" in All Saints Parish Church Waccamaw v. the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina. So, now that we've got that out of the way, please provide a source for verifying that TEC does in fact claim that the Diocese of South Carolina cannot leave TEC. Ltwin (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately that editor seems to be obsessed with his bias, so unless if he stops editing the entry, he will have to be reported for blocking.Mistico (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Current Situation of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina
I really think we should not be adding new elements to the entry until the general convention takes place. While it seems that the secession of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina is irreversible, the situation still seems rather confused, with a loyalist group claiming to be the diocese, the secessionist diocese receiving support from their neighbour diocese of Upper South Carolina and the strange stances of the Presiding Bishop of the TEC who now wants Mark Lawrence to "recant", whatever that means. I also noticed that the official website of the diocese seems to be down. This link provides a whole view of the messy situation of the diocese:. I am deleting the quote given because it only reflects a minor part of the controversy and if Mark Lawrence quote was also deleted that will seem one-sided.Mistico (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see how the rationale the national church will use to sue the diocese for everything its worth and by which it will attempt to take possession of the legal identity of the diocese is a "minor part of the controversy." The claim TEC makes about dioceses not be able to leave IS the controversy. Ltwin (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Point taken but it seems that only a minority of the EDSC will claim to be the continuing diocese, since most of the diocese seems to have left for good. A similar event took place previously with the four dioceses that left the TEC in the past and now are part of the ACNA.Mistico (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Bishop Mark Lawrence about the future of the EDSC states that it will remain an independent Anglican diocese, but doesn't rejects an affiliation to the ACNA. In his address to the Special Convention of the EDSC, at 17 November 2012, he states: "All this might be what lies behind the question often raised at the deanery and parish forums I’ve been addressing — "Bishop, with whom will we affiliate?" My answer has been quite simply, "For now — no one." As any wise pastor will tell you, if you been in a troubling, painful or dysfunctional relationship for a long period of time and then the marriage or relationship ends, you would be wise not to jump right away into the first one that comes along and tie the knot. You'd be wise take your time. Nevertheless, I hope we can work with and for a greater unity among the Anglican Churches within our local region and also within North America. We have many friends and bonds of affection that unite us and along with this — a common mission, Christ’s Mission and unity will deeply assist it." Mistico (talk) 02:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Who is the bishop?
On January 19, I reverted an edit by User:DBD that replaced Mark Lawrence with Charles vonRosenberg as current bishop in both the infobox and the bishop's list section. I reverted both, and changed the infobox to read "currently disputed" in the bishop parameter. DBD wrote on my talk page, " it seems that there are now two separate entities – Lawrence's independent diocese and that Episcopal diocese still aligned with the PECUSA. Surely the appointment of a bishop provisional is a significant indicator of that?"

It is true that there are now (or soon will be) two different entities. That is not in dispute. The dispute is: which entity is the SC corporation known as the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina? Each entity claims to be that entity. The Episcopal Church (TEC) affiliated entity stakes its claim on the fact that it is affiliated with TEC and that TEC's property trust canon are on its side. The seceding entity stakes its claim on the fact that South Carolina corporate law is on its side, since South Carolina is a neutral principles of law state and SC courts have in the past invalidated the Dennis Canon. So, as can be seen, the situation is incredibly complex. The identity of the true corporate entity will be litigated, and it would be a mistake to assume that TEC will win. It has lost in the past in South Carolina. Ltwin (talk) 04:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

New Article Needed
We should start a new article for the new continuing diocese that remains in the Episcopal Church, with the name of Episcopal Church in South Carolina. The information more related to the affiliation to TEC also should be moved to there. The Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina has definetely left for good.Mistico (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it is too soon for this. There hasn't even been an initial ruling at the lower court levels. The only rulings made as of now have been temporary orders. We still don't know which group is in fact the entity known as the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina. Ltwin (talk) 01:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It's definitely not too soon. The national church has organized a continuing diocese and elected a bishop.  That new diocese is the official branch of the national church and it needs a wikipedia article.  So I have made one.  I called the new article "The Episcopal Church in South Carolina" which is the name the diocese is using.  My new article is just a stub and needs much expansion.Dunncon13 (talk) 15:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmm. They have not given up their claim to being the Diocese of South Carolina. They are only calling themselves the Episcopal Church in South Carolina because of the still in force court order mandating that they not use the names of the Diocese until its decided in court which organization is the real diocese. Ltwin (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This article was in disperate need for a split, and Dunncon started the new article. In this diocese, 49 churches representing 80 percent of the Diocese’s 30,000 members confirmed their desire to remain with the Diocese of South Carolina, and individually disassociated from the Episcopal Church. They are part of the Anglican realignment now. Dunncon is headed in the right direction. On the other hand, I moved to change the title, since this article refers to the ACNA related diocese, not the episcopalian one. However, if my move is not correct, I would support moving to Diocese of South Carolina (Anglican)--Newchildrenofthealmighty (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you are way off base. This diocese is not a member of ACNA. What gave you that idea? Yes, its Anglican, but its also Episcopalian. Its been Episcopalian before there was an Episcopal Church and it hasn't changed its identity. Ltwin (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll admit I thought I was on the right track and the more I go deeper, the more confused I get. However if they are not part of ACNA, they seem to be headed in that direction, although they don't seem yet to be. Currently the article is sourced into saying that the diocese became part of the Anglican realignment, which lists the departure of the diocese from the Episcopalian Church as an event related to it. That caused my confusion, which was also reinforced by this, which in its first paragraph has first "Diocese of South Carolina" (line 1) and then "Protestant Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina" (line 4). Can it be more confusing for a name of a diocese? --Newchildrenofthealmighty (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It's possible that at some future point the diocese may choose to affiliate with ACNA, but at this point, Bishop Lawrence has made it clear that they are not affiliating with any Anglican entity.
