Talk:Reformed Episcopal Church/Archive 1

Update needed?
The article on Anglican Province of America contradicts this article: it says that the Church of Nigeria has reached an intercommunion agreement with the REC. Chonak (talk) 06:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Romeward-movements?
The meaning of "Romeward-movements" may not be as clear to a lay reader as it is to you and I. Is there another way we can phrase this? -- Secisek (talk) 00:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The references substantiate and enlarge well enough on what romeward means. (WilliamGoode (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)WilliamGoode)

No more
Someone indicated no more changes by me to the website. Sheesh, have several hundred volumes here for development. (WilliamGoode (talk) 03:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC))


 * I looked through the history of the talk page, your talk page, and the edit summaries and I did not see any indication of that. Keep editing and adding citations. --Secisek (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

What kind of bigotries and anti-scholarship just happened? Tons of solid materials disappeared. What's your agenda secisek? U need to put it all back. There were tons of solid references. And more to come. And you Anglo-Catholic? Thanks for the motivation, if you are. i just received an invite to write book reviews--as of today, two invites---for international organizations. U bigotedly excise here? U motivate me.

Sheer anti-scholarship and you don't have the credentials to oppose me. I am angry and righteously so.

William —Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamGoode (talk • contribs) 05:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * William, it's awefully hard to tell what you're responding to. Secisek here suggests that you continue to edit, and says nothing hostile I can see. I do see that a different user has altered some of your recent edits.  Please remember that Wikipedia is cooperative, and not about owning articles.  Work together with that other user (not secisek) to come to a consensus position on what the article should be.  Please remember that credentials don't count for much in Wikipedia.  Tb (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have restored William's latest edit to the site, and I would encourage the other editor ("Royalrec1") to engage in good-faith conversation about any differences he may have. Tb (talk) 06:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Secisek did say to post. I did, adding some academic reference, as scholarship indeed requires. I proceeded accordingly. He was not hostile. Yet, when I arrived, I way Royalrec1's unjust, unscholarly, unwarranted and unjustified excisions---without comment or merit.

Royalrec1 is Bishop Royal Grote of the REC, probably the number 2 man in the REC. He has a bad-faith agenda in factoring off over 75% of the article, including sage, documentable, downloadable, verifiable sources. Let him discuss his points here, before he takes to the delete button. I have over 367 books here on file about this issue.

Grote is the last person to be objective. Let Grote discuss these things here, objectively, point by point, reference by reference, sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph. HE does not want the facts out. Fear does not trump truth.

William. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamGoode (talk • contribs) 07:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for un-doing the doings of a POV-ridden excision without facts or rebuttal. Again, thank you. (WilliamGoode (talk) 08:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC))

Again, secisek or fellow-editor, so many thanks for allowing URL's, books and verifable documents to stand without repression, fearful obfuscation, or revisionism. I deeply appreciate it. Some 300+ books here on the issue to further amplify in days to come. (WilliamGoode (talk) 08:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)_


 * It is perfectly fair for you to ask Royalrec1 to explain his changes, in fact, for you to insist that he do so. But it is a cardinal principle of Wikipedia that we WP:Assume Good Faith in interacting with each other. If you can't do that, then it may be time to take a breather for a bit; only you can say.  Keep in mind that Wikipedia does not require edit summaries, but in this case, Royalrec1 did offer one.  It is not correct to say he made his changes "without comment".  His summary was only that--a summary, but it was a comment.  It is fair for you to ask him for elaboration, but please don't insist that he is acting in bad faith.  Tb (talk) 08:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. None. The only thing I have done to this article was I advised you on the headings and I put some of your reference down in the notes section. I have not engaged in any "anti-scholarship" and even if I had, my churchmanship or my "credentials" would not prevent me from making whatever edits I saw fit. I recomend you check out List of policies.

Some growing discomfort
Many recent changes bother me in two POV-related ways. One is the apparent desire to describe recent moves in the REC as a betrayal of its fundamental heritage. Surely this is a POV problem, for it is unlikely that we would find the leaders of the REC agreeing with that assessment. Second, and related, is a desire to describe the English Reformation in a way entirely agreeable to the founders of the REC. This is both a POV problem and an off-topic problem. Many of the recent changes also have serious problems in grammar and flow, as if point after point is being added to underscore both these problematic elements, and little attention is being paid to the flow or character of the article as a whole. Can we describe these changes in such a way that isn't so clearly hostile to the REC? I'm particularly worried by WilliamGoode's assertions above that a clumsy edit by Royalrec1 was a "censorship" attempt, trying to "hide the truth". This makes it seem as if there is some attempt being made to "expose the truth", and this worries me. Tb (talk) 09:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup 2008-12-24
I did some clean-up on the article today:

(1) I broke the long section on "the REC of yesterday" into two parts: the material on the REC's doctrine of ministry, and the more recent status developments, including the REC's relations with other Continuing bodies.

