Jump to content

Talk:Anglican Diocese of Quincy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Realignment Issues

[edit]

I would like to discuss the last paragraph of the realignment section of this article:

"The Episcopal Church's Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, stated that "The Episcopal Diocese of Quincy remains, albeit with fewer members".[2] The legality of these secession actions is not supported by either the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church (which does not provide for annulment or secession by a diocese) or those of the Province of the Southern Cone (which does not provide for dioceses outside southern South America).[7] As a consequence, the long-term effect of these votes is unclear, as with similar actions in the Diocese of San Joaquin and the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh; those two dioceses have each split into two factions, with each faction claiming to be the legitimate succession of the traditional diocese."

Perhaps the author of this paragraph could cite exactly what the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church say about dioceses withdrawing membership(or not withdrawing membership as the case may be.) It is a very large document, and to simply cite the whole thing to prove a point isn't particularly helpful.

Also, The constitution of the Province of the Southern Cone is pretty clear that any diocese that "voluntary declares itself as an integral member" is eligible for membership in the province. The use of the term "and" in that sentence instead of other phrases like "in addition to" or "as well as" identifies the geographic location and the voluntary declarations as being two separate qualifiers.

In either the case of the Southern Cone or the Episcopal Church, this paragraph in the article seems to be giving a legal opinion. I am not sure that the author is qualified to give such an opinion on legality, and I'm not sure that Wikipedia accepts legal opinions as being neutral. This is what sparked my original citation of NPOV. Please discuss. Rhwc (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't recall who authored it, but that isn't important. As to the first, the Constitution and Canons make no mention of dioceses leaving the Episcopal Church, seceding, or annulling. That's what the sentence says. This is a negative claim; it's a claim that something is not in the document. Accordingly, it is the whole document which needs to be cited. Alternatively, we could cite each canon, one at a time, and say "not there", "not there", "not there", ..., for each one, but that seems like a bad idea.
As to the second, the "any diocese" is precisely the part which is controversial. What it says is not that any diocese that volutarily declares itself, but rather, that any diocese in certain countries which does so.
There is no rule about "legal opinions" here; we are simply citing the source and observing what it does or does not say. If you would like to propose a better way to explain the same point, feel free, but I cannot agree to a proposal which says we should simply not say anything about it. Tb (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence currently reads, "The legality of these secession actions is not supported by either the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church..." this is not true. The reality is that the constitution and canons say nothing about the matter--they do not support the legality of either position of the controversy. The way it sounds now would infer that it would be illegal for the diocese of quincy to annul its membership, when the reality is the constitutions and canons say nothing at all. I think it would be more neutral to say something like, "The constitution and canons of the episcopal church does not contain any information that would help the church to discern the outcome."
In the case of the Southern Cone documents, it is your opinion here versus mine. The statement "...Southern Cone (which does not provide for dioceses outside southern South America)" is in my opinion, false. In my legal opinion there is no objectionable material contained in the constitution of the southern cone that would prohibit these dioceses from becoming members. Nevertheless, these are our two legal opinions on the document. What I object to is not your right to an opinion, but rather that you cite your opinion as coming out of the document [7]. Nowhere in that cited document does it contain that sentence. The statement in which you cite the Southern Cone constitution is really your own personal opinion, and have no place in this article. Rhwc (talk) 03:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This change was the one that introduced the wording. I've made new changes to make the statements less interpretive:
  • changed the sentence that starts "The legality of these secession actions is not supported" to one that says "The legitimacy of other secession actions has been actively challenged";
  • noted the TEC's stated position (with reference);
  • changed "does not provide for annulment or secession" to "Neither secession nor annulment of accession is provided for" — but this needs a reference from a reliable source, and maybe the reliable-source position of realigning dioceses in relation to this lack of provision (e.g. whether they believe it is simply addressed as no prohibition, or whether they believe TEC's canons have no legal control of other entities, etc.);
  • changed "does not provide for dioceses outside southern South America" to "unclear as to whether the province may include dioceses", along with a statement about accepting dioceses "on an emergency and pastoral basis".
Hopefully this will help. Also, we may be getting ahead of ourselves in this article if we add too much detail that, in fact, is about other dioceses so far; Quincy hasn't actually faced legal squabbles yet. Some of this stuff would be appropriate for Anglican realignment instead, though. That article doesn't even state what pro- or anti-realignment advocates rely on for their interpretations; it only implies that they must each have one somehow, because there was a California Court of Appeals case about it. --Closeapple (talk) 04:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel article Episcopal Diocese of Quincy

[edit]

Currently the Episcopal Diocese article is a redirect here, but I think the structure of having parallel articles (as we do for San Joaquin and Pittsburgh) is an effective one. Probably it is too soon to write the Episcopal article until we have more reports about what measures TEC is taking for establishing non-realigned structures in Western Illinois, but for the time being, I have made certain categories that apply to the Episcopal concept of Quincy, and not to the Southern Cone concept of Quincy, into invisible comments.