 * Anglican realignment is a process, not an organization. It simply means that Anglicans are realigning their affiliations. For the Diocese of South Carolina, Anglican realignment means that it is an autonomous Episcopal Diocese.
 * "Protestant Episcopal Church" is the full name of the Episcopal Church. It has been shortened to "Episcopal Church" over time. Both "Protestant Episcopal" and "Episcopal" are names which the Diocese of South Carolina claims for itself. The Diocese is most commonly known as the "Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina" so it would be the proper article name. Ltwin (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Greatly appreciated your clarifications! --Newchildrenofthealmighty (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it would be useful to add something to both articles (this one and my new one) describing the fact that there are two organizations in conflict over various things, including the name of the organization itself, and that both consider themselves to be the rightful successor to episcopalianism in South Carolina. I entitled my new article "Episcopal Church in South Carolina" because that's the name they are currently using.  Depending on the outcome of the lawsuits, the legal names of the two organizations could change.  We just don't know right now what the outcome will ultimately be.  By the way, I have changed several links around Wikipedia from ECUSA-related articles so that they now point to the new ECISC article instead of this EDOSC article.  Dunncon13 (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I've done a fair amount of editing here over the past few days, and also on the Episcopal Church in South Carolina article. I just don't want to go too far down this road without discussion. What I have been doing is removing links and/or language in this article that seem to suggest any affiliation with the national Episcopal Church, since the diocese itself now claims to be autonomous. And where appropriate I'm adding Episcopal links to the ECiSC article, since it and the national church both claim each other. Where this gets tricky is in the history section, since both entities claim to be (and are currently in litigation over) the rightful continuation of the original pre-schism diocese. Also, the list of bishops is a little dicey. I really don't think Mark Lawrence is in dispute as the bishop. And I don't think Charles vonRosenberg should be listed in this article. He's never claimed to be the bishop of THIS "Diocese of South Carolina." Instead, he clearly IS the bishop of a different diocese that wants to use the same name. Any comments? Anyone disagree about the path I've been going down with this? Dunncon13 (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) The history of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina is the history of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina. We'll just have to wait and see which entity the courts decide is the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina. If it is the departing diocese, then no change will be needed. If it is not, then this article reverts to the TEC affiliated diocese's page and the departing diocese will get its own article.
 * 2) Charles von Rosenberg claims to be the bishop of THE Diocese of South Carolina. There is only one. The courts will have to decide if Bishop Lawrence is the legitimate bishop or an imposter. I don't think trying to deny that fact will jive with other editors.
 * 3) There may be an article about the "Episcopal Church in South Carolina", but it needs to be pointed out that this name is considered a place holder by the TEC affiliated group until all the litigation is over and they can "re-claim" the identity of EDSC or they can't and have to build themselves a new identity.
 * 4) That being said, if the courts should (which I do not think is a certainty by any means) conclude that the TEC affiliated diocese is the real EDSC, then its only logical that this article apply to that group and a new page will need to be created for the departing group. Therefore, I caution against making too many changes that assume the departing diocese is the real diocese. That is unknown at this point. Ltwin (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Yes, certainly, its history is its history. But doesn't the ECiSC have some of the same history, up until the point they split apart?  The way I'm approaching this, the departing diocese ALREADY has its own article: this one.  I guess I'm assuming that they've already split.  Is there any disagreement about that?
 * 2) No he doesn't, he claims to be the bishop of the Episcopal Church in South Carolina, and I don't think anyone disputes that position. There are lawsuits whereby his organization is trying to get the right to use the name "Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina," among other things.  But those are as yet unresolved.
 * 3) I don't disagree. Edits to that effect on the Episcopal Church in South Carolina article, or this one too, would seem appropriate to me. As for new identity, it looks to me like they're already building one.