(2) A bunch of the "references" were just promoting where to get Google Books downloads of great Anglican authors' works, and I took them out. They were not bad content, but they didn't belong in this article. Maybe there's some confusion about what references are for in an encyclopedia, so I'll explain. References are added in order to provide the particular documentation (right down to the page number) that backs up particular assertions made in this article. Obviously those promotional links were not fulfilling that function. They were just describing material of general interest. They might be more appropriate as resource links under the respective articles about those authors.

(3) I clarified the REC's membership in ACNA: REC is not "merged" into ACNA; the various jurisdictions within ACNA each still exist.

(4) I indented some quoted material (e.g., the 1873 Declaration) to set it off clearly against the WP article.

This article still needs a thorough review to clean up the prose (e.g., clarify missing antecedents).

Those of you who know REC history, could you please take some time to cite references for the existing content of the article? Practically every sentence could be followed with the markup "add reference"! And of course, if you add new assertions of fact to the article, please add a page reference to some published work to back up the assertion. Regards. Chonak (talk) 07:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Evangelical Connexion?
I'm confused--the page here, and Free Church of England, and every source I can find, say that the REC is in communion with the FCE. There is this other group, the Evangelical Connexion of the FCE, which as I understand it, is not part of the FCE (anymore) there having been a division. So, given that the FCE and the ECFCE are entirely separate groups, it seems fully sufficient to me to say that the REC is in communion with the FCE, and leave the ECFCE entirely out of it; it is (now) merely one more church that the REC is not in communion with. Moreover, as I understand the situation, the ECFCE is not a "part" of the FCE, it is a group which left the FCE. So there is nothing confusing about referring to the FCE as such, without extra parentheticals to the ECFCE. I think that explains fully why saying "not in communion with the ECFCE" need not be in the article. As for external links, there is especially no need--even if the ECFCE is mentioned in the article, there is still no reason for an external link to it. Tb (talk) 21:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The FCE organization has been officially in communion with REC since 1927, and that hasn't changed, AFAIK. Was the REC-FCE relationship a cause of the split within the FCE?     If REC was a contributing factor, it's an interesting fact and should probably be mentioned in this article.  If not, there's not much reason to bring the FCE split issue into REC's article.


 * I take it there's some dispute about whether the FCE or the EC-FCE is entitled to call itself the "real" Free Church of England.  If so, it's not our place as WP editors to make any judgment about that.   All we can and should do is call organizations by the names by which they are known to the public.   It appears that the dissenting group is known as the EC-FCE and the remaining group has the organizational name FCE, and thus it is proper to write in WP that FCE continues to be in communion with REC.   If that's not the correct state of these organizations' names, please provide some information to clarify the current state of these organizations.


 * Are the FCE and the EC-FCE in communion with each other?  If they are not, and permanently not, then that's pretty good evidence that they are distinct communities and no longer two factions of one community.   That supports Tb's argument.   Chonak (talk) 08:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

