Talk:Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Episcopal Church)/Archive 1

Archived discussions from 16 October 2008 to 17 December 2008.

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)

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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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". [Unsigned comment by User:Tb, 14:35, 28 October 2008]


 * 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)


 * 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. [Unsigned comment by User:76.124.157.11, 13:35, 30 October 2008]


 * 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)


 * Completely objectively -- the corporation known to the commonwealth of pennsylvania as "The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh" is no longer apart of "The Episcopal Church." Unless or until the civil courts decide that this action is not valid, you must abide by this fact. Now I must admit that I have no idea how what you call vandalism works here, and the inner workings of wikipedia sometimes evade me. But at it's most basic level, you cannot say that "The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh within The Episcopal Church" is even a corporation. There is no such thing. There maybe in the future, and I would welcome you citing the legal papers to prove that this body exists. But at the present moment, this group of parishes is exactly that -- a group of parishes that have decided to separate from "The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh" in order to remain in "The Episcopal Church." I don't know how IP addresses work--or how blocking IP addresses work. I couldn't even tell you what IP means...but what is being misrepresented here is the changes that you have made, not I. You may be able to silence me, but that does not mean that your wikipedia version of these two entities is anywhere near accurate. As far as Trinity is concerned...they've even removed the word "Episcopal" from their letterhead! And while the history of the diocese may be relevant to parishes who wish to leave the diocese in order to stay within "The Episcopal Church," the history of this organization is not. The organization, or group of parishes, that you cite only came into existence in October of 2008....not in the 1800s. There is nothing malicious about the changes I have made to these pages -- I would ask you to please refrain from your personal attacks on myself, and the majority of Episcopalians within the Diocese of Pittsburgh who have left The Episcopal Church. I would again you reference any legal document identifying your group as a corporation. I do believe there is none. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.157.11 (talk) 15:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing completely objective about it. The courts may well find exactly that the action is not valid. But regardless, there is nothing about this page which claims to represent any corporation. It is not about a corporation. Nor is it "my group"; I am affiliated with neither group, though I am a member of the Episcopal Church. I'll clarify the wikipedia question, which you seem to have missed, and which is the important question: To respond to the content of what you say:
 * To continually remove text from a page, over and over again, is regarded as vandalism. Removing text once in a genuine attempt to improve the article is fine; doing so repeatedly without comment is not fine.  Particularly important is to use the "Edit summary" box to explain the reasons for changes, and when you know they are controversial (which means specifically that other wikipedia editors regard them as controversial) you must engage in good faith discussion of the question and seek compromise.
 * Blocking is a strategy for preventing vandalism or other violations of wikipedia policies. Repeated vandalism is answered by blocking, which prevents you from editing for a while, in the hopes that you'll "cool down" and come back to be productive and follow Wikipedia policies.
 * Sockpuppetry is the use of distinct addresses or accounts to evade a block, or for other purposes which violate policy.
 * Your good faith would be shown not be saying you don't know what these things are, but rather by reading and thinking about the links which were provided, which go into considerable detail to explain them.
 * There is a difference of opinion about the matters you write. What you write is controversial and as you well know, is likely to be litigated.  What wikipedia does in such a circumstance is not to decide who is the true heir to the corporation (indeed, nothing in the page even discusses corporate identity), but rather, to document the nature of the dispute as accurately as possible.  That requires careful description of the fact that there is a schism--which has been widely remarked on in the media.  I'm sure you're aware of it, and finally,
 * As I'm sure you well know, the Episcopal Church's claim is precisely that the vote of the Diocesan Convention was null and void, and that those currently in control of the corporation's assets have no right to be, and have in fact left the corporation in question and are controlling it ultra vires. There is not agreement about who correctly speaks for that corporation.  Tb (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no difference of "opinion" here. The organization known as "The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh" has changed its constitution to join the anglican province of the souther cone. This is a legal issue, and there is no question. Unless or until the civil courts decide otherwise -- this is a fact, and it's wrong to report on wikipedia false information not based on fact. That would make any other "group," "collection of parishes," "separate diocese," "non-corporate organization" -- whatever you want to call this, it is simply not factual.
 * Now, you say that The Episcopal Church does not recognize the actions that were taken to leave that body. In case there was any doubt, nobody within TEC has any authority to "recognize" or "claim" anything. The only body that can decide on the admission of diocese is the General Convention. Neither the Presiding Bishop, nor the executive council, nor anybody else has the authority to recognize or declare that there is a "reorganized" diocese in the pittsburgh area. Moreover, the Presiding Bishop has no authority whatsoever to "recognize" the ecclesiastical authority of a diocese. You will find that nowhere within her job description or the constitution and canons of the episcopal church that she holds so dearly.
 * Now, there is a controversy here, as there are parishes who wish to separate from the diocese that joined the anglican province of the southern cone in order to remain within TEC. It is likely that in the future they will be formulated into a diocese within TEC. Perhaps even combined with another diocese like northwestern PA for the sake of numbers. The reality that is being misrepresented here is that you are claiming to be an entity that you are not--and unless there is a legal verdict saying you are then it is wrong. The reality is that "The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh" that was founded in 1865 is no longer apart of TEC. The content of this article is FALSE, and there is nobody who can reverse that except for the courts. So when the courts decide in your favor, by all means change this article to say so. But until then, please accept the decision of the majority of the diocese and move on.
 * what you are doing is attempting to redefine this controversy on your own terms using Wikipedia, a resource that should only reflect fact. You have no fact to support this article. Please change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.157.11 (talk) 14:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