 * 4) A page, this one, already exists for the departing group. Episcopal Church in South Carolina exists for the TEC affiliated diocese. They're both "real" dioceses.  At issue legally is who gets to use the name, symbols, and real estate.  As that develops, the two articles can be updated.  If the names legally change, then the article titles can change too.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunncon13 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * 1.a) First, my position on the history is that the history up until the split should be discussed in length on the original diocese's (whichever one that turns out to be) page. The new diocese can simply provide a link to the history section of the original diocese's page. Second, as to you claiming that this article should belong to the departing diocese permanently I disagree. This article should be about the entity it has always been about: the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina. It is unclear at this point which entity that is, is it the one lead by Lawrence or the one lead by von Rosenberg? We don't know yet, but the courts will decide eventually. Right now, the departing diocese has the identity and property of the diocese by default, so I think it is right that this article for now primarily addresses the departing diocese without making judgment over whether the departing diocese is actually the diocese. In the possible event that the courts decide that the departing diocese is not the real EDSC, then they will be required to come up with a new identity for themselves. This article, however, will still be about the EDSC; it will not be about the new identity that the departing diocese comes up with. The same will be true of the TEC affiliated diocese. If the courts find that they are not the real diocese, they will be forced to come up with a permanent identity that may require us to change the name of the ECISC article. But if they find that the TEC affiliated diocese is the real diocese then this page will again become about the TEC affiliated diocese that has been legally recognized as the actual EDSC.
 * 1.b) I agree that there has been a split, but that does not mean that this article automatically becomes about the departing diocese. It only becomes about the departing diocese if the departing diocese actually is found to be the real EDSC. If the TEC affiliated diocese is found to be the real EDSC, then this article becomes about the TEC affiliated diocese. Thus my point about the Episcopal Church in South Carolina article being potentially temporary.
 * 2) That's a unique way of looking at things. Von Rosenberg has sued Lawrence in Federal Court. He claims that Lawrence and the departing diocese are violating Federal trademark law by using names and titles that belong to himself and his diocese. So, he does claim to be the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, and he has never surrendered those claims. Obeying a temporary court order not to use certain names and emblems is not surrendering a claim on those names and emblems. It is obeying a temporary court order (which they haven't always done anyway). So, I see no basis for you to claim that they are not claiming to be the real EDSC and he is not claiming to be the bishop of the ESDC.
 * 3) No they are not. They are complying with a temporary court order not to use the registered names associated with the EDSC. The name "Episcopal Church in South Carolina" is not a "new identity" but a placeholder until either the courts recognize them as the real diocese or they are forced to come up with a new name. I assume that the current name devoid of any reference to the word "diocese" will not be permanent.
 * 4) By "real" I'm not referring to their existence as entities. I'm referring to whether they "really" are what they claim to be, which is THE Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina. This article is not about the departing group. It is about the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina. Both groups claim to be that diocese. There is no reason to create a new article for the same organization. We simply need to update what the courts decide. If they decide that the departing diocese is really the EDSC, then we simply state that in this article. If they decide that the TEC affiliated diocese is really the EDSC, then we simply restore all the TEC references and update the history to this article. We then will need to create a new article for the departing diocese. This is the same process that has occurred in all the similar cases of diocesan splits on Wikipedia, and I see no reason why it should be different now.Ltwin (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess the issue here is your statement above that "This article is not about the departing group." I don't think I agree with that.  There are two groups of Episcopalians in South Carolina, one which wants to continue as part of the ECUSA and one which doesn't.  They are both well enough organized and important enough, in my opinion, to need their own articles.  When I looked at this article a week or so ago, it seemed to me that we had one article trying to be about both groups, which really didn't make clear to the reader what was going on.  The existing article (this one) struck me as mostly about the group that has left ECUSA, and it had the title that Bishop Lawrence's diocese is currently legally entitled to use.  So I left it in place, and started a brand new article about the SC Episcopalians who want to stay a part of the ECUSA.  I called it Episcopal Church in South Carolina because that's what they're currently calling themselves.  Yes, I do realize they want to call themselves something else, but legally they can't right now.  So it's a placeholder name for that group, and also a placeholder name for the wikipedia article about them.  Which might or might not become their permanent name.  I'm not sure that a discussion about which is the "real" diocese sheds much light on the situation.  At any rate, that's all being litigated, and the two articles can be updated as needed going forward.  I did look at the other Episcopal diocesan splits on Wikipedia, and found (fittingly) that the way they've handled it has been split.  In Pittsburgh and Fort Worth, the articles about the ECUSA dioceses are the original articles, and the departing dioceses both have new articles that were created at the time of the schisms.  In San Joaquin and Quincy, the original wikipedia articles are both now about the departed dioceses, and the ECUSA dioceses both have new articles that were created at the time of the split.  So what I have done follows the San Joaquin and Quincy model, rather than the Fort Worth and Pittsburgh.  Either way, every time a diocese has broken off from the ECUSA there has been one wikipedia article which divided into two at the time of the split, and that's what I'm trying to do here.
