Talk:Episcopal Church (United States)/Archive 1

message: The Constitution of the Episcopal Church lists only two names:
*The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America
*The Episcopal Church
It is quite understandable to feel the latter to be awkward, especially given the Scottish Episcopal Church, the Episcopal Church of Mexico, and the other like named provinces in the Anglican Communion.  However, unlike all those others, its jurisdiction is not limited to just one country; the Episcopal Church has long included a substantial number of non-US dioceses.
At this point, basically nobody but nobody calls it the "Protestant Episcopal" anything, and the name is retained for historical reasons alone.  Indeed, a primary reason behind adding the name "The Episcopal Church" as an official name was precisely because it's not NPOV to say "Protestant", and the word irks many 
Anglicans
And, since it gets to decide its own name, it chooses not to piss off its own members outside the US, rather than worry about non-members in other Anglican churches around the world.  It's just one of those quaint little weirdnessess that is so common in Anglicanism. :)
I would be happy to add a disambiguator in parentheses, but only if it's accurate: and "United States" just wouldn't be accurate.
--Tb 23:38 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
----
There's nothing that says we have to have organizations under thier constitutional names; we have them under the most common, most recognizable, less ambigous name available. Episcopal Church, USA and ECUSA are used by the church it self on its website, I see no reason we can't use one of those here. The Episcopal Church could be the Scottish Episcopal Church, the Phillipine Episcopal Church, or the Episcopal Church in Jerusalem & the Middle East which has parishes in thirteen countries. - Efghij 00:37 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
----
We should have organizations either under their consitutional names, or under a correct descriptive name.  "Episcopal Church, USA" is, unfortunately, neither.  (Frankly, if it weren't likely to raise hackles, I would vote for just such a change of its name.)  I added a reference to the problem on the page itself, which seems like a good idea; if you can think of ways to improve it, that would be great too.
The church's website is (unfortunately) incorrect.  alas, they are trying to solve a hard problem.  As I said, I have no objection to a disambiguation, but it should be *correct* and not merely an oversimplification.  The issue isn't just that the Episcopal Church is in more than one country; as you point out, so is the Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and the Middle East.  But note that that latter name correctly describes the broad spread of that church.  If it were called "The Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and Egypt", it would be very wrongly titled.  Similarly, "USA" is just not an adequate descriptor of the name of the Episcopal Church.  If there were a good disambiguator, we could add it in parentheses.  I agree completely that we should try to do this.  But it needs to 
be correct.  The fact is that the actual reality (out there in the world) is confusingly ambiguous, and while we might prefer a more ordered reality (and it would be easier to describe in the encyclopedia!) we can't declare the reality changed just so that it's easier for us to describe.
It's a similar problem to the adjective "American"; regardless of whether it is or is not unambiguous, it's the adjective we've got.  We don't rename "The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America" just because the name is ambiguous between the continent and the country. 
 --Tb 00:45 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
----
It just strikes me as rather nitpicky to say that we can't call this Episcopal Church in the United States of America or Episcopal Church, USA or ECUSA because the church includes dioceses outside the US, when the church's own constitutional name includes "... in the United States of America". I agree that this may not be the best discription, but it used by the church itself so there is no reason that we can't use it. - Efghij 01:54 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
----
Well, we could certainly pick parts out of the two different names and fuse them together into a new name.  I think that, particularly with official organizations, part of the job of an Encyclopedia is to give the correct name.  Which is exactly what's going on here.  Certainly all those other possibilities should (and do) have redirects.  I welcome any suggestions for how to disambiguate it *accurately*.
The problem is that of the two names, the first is now disparaged, and the second is, well, it.  And was explicitly and deliberately chosen to not have "United States" in the name.
The rule of thumb, seems to me, should be: give the correct information, and if it's confusing, explain the confusion.  --Tb 02:00 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
----
I suppose it's fine now, the confusing aspects are explained. I changed the example to the Middle East, because I thought that was the Church most likely to be be thought of as the Episcopal Church. (because of the in) - Efghij 02:40 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Ok, perhaps it is.  It's one of the newest Provinces of the Anglican Communion (at least, with this name).  Actually, outside the US, even when "Episcopal" is an official part of the name, the word "Anglican" is more often heard, and I suspect this is true in the Middle East as well.  The only substantial exceptions are the Philippines and Scotland, I think.  It's also multinational, which makes it a better example too, I think.  --Tb 02:42 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
----
It is important to appreciate that just as the Episcopal Church in the USA has several acceptable names, "Scottish Episcopal Church" is not the only name of the episcopal church of Scotland. "Episcopal Church", "Episcopal Church of Scotland", "Scottish Episcopal Church", "Episcopal Church in Scotland" are all used. (the last can be found on the title page of the Scottish Book of Common Prayer). More generally, Episcopal can be a synonym for Anglican.
In other words, the Scottish church is not the <Scottish Episcopal> Church, it is the Scottish <Episcopal Church>. Wikipedia users from Scotland should not be faced with an article that says: 
'"The Episcopal Church" = (ECUSA)......The "Scottish Episcopal Church" on the other hand can be found (several paragraphs down)... '
So either the title should change or there should be a clear disambiguation paragraph _at the top_. Seeing as Scots are quite aware that theirs is not the only Episcopal Church in the world (is the same true the other way around?), I think the second option is probably more user-friendly. Andrew Yong 08:55, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: A note on naming

