Talk:Episcopal Church in Minnesota

Article title referred to project
Since there's discussion about the article title, I've started a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anglicanism to see if there is a standard across the project for articles on dioceses. The thread is titled #Names of dioceses, revisted. —C.Fred (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 16 December 2014

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Claims that a requested move discussion cannot result in a move, or that adhering to Wikipedia's naming scheme is more important than choosing the best name for an individual article, are not founded in policy. That leaves WP:COMMONNAME, invoked by both sides, with the better evidence and the majority of editors making those arguments pointing towards "Church in". Huon (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Episcopal Diocese of Minnesota → Episcopal Church in Minnesota – According to the comments here, made by someone who says they are an officer of the body in question, the name used internally and in official communications by the diocese is "Episcopal Church in Minnesota." As I can see no reason not to use the official name, which has no obvious ambiguity or other problems that I can think of, I suggest moving the article to the title the body currently uses and leaving the other name as a redirect. John Carter (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Support as proposer. John Carter (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose as it deviates from the standardized format used for such articles across the project. The demands of a COI account should not trump WP:COMMONNAME as a standard. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  01:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. A Google news search showed that more of the recent usages of the term are for "Episcopal Diocese of Church in Minnesota". I certainly don't see any compelling reason to use an older styling of the name. —C.Fred (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC) amended 15:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Naming standards have been established. I commonly work with Catholic topics and 100% of Roman Catholic dioceses use the same convention as this one. No exceptions are possible. Especially not for a WP:COI editor's demands. Elizium23 (talk) 06:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Names used in the Anglican Communion, particularly in the United States, are not necessarily the same as in the Roman tradition. Jonathunder (talk) 16:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support I work for this organization and don't believe that our name should have to be changed on Wikipedia just to fit in with other "naming standards" ... we have been doing business as the Episcopal Church in Minnesota for several years, it is the name of our organization. Shouldn't it be able to be the name of our Wikipedia page? Snide034 (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC) — Snide034 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * By the same token, a !vote that is explicitly arguing against standard Wikipedia policies and guidelines should not be weighed heavily in determining the outcome of a Wikipedia process, should it? While you may work for the organization, the Wikipedia page is not "yours." WP:COI: "While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to be a Wikipedian. Any external relationship (any secondary role) may undermine that primary role, and when it does undermine it, or could reasonably be said to undermine it, that person has a conflict of interest." Dekimasu よ! 20:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support As both the actual name and the common name are the proposed name, it should be changed.  Roman Catholic usage does not dictate Episcopalian usage-- the churches have been separate for the better part of five centuries.  It would take an exception to our policies to continue with the current name.  Kablammo (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not "Roman Catholic usage" - it is universal usage! All dioceses are named [Church] Diocese of [Place], Roman Catholic or not. If we are going to change one article then we are going to have to change the naming convention and that will require a wider and more centralized discussion. Elizium23 (talk) 19:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not universal (though it undoubtedly once was), as this case clearly shows. And if the naming convention is in error then it should be changed. But I object also to the notion that our convention is more important. I think a case needs to be made for why WP ought to be deciding matters against the face of the real world it purports to report on. Our conventions also ought not to be viewed as rigid laws, binding our content. The conventions can have (and require) greater flexibility than that, and so do our editing bodies that make such decisions. Let it be discussed. Evensteven (talk) 06:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support The name "Episcopal Church of Minnesota" is the actual name of the organization and has been for years. Since the organization does not operate under the name of the Diocese of Minnesota, I do not believe that it should HAVE to conform to the naming standards especially when other Episcopal organizations in the US, on Wikipedia, are allowed to have their title be their actual name. Also, the Episcopal Church is not Catholic but Anglican. It is a separate organization therefore the same rules should not have to apply. See Episcopal Church in South Carolina  Iradioheaven (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC) — Iradioheaven (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 *  Strongly Weak Support. It is inaccurate to call an organization by other than the name it calls itself. I don't know when the name change was made, but how long will the prior name remain