 * I hope this approach makes sense to everyone. If it does, I am happy to leave the diocesan history where it is, at least for now.  I would suggest that vonRosenberg's name be taken out of the list of bishops, since he does not claim or aspire to be the bishop of a diocese departing from ECUSA.  I would also suggest taking out the part about Lawrence being in dispute since 2012.  He is clearly still the bishop of the diocese which is departing - no dispute.  Dunncon13 (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Anglican Communion
Whether or not an Anglican-type church is an official part of the Anglican Communion strikes me as useful information. I am therefore undoing the recent change that deleted that sentence. I note that there is already something in the article saying certain Global South bishops consider the diocese to be part of the Anglican Communion. In light of that, we need something that expresses the opposing view. Particularly since the opposing view is the official view of the Anglican Communion itself. Dunncon13 (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should avoid declaring in its own voice that this entity is "by definition" outside the Anglican Communion. If you attribute that opinion to a specific source, that may be fine. Jonathunder (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Reasonable enough. I'll reword, and cite the official Anglican Communion website. Dunncon13 (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be surprised if the AC website says in so many words that the Diocese of South Carolina is not part of the Communion. Drawing our own conclusion of the statements they do make would be original research. Jonathunder (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You can check my wording and see if you think it's OK. The AC website has a complete list of all provinces and dioceses that are within the communion; those that are not listed are not part of the communion. It is not original research to state that something which does not appear on a complete and official list of members is therefore not a member.  Obviously they are not going to list all of the entities that are outside of the communion - that would be absurd, as well as impossibly long.  Roman Catholic dioceses, Mosques, Hindu temples, just to mention some of the religious possibilities.  Is there any reasonable argument that the EDoSC actually is officially part of the Anglican Communion?  I know the Global South bishops had their statement, and we have that in the article, but anything else?  Any authority we can point to? Dunncon13 (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina (autonomous)
It doesn't make sense to me to have one article on the pre-2012 diocese, and then separate articles for both of the post 2012 dioceses. That's not what's been done in other cases of diocesan splits, either. This article is about the entity known as the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina. Prior to the schism, the entity included everybody. Post-schism, it includes most of the old diocese, AND for now it has the legal right to still use the name, so it seems reasonable for this one article to be about both the pre-schism and post-schism "Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina." Is there anyone else (besides the one who created the third article) who really thinks we need three separate articles? If we do, this article, which presumably would be about the pre-2012 diocese ONLY, needs a lot of clean-up. It would need to be re-written so that all post-2012 history or status is deleted, with references as appropriate to the other two articles. But I really, really don't think that's the way to go. In fact I've proposed EDoSC(autonomous) for deletion as a duplication of this article. Thoughts or comments? Dunncon13 (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Giving either party exclusively the history before the schism would be taking a point of view. For now, things are so unsettled that three articles may be needed to give the full picture. Jonathunder (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As the person who started the separate article for the autonomous group, I wanted to be as neutral as possible in the dispute, per Jonathunder's comment above. I was attempting to keep the article along the lines Dunncon13 is now suggesting, but sensed an edit war was beginning with Kotobagaari and created the new article to avoid it. While I think it's inconvenient to have three articles for the same disputed diocese, I think it is the most neutral approach, at least until legal disputes are resolved. --Wikibojopayne (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As the person who started the separate article for the Episcopal Church in South Carolina, I also wanted to be as neutral as possible. Prior to having two articles, it was a real mess.  Nevertheless, I don't think we need three.  Both of today's dioceses share a common history prior to 2012.  I would be perfectly happy for someone to copy the entire pre-2012 history from EDoSC into ECiSC, so it would be in both places.  Note, however, that the ECiSC already does link to the history section of the EDoSC, hopefully in a way that makes it clear they share a common history prior to the schism.  I think it is a mistake to have an article called "Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina (autonomous)" because they are never called that.  I'm concerned that article title, in and of itself, would not be neutral.  The secessionists today are commonly (and at least for now, legally) known as the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, so that's what the article about them should be called.  If we must have three articles, I would suggest entitling the one about pre-2012 something like "Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina (historic)". Dunncon13 (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, it's no skin off my back in you want to either change the names of the articles or delete the autonomous one. I just want to have it settled one way or the other (avoiding an edit war). Peace, --Wikibojopayne (talk) 00:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm right there with you on trying to avoid the edit war. I have been periodically checking in on these Episcopal diocese articles, trying to keep them neutral.  People on one side of the fight or the other occasionally try to edit in their own version of the situation.  I was worried that might be what was going on with starting the third article.  Sorry if I over-reacted on that.  Still, I think it's preferable to just have the two articles instead of three, if people can live with it.  Peace to you also. Dunncon13 (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * When other Episcopal dioceses have split, Wikipedia editors have usually handled the situation by creating 2 articles, one for the departing group and one for the continuing group. After the courts have decided which group was legally entitled to the pre-schism diocese's name and property, the editors have followed suit. Therefore, my suggestion is that we simply wait and see who the courts declare are the legal successors to the pre-schism diocese. Until such time, we simply state that it is disputed and that both groups have a shared history. Ltwin (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ltwin that legal resolution will determine the shape of the articles. Since that will probably take a few years, and there is an article for the diocese of the Episcopal Church, we need an article for the independent diocese. As I understand it, the rationale for letting the independent group "claim" the old diocese name is strictly legal: an injunction has barred the Episcopal Church from using the name and provisionally reserved the name for the independent group. On those grounds alone, I would be fine letting this article stand in for the independent group, at least for the time being, following the legal standing at present until a final legal solution is found. --Wikibojopayne (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * (btw, since it looks like the article in question was soon to be deleted, I wiped it and redirected to this page, just as had been done with the Diocese of South Carolina (Anglican) page. Just thought you ought to know.) Wikibojopayne (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ltwin too. Unless and until the legal situation changes, Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina should be about the departing/independent/autonomous group, as it is now. That group has the legal right to use the name (for now, at least), and that name is how they are known in the world. Wikipedia should reflect that. Dunncon13 (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Who is the bishop?