POV problem about Anglican membership?
The following paragraph was taken out by a recent editor with an edit summary saying it was POV. I'm entirely unclear what the problem is, but I'm happy to discuss fixing it provided we don't just not mention the facts here. Text: "Although the Reformed Episcopal Church describes itself as Anglican, and uses traditional Anglican liturgies, it has never been since its founding in 1873 recognized as being part of the Anglican Communion by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and its bishops have never been invited to participate in the Lambeth Conferences". Tb (talk) 04:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The statement is unsourced, and, unlike the Catholic Church, Abp Canterbury is not empowered to grant or remove communion, and therefore it would be a false statement. Further it introduces a definition of what constitutes "Anglican" which is novel and unsourced.Oresteia (talk) 04:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added a fact tag, which is always fine to request a source. POV problems are distinct from source problems.  The sentence, afaict, does not define "Anglican", but rather "Anglican Communion".  Is it the adversative "although" which is posing the problem, by implying that the Anglican claim is mistaken?  Tb (talk) 05:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's irrelevent. You've gone off on a rabbit-trail for some sort of weird POV you are pushing.  This is not the place to invent your own definition of what the word "Anglican" is or some other hair-splitting variation.  It is not relevant to the article.  This belongs on your own user space.  Oresteia (talk) 05:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The article has mentioned this for a long time. Instead of saying it's "POV pushing", can you please explain what POV you think it's pushing?  It is a fact that the REC has never been recognized by anyone as a member of the Anglican Communion.  I'm happy to provide references, and I'm doing so, if you'll just be a tad patient.Tb (talk) 05:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I invite the comments of other editors about this issue:
 * In a page which is careful to identify the in-communion relations of the REC, is it appropriate to also mention that the REC has never been part of the Anglican Communion?
 * How much detail should we go into about what that means in the article? Tb (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is absolutely appropriate to mention that it has never been part of the Anglican Communion, since membership in the Anglican Communion is something that many readers will associate with Anglicanism, simply on the basis of membership numbers. Furthermore, as far as "membership" goes, the ACNA membership is a puzzling issue.  Are the individual REC members also ACNA members, or does the ACNA have no individual members but represent simply a confederation of churches, and church membership for individuals is in a member church (like the National Council of Churches, or the Anglican Communion itself)?--Bhuck (talk) 10:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As for the ACNA, who knows? They haven't said.  Tb (talk) 11:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the statement reliably sourced if they haven't said, or is this simply speculation, then, that the REC is itself a member, rather than that the former REC members are now ACNA members?--Bhuck (talk) 11:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I think I may have misunderstood the question. It is clear that, at the moment, the REC is a member of ACNA.  What is not clear is whether the REC (and other jurisdictions) will cease to exist as distinct entities, or what the status of individuals is. Tb (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Intercommunion with APA?
The text currently says that REC has not entered full communion with APA. Is that correct? The APA web site (linked -- currently this is note 12) has the text of the agreement, which allows for intercommunion, exchange of ministers, and participation in ordinations. That seems to be full communion. Or is there something lacking in the current agreements which makes them fall short of full communion? Chonak (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Reading the 2005 APA-Nigeria-REC agreement, I see that it indicates explicitly that full communion has not been reached.Chonak (talk) 07:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Doctrinal controversies
Based on the material in this article, it appears that there has been some theological controversy among REC members. The section on the Declaration of Principles ends with a sentence indicating such debate:

"Some in the Church have described these principles as the product of their times, while others decry this description as a subversion of the principles themselves."

The section on REC's relations with other Anglican bodies indicates some conflict, even in phrases such as "splits have been largely averted"; and of course the trecus links have relevant material.

Can someone bring together these points together to indicate what issues have been involved and how long the conflict has been documented? Chonak (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC), revised Chonak (talk) 02:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * An anonymous editor at 68.80.184.155 has made a couple of edits on 1 March 2009 and 9 March 2009 (deletion/vandalism) to the trecus.net external link "Historical documents and commentary on the Reformed Episcopal Church, from a perspective opposed to recent trends".   I reverted both edits.  I invite 68.80.184.155 to address any concerns he has on the discussion page, because I think this article still is not covering controversies within the REC, well enough. Chonak (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Full Communion with only part of the Anglican Communion?
Since November 12, 2005, the REC has been in full communion with the Church of Nigeria. Does this make the REC be indirectly in communion with those churches with which the Nigerian church is in communion?--Bhuck (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No. "In communion with" is not a transitive relation. Tb (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But if, say, the ministry is interchangeable, could a REC minister function in CANA, for example? And if he were doing so, perhaps he could then get another letter of transfer (citing his status as a Nigerian priest) to function in the Church of the West Indies?  Or would the Church of the West Indies require him to be re-ordained or something?--Bhuck (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not an expert on differing canon law in different places. But one example in the Episcopal Church might help. We are in communion with the ELCA; they are in communion with the Presbyterian Church (USA). If a PCUSA minister transfers to the ELCA, can he then transfer to the Episcopal Church without episcopal ordination?  No.  The special exception for the ELCA applies only to the ELCA and its ordinations, not just to any ordination that it happens to recognize. And still less could a PCUSA minister transfer directly to the Episcopal Church without re-ordination on the theory that the ELCA is "in the middle".  But the Episcopal Church does recognize all episcopal ordinations in the apostolic succession even if not in communion with us. If a Roman Catholic priest joins the Episcopal Church, then he can be received into the clergy without re-ordination, provided the other canonical requirements are met. Tb (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * On reading the REC-APA-Nigeria agreement of 2005, it is clear that the three bodies considered full communion an objective for future efforts, so I have revised this article to remove the error. REC and Nigeria are not in full communion as of 2005. Chonak (talk) 07:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Size of seminaries
So if you poke around, you can indeed find out that of the three seminaries, one has fifteen students--half of them full time--one expects to graduate three students, and the other has suspended its MDiv program for the meanwhile. This justifies the label "small" in my opinion. I've added references. Also, I've deleted the claim of twenty-five faculty members. I can provide the reference for the size of the resident faculty of each institution if needed. Tb (talk) 09:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Quality?
Is it time to give this article an upgrade from "Start" to "C" on the quality scale? Chonak (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We still need more references, but I think we have enough to warrant a C. Tb (talk) 06:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Free Church of England
Commented out the following:


 * This is an error that would seem to come from a misunderstanding of the full name of the FCA, seldom used, "Free Church of England, otherwise called the Reformed Episcopal Church in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland," referring to the merger with the American REC's British branch, which is thus defunct.
 * (comment above was posted by an anonymous editor)
 * The purpose of the tag was to refer intra-English disputes (between the FCE and EC-FCE) to the FCE article. If that is no longer an issue, then dropping the tag is reasonable. Chonak (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge in seminaries?
The seminaries' separate articles do not appear to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines: that is, there may be little to no independently published material in secondary sources about them. Would it be suitable to combine the pertinent material from those articles into the main REC article under the "Seminaries" section and drop the separate pieces? Chonak (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. It was from the faculty figures on those two articles (14 and 11) (the third article gave no figure), that I reached my total of "at least 25 faculty" which you or Tb removed from the article.  You guys may be right, but then the articles are wrong.--Bhuck (talk) 09:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm the one who took out a reference to 25 faculty. Some of the seminaries' web sites list their faculty, so you can probably get specific counts there.   The separate articles on the seminaries have little to no citation of references.  But is it worthwhile to add documentation there, rather than just merge the info into this article?   Chonak (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I took out the count because, in a brief look at the seminaries' sites, it was strikingly high, unless we count as faculty people who are teaching a single course. In terms of full-time faculty, the numbers are quite small.  If we just say they are small seminaries, that's fine with me; it was an urge to "document" the smallness that the counting all started.  They are small, and have very few students.  Tb (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've pulled text from the seminary references and from the seminaries' separate articles into this one, but skipped mission statements and similar promotional material.  Considering the small numbers of courses being taught at any of these institutions, it may not be very meaningful to speak of "full-time" faculty.  Chonak (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree completely: which simply substantiates the smallness of the institutions. Tb (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Description of REC-ACNA relation
An edit by Bhuck described the relation of REC and ACNA as follows:
 * The Reformed Episcopal Church (REC) is a founding member of the Anglican Church in North America. Although the ACNA is not a member of the Anglican Communion, the REC seems to believe that it will become a member of the Anglican Communion by way of its membership in ACNA, while avoiding any relationship with the Episcopal Church, which is currently a member of the Anglican Communion; this is predicated on the assumption that the ACNA would replace the Episcopal Church as a member of the Anglican Communion. As a first step in this direction, the REC reached an agreement of intercommunion with the Anglican Communion's Church of Nigeria on 2005-11-12.