Furthermore, with all three of these dioceses, I think we need to think about changing the map used for the Southern Cone version of the articles. The maps show the Episcopal diocesan boundaries, which are not relevant for Southern Cone polities (the boundaries of the diocese in question may be the same, but the map for the Diocese of Quincy also shows the border between the Diocese of Western Michigan and the Diocese of Michigan, for example, which have nothing to do with the Southern Cone. New maps should be drawn showing some kind of grey area between Quincy and Pittsburgh (extra-territorial area, like Canada), and showing where these are located in relation to Uruguay, Argentina, etc.--Bhuck (talk) 08:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've dropped the maps from these pages; interested parties should feel free to put up new ones without TEC diocesan boundaries that give an incorrect impression. Tb (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need a new Episcopal map, too, showing a grey area where the Episcopal Church used to have a diocese in Western Illinois? Unlike the other cases, where we do have parallel articles, here, where we don't, it might be good to retain the map--or which article does 815 Second Avenue think refers to the body to which Episcopalians in Western Illinois (and their parishes) belong?--Bhuck (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have to wait and see how things shake up in Illinois. I simply haven't heard about plans for what the Episcopal Church will do in this area. Tb (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the IP has given us some hints in this regard. [1] --Bhuck (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to clean up some "citation needed" points in the historical section and have searched in vain for anything to back up the claim that the Anglo-Catholic character of the diocese extends to the days of its founding in the mid-19th century. A normally-reliable 1884 (approximately contemporary with the 1877 founding) reference contains not a hint. Robert Prichard's History of the EC mentions that the Illinois delegation voted unanimously in favor of an anti-Oxford resolution at the 1844 General Convention, a vote which must surely have included people who were later in the dio of Quincy. Unless someone has a reference for this claim I think it should go.Rose bartram (talk) 01:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the 1844 resolution is helpful to determine the character of the diocese in 1877--this is not for theological, but for demographic reasons. The population center of the state of Illinois at its founding in 1818 was decidedly in the southwest, with the capital at Kaskaskia and most people living along river valleys. The prairie areas were largely unsettled, and before the introduction of tile drains, and a particular plow type (forget the name, but useful in mucky soils), and the railroad, largely unsuitable for settlement, and Chicago was just a frontier post of little significance (Fort Dearborn). This was only beginning to change in the 1840's, as the capital (after having been relocated to Vandalia) moved to Springfield. But in the 1850's, with the introduction of the railroad lines, you get much more rapid settlement, and by the 1870's, Chicago has come to demographically dominate the state, which is why it became practical to divide into three dioceses. I suspect you will find many parishes founded in the 1850s and 1860s, many of them founded by people moving in from the east. So many of the founders of the Diocese of Quincy, although they might have been born in 1844, may not yet have been confirmed, and their parents might have been electing General Convention delegates in dioceses further east. I will agree with you, however, that the claim is still unsourced. "Not a hint" does not disprove the thesis, but it does not prove it, either. My instinct tells me the claim is probably true, actually, but that is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. :-) --Bhuck (talk) 08:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also: § Realignment of article content --Closeapple (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

map

[edit]

An editor keeps wanting to add an inappropriate map here, which shows TEC diocesan boundaries: boundaries that are not relevant to this non-EC diocese which itself doesn't respect or regard those boundaries as of consequence. If we want a map that shows the territory this diocese claims, that's fine, but showing other TEC diocesan boundaries on it suggests incorrectly that this diocese has anything to do with TEC, which it patently does not. Tb (talk) 03:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The map says nothing about TEC; it is clearly marked as being for historical reference purposes. The parishes of the diocese are in fact located in this area and both sides of this contriversy say that this is where the diocese is. The map makes the article more informative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.96.101 (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The map includes diocesan boundaries in states outside Illinois, which are not part of the diocese (i.e. between the Diocese of Western Michigan and the Diocese of Michigan). This is not relevant for a Southern Cone diocese, since the Southern Cone does not claim any jurisdiction in Michigan nor recognize any jurisdictional boundaries there--that is an extra-provincial area. But I think maybe elaborating on the caption is the way to go--I will try a modification of your suggestion and we can see how that works.--Bhuck (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better if there were a map which showed the location of Diocese of Quincy parishes without boundaries--that would show where the parishes are located, but not imply that the neighboring dioceses had agreed to cede a part of Illinois to the Southern Cone. As the reorganization process in Quincy progresses with an orderly administration of parishes remaining loyal to the Episcopal Church, maybe we should split the article as we have done with San Joaquin, Pittsburgh and Fort Worth.--Bhuck (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Episcopal Diocese has now reformed and a split article has been started. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WestArdmore (talk • contribs) 01:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC) (+')[reply]