It seems clear to me that Mark Lawrence is the bishop of the diocese described in this article. Charles vonRosenberg seems equally clearly to be the bishop of the Episcopal Church in South Carolina, and NOT the bishop of the entity known widely, and legally, as the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina - the subject of this article, as I understand it. I also don't think any of that is "disputed." But another editor keeps changing those details, so far without participating in the talk page. So could we maybe get some other editors' thoughts, hopefully to get to a consensus? If there really is a dispute about who is the bishop of THIS diocese, can we find a source for that? Dunncon13 (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Global South?
Is it really accurate to call this a "Global South diocese" in the disambiguation sentence at the beginning? What exactly is a Global South diocese? That concept seems pretty vaguely defined, even on the websites of the SC diocese and the Anglican Global South. I'm more comfortable calling the diocese independent or autonomous, unless there is some source that can tell us what it means to be a "Global South diocese." The Global South (Anglican) wikipedia page is poorly sourced, and silent on diocesan structure. So far I haven't been able to find neutral sources elsewhere on the web that explain what's going on. Thoughts or comments? Suggestions for improvements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunncon13 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Good thoughts, Dunncon13. I wasn't the one who changed it to Global South (Anglican), and indeed I described it as "independent", but it seems to be a meaningful description in several ways. First, the diocese claims to be under the leadership of Global South primates, so it fits the diocese's self-description. Second, Global South primates have taken an increasing role in the largest and most recent Anglican Realignment movements in North America of late (e.g. seven Global South bishops at the investiture of ++Foley), and that role of conferring perceived legitimacy as "Anglican" churches is enormous. I'm not sure what exactly it means to be a "Global South diocese" now, and I would like to see Wikipedia carefully follow the diocese's relationship with the Global South as it evolves in the future. Still, it seems to mean at the very least that the diocese is not *merely* independent, but is submitting at some level to a higher ecclesiastical authority. Given that, "Global South diocese" is a meaningful description, and neither the vagueness of the concept nor the lack of Wikipedia sources to define it further are sufficient reasons, in my mind, to change the description to "independent". Peace, --Wikibojopayne (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think its accurate to call it a "Global South diocese" because the Global South is not a province but a collection of provinces. This is only a temporary and provisional situation. The diocese is currently deciding whether it wants to join ACNA (or some other Anglican body). Until it makes its decision, it has voluntarily chosen to submit to the oversight of the Global South primates. This is different from other cases of Anglican Realignment (such as Pittsburgh, which actually became a diocese in the Province of the Southern Cone) because the diocese is not joining anything. It is simply submitting to a temporary oversight relationship within an extra-provincial framework. Ltwin (talk) 06:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, I agree the "Global South" situation is provisional, exceptional, and more than a bit confusing. The main question is whether it means anything, and I think it does. Until that remarkable situation changes, though, I see no reason not to call it a "Global South diocese," if for no other reason than I can't think of any better replacement. Peace, --Wikibojopayne (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Why do we have to call it anything other than an Anglican diocese? Seriously, all that is needed beyond the section on affiliation is a sentence in the Lead that describes it as an "autonomous Anglican diocese under the provisional oversight of the Global South Primates Steering Committee, which is a group of primates within the Anglican Communion." Referring to it as a "Global South diocese" makes it seem as if it's geographically located in the Global South, which it is not. Ltwin (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * That's fair. Also, the diocese is legally autonomous (per the recent court case). I don't think most readers would think it's in the Global South, since the it's got "South Carolina" in the title, and several African-based jurisdictions have gained ecclesiastical oversight over churches in North America. I'm split on whether we should nix "Global South" from the lede, and when in doubt I prefer to keep things the way they are. But if you really feel strongly about it, go ahead and take it from the lede; I'm not going to revert it. --Wikibojopayne (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation
The only purpose of the disambiguation note at the top of the page is to get the reader to the article he or she is looking for as efficiently as possible. That's it. The fewer words there, the better. It is absolutely not the place to put disputed claims, such as whether this entity remains part of the Anglican Communion after its schism. Jonathunder (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * See note above for already agreed upon disambiguation language --Gmichaeliona (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * No, what you have added is absolutely not the agreed language for the disambiguation note. You've made it worse. It's far too long and you shoehorned the disputed claim in there. Also, you need to read the warning on your talk page about edit warring. Jonathunder (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your opinion and have respected your point of view by refusing to simply revert. This is a collaborative process and I believe you have important points of view which need consideration. The clarity that I've brought to the situation aligns with the objective facts and references the fact of the disputed parities as well. Also, please refer to The Episcopal Church style guide for reference as to the capitalization of the "T" in The Episcopal Church. Thank you! Gmichaeliona (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Secession