See, now you're missing the point. I claim that the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh had no power to amend its constitution in that manner, and so does the Presiding Bishop and many others. You claim that they did have that power, and that the Presiding Bishop and the many others have no such power to say anything about the matter. This is what we refer to as a controversy. And Wikipedia does not take sides in such a controversy, but simply reports the claims of both. This article is perfectly clear about identifying the pre-schism diocese, and then indicating that there is a group in Pittsburgh which claims to be the continuation of that body and a part of the Episcopal Church; it also points to a different article which indicates that there is a different group which claims to be the continuation of that body and not a part of the Episcopal Church. This article does not say anything about corporations, which you seem to be obsessed about. And, you continually say that I am claiming to be something I am not. Please stop identifying me with the diocese; I'm not the diocese; I'm not a member of it; I haven't been physically present in Pittsburgh since 1986, and I had nothing to do with the Episcopal Church when I was there. What we need to do, is hear from you which sentences in this article are supposedly the false ones. What you were vandalizing was the past history of the diocese of Pittsburgh, and yet there aren't any controversies about what the past history looks like. Perhaps you would like a sentence or paragraph in the "current controversy" section which explains that the Southern Cone group claims to be the only true "Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh" or something to that effect? Tb (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I must disagree. You cannot publish a wikipedia article based on fact when the only thing you have to back it up is your on "claim." Just because you "claim" that something is true, does not make it so. I would like to claim that the recent banning of gay marriage in california is unconstitutional, that doesn't mean I can post a Wikipedia article saying that there is another State of California that is abiding by the true constitution!   I, however, am not claiming anything. The entity known as "The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh" is no longer apart of "The Episcopal Church." If you believe anything other than that, then you should bring suit against that organization to prove it. Until it is PROVEN FACT you have no right to publish this article. Now, you say that all of my talk about the corporation is nonsense -- but that is exactly the question you're trying to avoid. This article claims to be "The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh" and it is not. "The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh" is a corporation, and it has legal standing -- this group of folks does not. You can "claim" anything you want, but until this controversy has been legally decided, you simply cannot say that anything in this article is fact. It is not a question of adding a phrase in a subsection--this organization does not exist. There is little doubt that it will come into existence at a latter point in time because of the current controversy. But it does not exist as of this moment, and that makes this article false. I simply do not understand how Wikipedia can allow false information to be proliferated in its pages.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.157.11 (talk) 03:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