The map description seems to me much less important than the title of the article, which as it stands is very confusing. I think the priority should be changing the title of this article to "diocese of quincy (southern cone)", making "diocese of quincy" a disambiguation page whether or not the future "diocese of quincy (episcopal church)" article exists yet. Maybe it would be a reasonable compromise to label the map "Episcopal diocesan boundaries in the midwest, with the location of the overlapping Quincy dioceses (Southern Cone and Episcopal) in red." Both articles must ultimately be NPOV; the division cannot be allowed to become a POV split because it just isn't Wiki to do that. So, neither article can imply any POV as to the legitimacy of the other organization, and no label can be put under that map that wouldn't work if the same map were in a different article. Just my two cents.Rose bartram (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll deal with the article titling business. What we need is a map that shows the boundaries the SC diocese claims, and no other ecclesiastical boundaries at all. That would be entirely unobjectionable, but nobody has ponied up and contributed it. Tb (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the kind of map we need, though it could include other Southern Cone boundaries (i.e. show where Quincy is in relationship to Pittsburgh, Fort Worth, Uruguay, etc).--Bhuck (talk) 06:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't the map's current caption resolve the possible NPOV issues? I'm inclined to think the NPOV tag can probably come down. Dgf32 (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article seems appropriately neutral to me and I think the tag should go.74.212.8.41 (talk) 12:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

[edit]

This diocese is now a member of the Anglican Church in North America and the article title should be changed to reflect that. Thanks. Ltwin (talk) 04:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Personal Ordinariate

[edit]

Apart from the Traditional Anglican Communion, the article should really consider verifying whether groups within the Diocese of Quincy (Southern Cone) have ever sought a similar canonical structure to the proposed personal ordinariates. ADM (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Diocese of Quincy (ACNA). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Diocese of Quincy (ACNA). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Diocese of Quincy (ACNA). 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Diocese of Quincy (ACNA). 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Realignment of article content

[edit]

Before 2008, there was a single Diocese of Quincy, and a single Wikipedia article named "Episcopal Diocese of Quincy". In 2008, it schismed, as did several other Episcopal/Anglican dioceses in the United States, in what was called Anglican realignment. On Wikipedia at the time, the path of least drama apparently to fork the content into two articles for schisming dioceses, so that adherents of each side could feel like "their" subject was the one with the full treatment. But that's against Wikipedia guidelines: It's somewhere between the two types of unacceptable types of forking. And it's been over 10 years, which ought to be long enough for any zealots to have moved on, or at least be weak enough that normal Wikipedia consensus can end any drama from doing the right thing by Wikipedia standards.

The two resulting articles in 2008 were Diocese of Quincy (ACNA) (which I'll call article A) and the present Episcopal Diocese of Quincy (which I'll call article E).

In the spirit of Wikipedia:Be bold, I intend to consolidate most of the duplicate content into one of the articles, and leave the other subject's article with mostly the information that differs from the other subject since 2008. Absent consensus otherwise, I intend to leave article A as the "long" article, and make article E the "short" article, for two reasons based on neutral Wikipedia guidelines rather than religious reasons:

  1. Article A is the original article with the oldest Wikipedia history, dating back to 2006-06-05 as "Episcopal Diocese of Quincy", and renamed 2008-11-09 to "Diocese of Quincy", then 2009-04-06 to "Diocese of Quincy (Southern Cone)", then 2012-03-01 to "Diocese of Quincy (ACNA)". Article E was created as a blatant copy-paste fork over the top of the existing redirect on 2009-04-05. It's had substantially the same content as article A since. This is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines: Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Content forking, which notes "some situations in Wikipedia where copying may not be appropriate, such as if two articles are being created on the same subject because editors of the original cannot agree on the article's development". The usual response on Wikipedia to a content fork is to eliminate the copy-paste version.
  2. The subject of article E, that which remained Episcopal throughout, no longer exists: The Episcopal Diocese of Quincy reintegrated into the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago from which it was split in 1877. Since it's a matter of point-of-view whether one or the other subjects existed before 2008, but it's undisputed that the subject of article E no longer exists, it makes more sense to retain the long-term history in article A, since that is the subject that will continue to generate new facts to add to the history in the future.

After the article realignment (so to speak), it will be clear what parts of the Diocese of Quincy history are lacking proper treatment: basically everything before 2008. I'll leave this discussion open for a very short time in case there are any points that would change the interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines. But I intend to make the change shortly, as a large part of the change is just the removal of copy-paste with not much editing. After that, perhaps people could work on the 1877–2008 details, since they won't have to worry about keeping duplicates in sync across two articles. --Closeapple (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anglican_Diocese_of_Quincy&oldid=1198745208"