The Anglican Communion website removed South Carolina from its list of members after it seceded again. Travellers &#38; Tinkers (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The Anglican Communion website only lists Provinces not Diocese. All of the Global South Provinces are in fact listed on the website. The Diocese of New York is also not listed on the Anglican Communion website. Gmichaeliona (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The Diocese of New York is part of The Episcopal Church, which is listed as a province of the Communion. This diocese isn't part of any province. It seceded. Travellers &#38; Tinkers (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The Diocese is under the Global South Primates, as approved by the ABC so as to retain a place in Communion with the AC. Please understand the nature of the communion as relational and communal in nature. If one does that then it is easier to understand the current challenge.Gmichaeliona (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please provide a source for the statement that the Archbishop of Canterbury approved the diocese's provisional oversight by Global South primates. In general, the instruments of unity have not looked favorably on the practice of provincial border crossing.Ltwin (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This last sentence is problematic, "is not officially" relies on a webpage which defines provinces (national bodies) and not diocese (geographical and non-geographical subsets of a province). According to Lambeth Palace spokesperson Ed Thornton: "The Global South Primates Steering Committee announced in 2014 the establishment of Primatial Oversight for the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina, which had seceded from the Episcopal Church. The steering committee informed Archbishop Justin of their decision when he joined them for the final day of their meeting in Cairo. Archbishop Justin had since had discussions in order to clarify how the arrangements will work, exploring the exercising of pastoral oversight by Presiding Bishop Zavala. Archbishop Justin discussed these developments with the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori (sic) at a meeting last autumn in Washington." HOWEVER, one can read the paragraph in one of two ways either supporting inclusion or not. My original edits reflects this ambiguity. The majority of the Communion primates would say South Carolina is IN the AC... and that the ABC does not alone define communion (See the current battle amongst the Instruments). Therefore either the final sentence should be removed (since it causes deep division) or it should reflect the reality of the minority opinion that, "The Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina is not recognized by The Episcopal Church (USA) as being a part of the Anglican Communion despite these statements."Also, in the disambiguation page, I agree with the writer who said, "I see no reason not to call it a "Global South diocese" because "autonomous" is not a correct understanding of Anglican polity. Gmichaeliona (talk) 02:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

You are correct about one thing: in the Anglican Communion, a diocese can't be autonomous. That's one reason this diocese is no longer part of the AC. Another is that it has begun the process of joining ACNA, which is outside the AC: Breakaway South Carolina Episcopal Diocese Mulling Affiliation With Conservative Anglican Group Archbishop says ACNA not part of the Anglican Communion Travellers &#38; Tinkers (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, this confirms that the final sentence should read, as proposed, "The Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina is not recognized by The Episcopal Church (USA) as being a part of the Anglican Communion despite these statements"  Gmichaeliona (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like I'm a little late to the discussion, but I have to strongly disagree with the above characterization. Ever since 2012, folks editing these articles about South Carolina have been trying to find ways to put in suggestions that the EDSC is somehow still "in the communion."  But it's not, and Wikipedia needs to unambiguously say that.  Whether or not you're "in the communion" isn't just a matter of opinion.  You know, "Some say they're in, others say they're out, so let's report both sides."  No. There are ways that we can actually tell who's in and who's not.  They are called the Instruments of Communion.  EDSC is 1) not in communion with the ABC, 2) not a participant in a Lambeth Conference (I realize they haven't had one since 2012, but I'm willing to bet they won't be invited to the next one), 3) not represented at the ACC, and 4) not represented at the Primates Meeting.  They're not in the Communion.  Primates in various Global South Anglican bodies can say what they want, but they don't have any authority that I'm aware of to determine Communion membership for American churches.  They can declare their own churches out of communion with TEC if they want to, but they can't kick TEC out of the Communion, and they can't let EDSC in.  On the primates subject, that raises another question: who is Mark Lawrence's boss?  Which is to say, who is the primate to whom he reports?  I've been searching the web ever since the Global South affiliation was announced, and I can't find ANYTHING that spells out how this primatial oversite business is supposed to work.  Can anyone enlighten me on that subject? Dunncon13 (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Note also that the Anglican Communion website DOES, in fact, list all dioceses. On the main list of churches, click on any one of them for more information. You will find on that next page a list of all dioceses of that particular church. No Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina anywhere! I have edited the article accordingly. Dunncon13 (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * First and foremost, the Instruments of Communion are in significant disagreement about who is "in" and who is "out" -- EDSC IS represented at the Primates Meeting through the Global South Primates and at the Lambeth Conference by the super majority of bishops in the Communion. (Hence the walkout of major Diocese' at the last meeting. Second, no one has suggested that TEC be left in/out in this article. Third, the articles cited and the EDSC website makes clear the provisional agreement related to the Global South Bishops. Thus, the most GRACIOUS response is to recognize that there is disagreement. EDSC disagrees with TEC. That's what the previous revision stated and why a revert is the most appropriate course of action. 172.56.4.162 (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe I misunderstand what it means to be "represented." What I would have thought it meant is to be a part of a church whose leader was invited.  So how, exactly, is EDSC a part of any one of those churches?  Is it under the authority of a particular province?  If so, which one, and by what mechanism?  "Provisional oversight" is not the same as being the diocese of a church.  At least I don't think it is, but it's hard to know since there seems to be little explanation anywhere of what it is or how it works.  Finding some neutral, verifiable sources on this would be TREMENDOUSLY helpful.  Not just proclamations from Global South bishops, or groups of bishops.  Finding some sources explaining the Anglican Global South would also be helpful. Dunncon13 (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120424190216/http://38.149.19.55/ViewLegislation/view_leg_detail.aspx?id=898&type=Final to http://38.149.19.55/ViewLegislation/view_leg_detail.aspx?id=898&type=Final

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Episcopal?