There are two groups of people, each of which claim to be the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. Wikipedia cannot take sides about which group's claim is correct. It can only report that both groups exist, and explain each group's claim. It cannot adjudicate the question. But my objection to your vandalism is deeper, and you must address the procedural issue. It is not permitted to delete text on Wikipedia repeatedly--no matter what your motives--while refusing to discuss your proposed changes. It is not permitted to behave as a sockpuppet or meatpuppet--no matter what your motives. I am delighted that you are now engaging in discussion instead of vandalism, and I hope that this represents a change in your willingness to abide by Wikipedia's policies and not merely a reaction to your having been prevented from continuing vandalism. There are further Wikipedia policies that you should review. You might want to review WP:TRUE for some helpful Wikipedia advice about your insistence. So far I can see no sign that you have reviewed any of the Wikipedia policies you have been pointed to. It is not me that claims which group is the correct user of the name "Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh", nor is it Wikipedia. You seem to be suggesting that what we should do is determine who is right, and then make the article reflect that--and, in addition, you suggest a particular view about who is right. But that's not how Wikipedia works. We do not try and determine which view is right when there is a controversy of this sort; instead, we document the controversy. Now, if there were uncontroverted verifiable sources which established which side was right, then we would of course rely on that. But there are not. If some should come to light, you need to provide them. Please review WP:V. Finally, you make extremely broad claims, which do not match your edits. Your edits were wholesale deletions of text which describes the past history of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, and yet your complaints here have nothing to do with that past history. If you believe that the discussion of the present controversy is missing something, please help out by suggesting what would make it more accurate. But deletion of unrelated text (as well as your unrelated vandalism to Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Southern Cone) is not an acceptable technique. Now, as an attempt to show you something of how Wikipedia works, I will suggest language.  We could put in the lead something to the effect that "the question of which group is the true successor to the pre-schism Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh is a complex ecclesiastical and civil law question not yet resolved; each group claims to be the true successor", and a fuller explanation could be put in the current controversy section.  Presumably this would need to be on both this page and in Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Southern Cone).  What do you think?  I believe that would address the problems you have with the text as it currently stands.  Tb (talk) 03:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