message: Right, is it just me, or does the new paragraph that has been added about the election of a homosexual bishop strike anyone else as seeming superfluous in context?  It doesn't fit the flow of the page, and, further, without having mentioned in depth other means by which the Episcopal Church traditionally defines itself on the page (e.g. scripture, reason, tradition; or the Book of Common Prayer) it seems rather strange to devote a paragraph to a simple matter of current events.  Besides, Gene Robinson covers the issue fully and within context.
I'm going to take down the paragraph; if anyone disagrees with my reasons, please throw your opinions up here on talk.  --Charleschuck 20:21, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, someone has elected to again add a paragraph about Robinson, and either they did not read talk, or felt it unnecessary to state their opinion.  Again, I think the issue is of historical importance, but without further historical information to put it in context, I still think it's superfluous.  Further, they have  covered this in General Convention.  Again, if there is any disagreement with my choice, please post your opinions up here.  --Charleschuck 03:32, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: new paragraph about the election of a homosexual bishop

message: The source of my recent edit comes directly from the Canon Law of the ECUSA. See Title II, Canon 7, Sec. 6, subsection B: It's reproduced here:
(b). It shall be the duty of the Custodian of the Standard Book of Common Prayer:
1. To arrange for the publication of such proposed revision;
2. To protect, by copyright, the authorized text of such revision, on behalf of the General Convention; which copyright shall be relinquished when such proposed revision or revisions shall have been adopted by the General Convention as an alteration of, or addition to, the Book of Common Prayer;
3. To certify that printed copies of such revision or revisions have been duly authorized by the General Convention, and that the printed text conforms to that approved by the General Convention. 
See http://www.mit.edu/~tb/anglican/legal/gc.canons.html. -iHoshie 10:06, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent edit on the BCP. 

message: No offence, but why should there be a template of approved translations of the bible on the translation's pages? If a person wants to know which translation are approved by the Episcopal Church, they would search for 'The Episcopal church'. As it is, the pages for several translations (none, I am aware of, are specific to the Episcopal Church) are now cluttered with an ugly template. Are we going add templates for all translations aproved by the Southern Baptist Convention, Latter-Day Saints, Local Church Movement, Watchtower Society, etc? The RSV and KJV would have dozens of little boxes at the bottom.
If there are no objections, I will be removing these soon.
::I am the user (hoshie) who added the EPUSA template. Feel free to remove it. @ first, I thought they were the only church that had a list of approved versions, hence the template. From reading I have done, other churches have lists too and as you said the boxes would become crappy after a while. Thanks for spotting this. - 65.184.227.24 10:30, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of approved translations template 

message: What is the difference? I know that Episcopalians don't follow the Pope. What else? Do E. believe in the Holy Trinity? Do they celebrate Mass or have a Holy Eucharist? Is there a stress on a particular doctrine, eg. Baptists with baptism, Pentecostals with gifts of the Holy Spirit, etc. Do the preachers, reverrends, etc. have to be celibate? Is there an official Episcopalian stand on abortion, cloning? Can woment be pastors, reverrends, etc.--Jondel 03:44, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This link should be helpful . This article and the article on the Anglican Communion should help as well.Rockhopper10r 13:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I have a new Episcopalian friend and just want to know how to relate to him.--Jondel 00:29, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Difference with other Christian groups