Since the 2017 convention, the diocese's website has been changed. The diocese now appears to be calling itself "Diocese of South Carolina," rather than "Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina." I don't see any kind of official announcement, just a change on the organization's official website. Does anyone know of a definitive source showing what the diocese now calls itself? If it refers to itself by a different name now, should the wikipedia article change it's title to the new name? I would generally think yes, but it would be nice to have an explicit source, rather than having to make inferences from the organizational website. Dunncon13 (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Since they are joining the ACNA, a name change would be unsurprising, but we should wait for sources or at least an official announcement rather than infer from their website. "Diocese of South Carolina" by itself is ambiguous; it could mean the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charleston, which comprises the entire state. This group may become the "Anglican Diocese of South Carolina" but that's a bit speculative. Jonathunder (talk) 02:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * There isn't any reason to change the article's name because the organization has not changed its name. The diocese' registered names have long been "The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina', "The Diocese of South Carolina", and the "Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina". There has been absolutely no change at all officially, and we shouldn't change the article until we have a more "official" signal from the diocese. Ltwin (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Makes sense. I'll watch and wait for something official.Dunncon13 (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Both the Canons and the Constitution of the Diocese in question refer to themselves (as of 2018) as the "Diocese of South Carolina". Nowhere in these governing documents does the name "Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina" appear. So the current lemma seems inappropriate. In my opinion, since this diocese is the only one to use the name "Diocese of South Carolina", this article should appear under that name. The current disambiguation page should be moved to "Diocese of South Carolina (disambiguation)" and a Template:Other Uses inserted at the top of this article. The Episcopal Diocese of Upper South Carolina does not call itself "Diocese of South Carolina", the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charleston does not call itself "Diocese of South Carolina", and although "The Episcopal Church in South Carolina" might like to call itself the "Diocese of South Carolina", I believe the trademark infringement lawsuits in that regard are still pending. Ltwin's argument that there has been no change officially seems to no longer hold true after the most recent revision of the Constitution and Canons of the "Diocese of South Carolina".--Bhuck (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it is confusing to keep calling this the "Episcopal" Diocese. Jonathunder (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I tried to start the move, but the previous disambig page is blocked until an admin deletes it.--Bhuck (talk) 07:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110512025432/http://www.gc2009.org/ViewLegislation/view_leg_detail.aspx?id=986&type=Final to http://gc2009.org/ViewLegislation/view_leg_detail.aspx?id=986&type=Final
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110423085342/http://gc2009.org/ViewLegislation/view_Legislation.aspx to http://gc2009.org/ViewLegislation/view_Legislation.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121230194224/http://www.episcopaldioceseofsc.org/ to http://episcopaldioceseofsc.org/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140408235134/http://www.diosc.com/sys/index.php?view=article&catid=1%3Alatest-news&id=488%3Adiocese-seeks-declaratory-judgement-to-prevent-episcopal-church-from-seizing-local-parishes-and-qhijackingq-their-identities&format=pdf to http://www.diosc.com/sys/index.php?view=article&catid=1%3Alatest-news&id=488%3Adiocese-seeks-declaratory-judgement-to-prevent-episcopal-church-from-seizing-local-parishes-and-qhijackingq-their-identities&format=pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

New title needed
The article needs to be called "Anglican Diocese of South Carolina" following this week's legal ruling. I don't know how to change it. Pages referring here may also need to be changed. Dunncon13 (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * We may need to wait. The diocese's website says its likely going to appeal, so we may need to wait to see if any appeal is made and if it is taken up by a higher court. Ltwin (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't know about waiting. The diocese may intend to appeal, but for now they legally cannot call themselves Diocese of South Carolina, and indeed they have already changed their own website.  I would think the article should be called the same thing as the organization it is about.  That would match how Episcopal Church in South Carolina has been handled.