There are not two independent groups "claiming" to be the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. "The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh" is in exactly the same place it has always been, and that is recognized by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as being a true statement. There is one group that has decided that because they disagree with the decisions of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, they are going to claim that it never happened. If you in any way read what I had to say, you would clearly know that I am not suggesting that Wikipedia find a verdict on the controversy. I am suggesting that until a verdict is reached by the courts, the information you are reporting is in fact false. The edits that I, and others, made previously were an effort to remove false information. As far as your puppetry and vandalism -- if I knew how to report it, I would suggest that you're the one who is vandalizing this page. This article is false -- all of it. Perhaps you can educate me on Wikipedias policy on false information then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.157.11 (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you mean; there is one group of people, including David Jones, James simons, Jeffrey Murph, Mary Roehrich, and a number of others, including the Presiding Bishop and many rank-and-file Episcopalians, who all are members of the Episcopal Church and claim to be the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. That they are there is clear, that they make this claim is clear.  That you think this claim is incorrect is clear.  And yes, Wikipedia should not take either side as being correct in their claim--we should instead report the controversy.  As for "Wikipedia's policy on false information", I've told you over and over again where to look: WP:V.  As for wikipedia's policy on vandalism, look at WP:VAN.  Tb (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A claim is not a fact. Wikipedia reports facts. If the group of people that you listed thinks there is merit to their claim, then they should file a lawsuit. After that lawsuit has been decided, then Wikipedia is free to report the facts of the case. Until then, there is no truth here--just a claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.157.11 (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact is that the group makes this claim, and all that Wikipedia does is say that this is a claim, and a disputed one. If you can propose text which would make this clearer, I'm all for it, provided it treats both groups equally and does not announce either claim as correct. Tb (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not disagree with you that a group of people claim to be the true Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh within The Episcopal Church. However, that is not what this article says. It says that this group "IS" The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. If the opening sentence were to say "A group of individuals, dissenting from the actions of the 2008 diocesan convention, claim to be the true Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh -- then there would be no problem. But instead this page gives the whole history of the "Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh" and claims to be that entity when it is in fact not. This is false information, and needs to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.157.11 (talk) 04:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not at all ok with removal of information, but if you can propose specific language which you think would express this better, I'm happy with it. Tb (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have added to the lead text which may meet your concerns. Tb (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * i appreciate that you additions reflect a more neutral stance. but the truth is that there is one entity, a corporation, that is legally recognized as the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, and then there is this group which "claims" to be the same entity. There are not two equal groups "claiming" to be the same thing. Perhaps an accurate article about the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh would say that from its founding until October 2008, it was a diocese within the episcopal church. and following the convention that voted to withdraw from the episcopal church a group remained claiming to be the diocese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.157.11 (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * and the fact is that there are *two* groups which claim to be that thing. We must not take any stance on the question so long as it remains controversial.  Please review WP:NPOV.  Tb (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know what else to say other than what you claim is not true or factual. There is a corporation named "The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh" and this is not it. if you want to say that a group of people claim to be that entity then do so, but to simply use Wikipedia to make your claim is untruthful, and at the very least not a neutral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.157.11 (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not what I claim, it's what the Episcopal Church claims. But this page does not make any statements about the corporation.  There are two organizations, both using the same name, and that's simply a fact.  And indeed, they dispute about which has the right to use that name.  All Wikipedia can do is repeat that both make the claim.  I have not said that either claim is correct, and that is exactly what neutrality is.  You are insisting that one claim is correct, and the other is not, and that is exactly what we mean by a non-neutral point of view.  Tb (talk) 06:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What you are insisting on reporting here is false. It doesn't matter who is making this claim -- it is not true until it's proven. Additionally, the article does not say that "a group of people claim to be" or "the episcopal church claims to be," it says that this "IS" the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, and that's just wrong. I will repeat my point that these are not two equal factions vying for the right to the same name -- this is a group of people who disagreed with the decision of a corporation and decided to leave that corporation, and now "CLAIM" to be that corporation. that is what this page should say. Additionally, you have not even cited where the Episcopal Church makes this claim! Please also note that the link with reference to the 66 parishes is broken. I can't find any evidence on the website, www.episcopalpgh.org, that would suggest that the diocese has 66 parishes or 20,000 members. Perhaps you can find that and cite it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.157.11 (talk) 11:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Many people make false claims every day. And, when they are notable, Wikipedia certainly does report that they have made that claim.  There is no rule that Wikipedia remains silent unless the claim is proved.  Indeed, what Wikipedia does not do - and you would know this if you would READ WP:V - is get into the question of which claims are true and which are false. Further, if you'll look, the page here states that the size of the diocese before the schism was 66 parishes.  Tb (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * May I again suggest that the opening sentence read then, "A group of people, dissenting from the 2008 Diocesan Convention, have claimed to be The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburg within The Episcopal Church." That would be doing exactly what you just said: making the claim known without taking a side. What I object to is that this article is currently taking the side of those that remain with The Episcopal Church. The article says that this "IS" the diocese of pittsburgh. and the fact is that it is not. Wikipedia does not have to remain silent on the issue, but this article does have to accurately represent the truth of the situation, not your bias on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.157.11 (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A If we can put similar text on Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Southern Cone), sure. How about there, "A group of people, dissenting from the polity of the Episcopal Church, have claimed to remove the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh from the Episcopal Church."  I have no objection, provided we say similar things.  If we say widely disparate things, then we would be taking a stand on which group has the valid claim, which Wikipedia must not do.  Tb (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * The diocese kept the name "Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh" because that is what they have always been. It is the same diocese, not a new one. The diocese has said that they do not believe "The Episcopal Church" has the exclusive rights to the name "Episcopal." I suppose for that reason, they did not consider changing the name. Rhwc (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: ECUSA. This may be beating a dead horse, but the Fall 2008 issue of From the Mountain: A Publication of the School of Theology at the University of the South, twice (pp. 6 and 37) and refers to the Most Rev. Katherine Jefferts Schori as presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America. clariosophic (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"Accession"
"Accession" is an obscure word in this context, and I don't see this covered in the nearest citation. Could this sentence be clarified? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * On November 2, 2007, the Diocese of Pittsburgh voted to change its constitution to remove accession to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. (Constitutional changes require votes at two successive annual conventions.)


 * It's the term used by the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church to refer to the allegiance the diocese owes to the national church, and which establishes the superiority of the national canons to diocesan canons. Tb (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * How about something like "withdraw allegiance" or some other expression that would make sense to the lay reader? Or explain what "accession" means in the text. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's an ordinary English word being used in its normal sense; it's just the sense in which a nation could accede to a treaty or a demand. Tb (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Google only find 43 hits for "remove accession" on the entire internet, most dealing with this matter. I understand it's a term in Episcopal governance. I also think it's unnecessarily obscure. But maybe it's just me. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't mind changing the term; I'm ambivalent about the matter. My own tendency is to prefer precise language to easily comprehensible language, so I err on the other side as a rule. Tb (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Schism
"Schism" here sounds rather POV against Duncan and those recognised by the Southern Cone. Because I'm a Presbyterian (we use this word to indicate those leaving unjustly), I'm not that familiar with the terminology of the Anglican Communion, but wouldn't "split" be a much more neutral term? Nyttend (talk) 03:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Schism" is just the word for "church split". Tb (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)