common if the organization itself is calling itself by the new one? C.Fred above testifies to even the current commonality of "Episcopal Church in Minnesota" in news sources. The COMMONNAME policy does not make mention of organizational names, which are a different matter than some of the others. Of the five characteristics listed in the policy, surely it is both natural and precise to refer to an organization by its real name, and also increasingly recognizable the longer a new name remains in place. The consistency characteristic does not apply to organizations the way it would to other topics. This organization deliberately changed its name away from the one that is consistent with others like it (for what reasons, I can't imagine!, but that is what has been done). The reasons, good or bad, are not subject to our approval or disapproval. At WP, we are in the service of (and even at the whim of) "what is"; we are not the organizers of "what is". Our organization of material must be reflective and subservient. It would be unencyclopedic to be otherwise. This is a case in point of how even very reasonable and well-intentioned naming standards can hamper, can be wrong, and by being rigid, mislead and misrepresent. I strongly oppose Elizium23's notion that no exceptions are possible. They are not only possible, they are, in this case, what is actually in place, and we are responsible for reporting on that basis. When a standard naming convention is incorrect, it is the standard that must adjust to realities. Fortunately, we do not need to change the standard itself in order to get the reader to the right article. A simple redirect of "Episcopal Diocese of Minnesota" to "Episcopal Church in Minnesota" will accomplish the task for which article naming conventions exist, and article accessibility will be assured. The article itself identifies the organization as a diocese in the Episcopal Church in its first sentence, so there ought to be no confusion. And for what it's worth, no editor, including the diocesan employee, made a "demand"; it was a request. COI or not, it was not inappropriate and brought a relevant issue to our attention. Let it not be said that even persons with a COI cannot address WP in a reasonable way; they can. Evensteven (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see comment in discussion below for reason for change. Evensteven (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This article covers the 150-year history of an organization, and should not be changed to reflect the current title unless it is also the common name used to refer to the organization: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." This does apply equally to organizations. Google Ngrams does not come up with any results for "Episcopal Church in Minnesota," but does for "Episcopal Diocese of Minnesota." The current title is superior to the proposed title in both recognizability and consistency, while the two titles are roughly equal on the other three naming criteria of conciseness, naturalness, and precision. I hope that the closer of this request will check for single-purpose accounts here, as well. Dekimasu よ! 20:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point about the historical name and its uses. But organizations sometimes change names, and the new names' common use follows predictably while the old drops off. It's certainly an arguable point about how far along the process is here, but the ngram also only covers as far as 2008, finding no more recent references to either. Results do depend where and how one is looking. Note C.Fred's quite different Google News search results above. Recognizability and consistency always depend on context, not entirely straightforward here. Evensteven (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support: Legally, it's still the "Diocese of Minnesota" but it is using "Episcopal Church in Minnesota" as its identity in almost all communications now. Unlike South Carolina, this has nothing to do with a schism. Jonathunder (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Comment to the best of my knowledge, I have yet to see that WP:COMMONNAME can be demonstrably used to indicate the name by which this particular body is most frequently discussed. In the absence of such information, the fact that the body itself uses one term is at least an indicator of that being the most common name, until and unless sources to the contrary specifically indicate otherwise. While I acknowledge that there is perhaps a not unreasonable assumption of the existing name being the common name, I have no particular reason to necessarily believe that assumption is a well-founded one. I would also assume that the most frequent source of any mentions of any diocese are sources based on either press releases from the diocese or from the Episcopal Church or the Anglican Communion, and at least from what I've seen those sources tend to use the name selected by the body itself. John Carter (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARY tells us "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." There are secondary sources on this subject, so we should use them to determine what the subject is referred to as in reliable sources. At the point where we state that reliable sources are unable to demonstrate reliable information, we are not really able to make any significant additions to the encyclopedia at all. Dekimasu よ! 20:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, other stuff exists, but: If project consistency were so important as to be an overriding factor, why is it Episcopal Church in South Carolina and not Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina (Episcopal Church)? —C.Fred (talk) 03:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It would appear to be because there is also Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina and natural disambiguation is preferred. Dekimasu よ! 20:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I