message: The paragraph as written implied that "High Church," "Low Church," etc. are specific churches; in fact, they are styles of worship. Within an individual parish, for example, there can be a "Low Church" service at one time and a "High Church" service at another. I have removed it for the sake of clarification.
There can be theological differences associated with each group, but those are a very marginal aspect of the Church as a whole, and don't really merit inclusion in a general article.
00527 14:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are definate differences between parishes and among parishoners and clergy in this regard. The article should have something about it. Jonathunder 14:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding "High Church" etc. in "The Church" 

message: I've added a succession box to the bottom of the Frank Grimes page.  Edmond Lee Browning is the previous presiding bishop but does not have a page.
It might be worthwhile to add pages for them.  Or perhaps not. Markkawika 13:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Presiding Bishops 

message: The adjective in the title, describing the church, is "Episcopal", but the adjective I usually see describing people, schools, etc, that belong to the church is "Episcopalian".  Is this viewed as incorrect by ECUSA members?  I ask because I keep seeing edits around wikispace (almost invariably from anon IPs) that replace "Episcopalian" with "Episcopal", which sounds odd to me. /blahedo (t) 03:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally speaking, "Episcopal" is an adjective and "Episcopalian" is a noun (e.g., I am an Episcopalian. I attend an Episcopal Church.). One never says "Episcopalian Church" or "I am an Episcopal". One occasionally hears "an Episcopalian priest", but this is incorrect. The correct term would be "an Episcopal priest."Rockhopper10r 04:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appropriate adjective 

message: Columbia University's list of "250 Greatest Alumni" describes Jay as, among other things, "a founder of the American Episcopal church". Is there any truth to this? Thanks! --198.59.190.201 06:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes. Jay was a vestryman at Trinity Church, Wall Street and a delegate to the second General Convention in 1786. It was the third General Convention which enacted the Costitution of the Prostestant Episcopal Church in the United States in 1789. I think that a "founder" designation is entirely appropriate.Ruidh 16:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Role of John Jay in Episcopal History

message: A new WikiProject focussing on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion has just been initiated:  WikiProject Anglicanism.  Our goal is to improve and expand Anglican-reltaed articles.  If anyone (Anglican or non-Anglican) is interested, read over the project page and consider signing up.  Cheers! Fishhead64 06:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Anglicanism

message: Bard College is currently listed under Colleges affiliated with the Episcopal Church. While, historically, Bard maintained a relationship with the Church, and served as a seminary for many years, the college has been non-sectarian and unaffiliated with the church for many years. I thought I would note this here and allow discussion before removing this particular factual inaccuracy. Burndownthedisco talk 04:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bard College

message: A mention of the Anglican Mission in America was recently added to this article under the Liberal and Conservative sub-heading. I removed that mention for the time being because, as writ, the addition seemed misleading. This is the removed text:
The Anglican Mission in America, a conservative group, attempts to provide an alternative to the Episcopal Church in the United States of America, while remaining Anglican. The AMiA opposes the ordination of women and homosexuals.
This appears to suggest that AMiA is a legitimate alternative within the Anglican Communion, an assertion contradicted vehemently by Archbishop George Carey (see , , and .) However, I do think AMiA should be mentioned here, partly because of the controversey surrounding the "illegal" consecration of bishops, and also because several clergy (and in fact entire parishes) left ECUSA for AMiA in 2000 through 2002. I also believe that the various difficulties with AMiA were part of the reason behind the creation of the ACN, and also why the ACN is structured within ECUSA as opposed to breaking away.  I am however having trouble finding references to that effect. As a side note, the above statement regarding the ordination of women is partially incorrect in that AMiA does ordain women to the diaconate, and also recognises the ordination women priests who have left ECUSA, although they have decided not to ordain any more women to the priesthood themselves.
Any thoughts? --Wine Guy Talk 20:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AMiA 