 * Along those same lines, the legal ruling was pretty clear that today's Anglican diocese is a new organization, rather than a continuation of the old historic diocese. I'm OK with leaving the language as you have it for now, but I do not agree that you have made it more neutral.  I think it may eventually need to be changed, but waiting for further developments is OK with me. Dunncon13 (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Since the diocese has already changed its name, I'm fine with changing the article title. I don't think we should make major changes to article content though until all the rulings are settled. For example, deleting the list of bishops. The diocese may be considered a new organization by TEC and the courts may defer to TEC's determination. However, the diocese itself still claims continuity with the historic diocese. Ltwin (talk) 02:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Even when the rulings are settled, we don't have to go one way or the other. Neutrality doesn't mean following U.S. courts. StAnselm (talk) 06:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm very happy to move this article to Anglican Diocese of South Carolina, per the website, but it needs an admin to complete the move. Diocese of South Carolina should then be redirected to the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina disambiguation page. StAnselm (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Dunncon13. There has been too much confusion about this in the public and on the Wiki ppages. Changing the name to "Anglican Diocese of South Carolina" will help to clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VirginiaSMoe (talk • contribs) 01:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 23 September 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. The disambiguation page Dicoese of South Carolina (disambiguation) will be moved to the base name. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Diocese of South Carolina → Anglican Diocese of South Carolina – Per the new church website and a U.S. district court ruling. Also, there is obviously no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Diocese of South Carolina", so that should be redirected to the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina disambiguation page. StAnselm (talk) 09:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with the proposed move. The diocese calls itself the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina. The Wikipedia article should match the organization's name. Dunncon13 (talk) 12:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed move. Exactly what Dunncon13 said.VirginiaSMoe


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Date in infobox
In order to maintain neutrality, if there is a date in the infobox, both 1785 and 2012 should be included, since the diocese claims to be the original diocese dating back to 1785. StAnselm (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. Ltwin (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Seconded. --Wikibojopayne (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This diocese was created in 2012 and is not the successor to the 1785 diocese. It should only include the 2012 date. Ncjon (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I vote for 2012. The diocese itself considers 1785 to be its founding date. I think that's a highly questionable claim. They've been legally barred from claiming to be the Episcopal Diocese. It seems likely they would also be legally barred from claiming that they once WERE the Episcopal Diocese. So I don't see how anything other than 2012 makes sense as a date of origin. Prior to 2012, this Anglican diocese didn't exist as a stand-alone entity. Just because an organization claims something about itself, that doesn't mean it's correct, and doesn't mean it should be stated as fact in their wikipedia article. Is there a neutral source anywhere on date of establishment? Dunncon13 (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Is a court ruling a neutral source? I would think so. Here's something from the 9/19/19 federal court ruling, quoting the SC Supreme Court: "Justice Beatty ruled clearly: 'the disassociated diocese can make no claim to being the successor to the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina.' Protestant Episcopal Church, 421 S.C. at 251 n.29." That seems pretty clear to me: the disassociated diocese is a new entity, which came into being in 2012. Are there any neutral sources which contradict this? Dunncon13 (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The court ruling is a neutral opinion - it doesn't establish fact. I think the court is just following the Episcopal Church's decision, and that wasn't neutral. Other Anglican churches around the world accept the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina as a legitimate diocese, as well as the idea that a diocese can leave its province. StAnselm (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * GAFCON appears to accept the 1785 date: "Established in 1785, the Diocese of South Carolina was one of the nine original dioceses of The Episcopal Church in the United States that organized after the American Revolution. Following the attempt by the Episcopal Church to remove Bishop Lawrence in October 2012, the Diocese immediately disassociated." StAnselm (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What we are looking for here is a reliable source for the 1785 date. I don't think the GAFCON website meets that requirement, but even if it does, the cited article was from 2017, prior to the 2019 court ruling. Things have changed. A federal court has now determined that the Anglican diocese is a new organization formed in 2012. The opinion is online and seems to me a reasonable and verifiable source of the 2012 date. Is there a reliable source published since September 19, 2019, that says the Anglican diocese was formed in 1785? The organiztion itself says that, and their friends agree, but that doesn't mean it's correct. Dunncon13 (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree - it certainly doesn't mean it's correct. That's why I think both dates should be included. We don't adjudicate in these matters. My second preference is to have no dates at all. StAnselm (talk) 05:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The court's job is literally to be a fact finder and the piece Donncon13 quoted is literally a finding of fact, but yeah "it doesn't establish fact." I'm not even sure what to make of that. Ncjon (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, here at Wikipedia we're not bound by that court. The thing is, because of the separation of church and state in the US, the court did not think it was in a position to go against the Episcopal Church's ruling that a diocese cannot secede. StAnselm (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * StAnselm's suggestion of no dates at all seems like a good compromise to me. Looking at articles about other dioceses, both TEC and ACNA, all of the ones I've randomly checked omit the founding date. In the case at hand, the details of what happened can be fully explained in the article itself. It's hard to sum up the complexities of all that in the infobox. Dunncon13 (talk) 12:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way, I have found another neutral source (Christianity Today) for the 1785 date, but I'm still happy to go with the no-date compromise: "The diocese, which dates back to 1785 and is older than the Episcopal Church itself, was the fifth to secede over stances on homosexuality and other scriptural issues." StAnselm (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm going to leave it as is with the two dates. If someone else wants to remove both that's OK with me too. Now that the person who was edit-warring has been blocked, I don't think it's a very important issue either way. Thanks, StAnselm, for finding the additional source. Dunncon13 (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Per compromise option, I'm deleting both dates for the time being. FWIW, since things have changed with the court ruling in 2019, I do not mind having just the 2012 date. Wikibojopayne (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)