do understand people's concerns with the naming standards, but The Episcopal Diocese of Minnesota is not what we are called. We haven't been for several years and as referenced above, if Episcopal Church in South Carolina is able to have their Wikipedia page accurately reflect their name, I am just not sure why we can't. I just don't see why we cannot have our page reflect who we are, and not what other people want us to be called? Snide034 (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC) — Snide034 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The best argument I can see for the current title is consistency, and, honestly, that isn't a bad one. The downside is that such consistency is, when not supported by the evidence specific to this individual instance, really more or less an attempt at OR on our part. If we keep a name strictly for consistency, then we are, basically, placing our opinions before the facts. Also, in all honesty, if the current title is kept, I would think that the capitalization of the word "diocese" would have to be open to question. Formal names of organizations, are, of course, captialized, but if the name of the article is not in fact a formal name but rather a generic description of the group, then it is not a proper name and there would be no real case for the capitalization. John Carter (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You are talking about two separate things which each need RFC-level participation in a broader forum than this one, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard. This RM cannot be approved in this forum. Elizium23 (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, in fact, listing an requested move on the appropriate page, which the template at the top of this section does, is generally considered the best way to get broader unbiased input. And, considering this discussion is already mentioned at the WT:X page, I would assume any parties interested enough to take part there would also know that they could take part here as well. John Carter (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Three sets of comments by me:
 * The Episcopal Church system in question: I don't know of any schism issues in Minnesota, but this is part of The Episcopal Church (United States), which has had internal several schims in the last 10 years, in which a group gains control of a local church, or sometimes the local Diocesan Synod, and votes that they are not part of TEC, despite TEC not having any provision for secession; this splits the local churches and their congregations into those who go with the synod and reject the TEC, and those who go with the TEC and reject the synod, both of whom consider themselves to be the surviving diocese and the other group to be a new invention; sometimes one side or the other starts using another name in public to distinguish itself. This legitimacy-wrangling has been pervasive throughout the affected Wikipedia articles: For example, again see Episcopal Church in South Carolina, where an anonymous IP blanked the historic bishops list, in order to support a non-EC group's claim that their own Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina is the only legitimate historical diocese.  There have been Wikipedia sockpuppet blocks and other administrator actions related to other dioceses in similar situations.
 * Article titles is Wikipedia policy: Some WikiProject's naming convention does not trump it. And nobody has bothered to link to whatever naming convention is being claimed.  And any alleged naming convention is going to become increasingly unsustainable with the schisms: Now the article Episcopal Church in South Carolina is for a diocese in TEC who also claims the name "Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina" but openly uses the other name, and the article Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina is for a diocese not in TEC.  Good luck figuring out the naming convention to handle that.
 * On this specific article's naming: Remember that regardless of which we choose, there is going to be a redirect anyway, at least for now with this particular diocese. http://www.episcopalchurch.org/diocese/minnesota refers to this as "The Episcopal Diocese of Minnesota".  We may be dealing with some kind of legal/political positioning here: This is just speculation, but maybe some TEC leaders believe that they need to start using "The Episcopal Church" in their names instead of just "Episcopal" to have a stronger claim to their identities if there are further schisms.  If this is the only organization that is laying claim to being the "Episcopal Diocese of Minnesota", and also the only group that is laying claim to being the "Episcopal Church in Minnesota", then we should go with WP:NC, and in particular the WP:COMMONNAME part of that.  ("Common" does not mean "official"; and in this case, which of the two is more common and which of the two is more official seem to both be in question.)  If there a threat of a schism (by whatever name), though, we should make it clear that picking one article name or another does not cause another group's activities to become "out of scope" for this article and that Ownership of articles applies. --Closeapple (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for bringing these naming issues to my attention! While I now think the real-world situation is much muddier than I had thought, my desire is for the name to reflect the real-world situation as it is now, and to redirect historical usage to it, with the expectation that the current situation is stable and will supplant the historical (if it has not already). Yes, I grant that "current stability" is now in question also, but this diocese does not apparently have the schismatic problems present elsewhere. I have accordingly changed my support level above. Evensteven (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * 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.