This is plainly argumentative. "REC seems to believe" even sounds sarcastic. "As a first step in this direction" imputes motivation to REC, without citing a source. I have rephrased this, making a best effort to stick to facts and preserve neutral tone. Chonak (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with your change. I agree that the tone is more neutral, both more neutral than my version, as well as more neutral than the version to which I was reacting.  Sometimes when I cannot think of an NPOV formulation myself, I simply make the POV so obvious that it occurs to someone else to take it out, which in this case worked very well.  Claiming that "The Reformed Episcopal Church (REC) seeks membership in the Anglican Communion by way of the Anglican Church in North America,..." was clearly somewhat problematic.  The previous editor, who put that claim in, was probably reacting in turn to the claim that the REC had never sought membership in the Anglican Communion.  The current version simply leaves it ambiguous as to whether or not the REC has sought such membership, which accurately reflects reality, while not making so explicit some of the apparent contradictions that may or may not underlie seeking it in such a fashion as they are (or are not) attempting.--Bhuck (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The talk page is a good place to raise concerns about POV phrasing, and doing so on the talk page has the advantage of not worsening the problem you want to address. Chonak (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Worsening the problem" is itself POV. Making a problem more obvious does not always worsen it.  Implicit and hidden POV is not better than obvious and glaring POV.  If a comment on the talk page had produced equally effective results, it would have been a good place to raise the concern, but it is now too late to try such an experiment.  Let's just be glad about the current situation of the article without worrying too much about how we got here.--Bhuck (talk) 07:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Question about African-American congregations in SC
An editor left this unsigned comment in the article, after "At the time of its founding, the REC accepted existing congregations of African-Americans in the Lowcountry of South Carolina who felt they were neglected by the Episcopal Church":
 * Did the REC also accept existing congregations of European-Americans elsewhere who felt that Protestantism was being undermined by the pernicious influences of tractarianism? It is unclear just how this constitutes a "Relation with another jurisdiction" (a cannibalistic relation?)
 * At present no one has provided a reference about that transfer of congregations from the PEC to the REC.  It would be helpful to confirm whether the reasons for the transfer were theological or social or both.    In any case, I agree that putting this sentence under "Relations with other jurisdictions" is not ideal.  For now it seems best, since there is no other material in the article yet about the post-founding history of the denomination, its regional growth, etc., but if people add some information along that line, it will of course make sense to move the sentence about the SC black congregations there.  Chonak (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have moved this sentence to start a section on "Early Growth" of the REC. Chonak (talk) 05:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was the editor who left the unsigned comment, and I think your move of the fact (and its documentation) constitute a great improvement. The "Early Growth" section does raise another question, however, when it says that membership included two bishops.  Aside from Cummins, who was the other bishop, and does the REC require three bishops to consecrate a new bishop?--Bhuck (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The second bishop was Charles Cheney: see Price, p. 269. Chonak (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He does not appear here, so the question arises, who consecrated him? Given the REC approach to the concept of the episcopacy, it might be that this was a deliberate break with apostolic succession?--Bhuck (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In the article references there's a link to Price's book on-line (Google Books); check p. 269 for the details.  I think she has info on other early REC bishops too.  Chonak (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I only get bibliographic information when I click on the link. I cannot read the pages.--Bhuck (talk) 12:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The link to Price's book is in reference #4 (the first one where the book is cited). Are you able to follow that link?   If not, you can download the book in PDF.  Chonak (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can follow the link, but it does not link to the book itself, but only to bibliographic information about the book. And the new link gives me the following error: The requested URL /books/pdf/A_History_of_the_Formation_and_Growth_of.pdf?id=BucTAAAAYAAJ&output=pdf&sig=ACfU3U21OsKmnWqEkQus5QiG3Amp4tuUtQ was not found on this server. --Bhuck (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've shortened the two links; would you try them again? Chonak (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Still the same results. The bibliographic information from the footnote link in the article includes a table of contents (but not in the scanned pdf version, instead an html text), and a google-map showing places around the world mentioned in the book.  The link on this page gives the error message: Not Found: The requested URL /books/pdf/A_History_of_the_Formation_and_Growth_of.pdf?id=BucTAAAAYAAJ&output=pdf was not found on this server.  Will google books display different results depending on the IP from which a visitor comes?  I am using a German IP, if that makes any difference (the legend of the map comes out in German, for example, and the heading for the table of contents is in German "Inhaltsverzeichnis", while the content itself is in English.--Bhuck (talk) 08:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds strange! Good luck. Chonak (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Episcopal consecration and succession in the REC
Does the REC believe in Apostolic succession in regard to its own episcopate?--Bhuck (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to the reference to List of bishops of the Reformed Episcopal Church, it would seem that the REC probably does not insist on having more than one bishop in apostolic succession doing the ordaining of new bishops. Presumably, neither Roman Catholic bishops nor those of the Episcopal Church would have been asked to assist Cummins in ordaining Cheney.  Barring unlikely possibilities such as the Swedish Lutherans or the Mar-Thoma Church being involved, it is hard to come up with plausible sources for other bishops who might have assisted Cummins.--Bhuck (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose merging the four seminary articles into the REC article.

As long-time editors are aware, WP has notability guidelines to help decide whether a person or institution is prominent enough to need its own WP article. The separate articles on the seminaries do not meet the Notability criteria for organizations, e.g., that they be the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.

All the material I have found about Cranmer House, Andrewes Hall, and Cummins Seminary is informational material published by the seminaries themselves or published by REC websites; these are of course not independent sources. If anyone can provide sources for some substantial independent coverage, that would provide a reason not to go through with a merger. But without that, I think the merger should be uncontroversial.

Of course, a merger of the articles does not imply that the institutions are not worthy; but merely that they are not widely known at present. If there is significant coverage later, then separate articles would be appropriate at that time. Chonak (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Complete agreement. Tb (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Merger completed. Chonak (talk) 10:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)