message: Someone changed the "ECUSA" and "PECUSA" redirects to point to the Continuing Anglican article. I believe I have now fixed this. Is there anyway to lock the redirect pages???Bremkus 04:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like it was done out of ignorance, not malice. There should be no need to lock/protect the redirect pages. I'll add them to my watchlist, just in case, and if you want you can do the same. Mak (talk) 00:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: All articles need updating, but whoever did the last update gerrymandered this article. It looks like hell! Pretty bad for a church. And who added their buddy's pictures for examples of vestments? A crude way to make it on the www? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thurifer (talk • contribs) 07:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a mess 

message: I am involved in a discussion with another editor at the article on Talk:George Washington and religion and need someone who is familiar with Anglican theology and dogma (and especially that of the late 1700s) to comment.  Here is the discussion in brief... the article talks about the fact (well documented) that George Washington was not a communicant (ie was never seen to take communion) and would often leave devine services before communion.  Given the context of the article, it is implied that this indicates he was a Deist.  I question this implication ... I think that it might indicate that he was a "Low Church" Anglican.  I do understand that I can not add such information to the article - as my personal conclusions would constitute Original Research. But I would like confirmation of whether my thinking is on the right track or not. Unfortunately, I do not know enough about the Church of England at the time, especially the different attitudes of High and Low Church, to know one way or the other.
I tried an RFC, but that is being removed as there is not an actual dispute going on (I am trying to find out if there IS something to dispute).  I hope someone here can help.  I have also posted this on the Anglicanim page.  Blueboar 19:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment needed  

message: This is another major issue with the mainstream Church of England. The Episcopal Church unlike the mainstream Church of England and Rowan Williams himself approves same-sex unions and even non-celibate gay and lesbian clergy and bishops. I am just stating facts. The entry should also mention these recent events, related to the first lesbian bishop, Mary Glasspool: "The future of the worldwide Anglican Communion was in jeopardy last night after the Archbishop of Canterbury said that the election of a lesbian bishop in the United States raised “very serious questions”. / Dr Rowan Williams added that the choice of Canon Mary Glasspool to be a suffragan bishop in Los Angeles had “important implications”. The election of Canon Glasspool, who has lived with the same female partner since 1988, is the second appointment of an openly homosexual bishop in the US Episcopal Church. It confirmed fears among evangelicals in the Anglican Communion of more than 70 million people that crucial votes at last summer’s General Convention of the Episcopal Church had in effect ended the moratorium on gay bishops."81.193.215.3 (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordination of Non-Celibate Gay and Lesbian Clergy 

message: The recent ordination of a non-celibate lesbian bishop, in a direct violation of the Lambeth Conference statements made in 1998 and 2008, and their departure from the Church of England over this and other controversial issues seems to raise the question if the Episcopal Church USA might be excluded from the Anglican Communion or to become autocephalus from it. Rowan Williams already criticized several times their moves but I don't know if he already expressed openly what he thinks about their eventual break or exclusion from the Anglican Communion. I found some links that discuss this question : "Dr Philip Giddings, Convener of Anglican Mainstream, England, and Canon Dr Chris Sugden, its Executive Secretary, issued a joint statement on MAY-15: "In her letter to the Primates, the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church (TEC) Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, confirmed that the consecration of the openly gay Mary Glasspool is not a random event but comes from the settled mind of her church./ Sadly, this shows that TEC has now explicitly decided to walk apart from most of the rest of the Communion." "Since that decision by TEC has to be respected, it should result in three consequences. First, TEC withdrawing, or being excluded from the Anglican Communion's representative bodies. Second, a way must be found to enable those orthodox Anglicans who remain within TEC to continue in fellowship with the Churches of the worldwide Communion. Third, the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA) should now be recognized an authentic Anglican Church within the Communion." 1 (Statement from Anglican Mainstream following the consecration of Mary Glasspool as Suffragan Bishop of Los Angeles, USA," Anglican Mainstream, 2010-MAY-17, at: http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/) I know, it is a very controversial question but it should be discussed in here and added to the entry.85.244.227.132 (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eventual Exclusion from the Anglican Communion 

message: In the introduction, it is claimed that the Episcopal Church was active in the Social Gospel movement in the late nineteenth century. In the article on the Social Gospel, it does not mention the Episcopal Church at all until it considers the question of what effect the Social Gospel movement might have on today's churches. Furthermore, it claims the movement peaked in the early twentieth century. If the Episcopal Church was involved in the nineteenth century, and potentially involved today, why wasn't it involved at the peak of the movement? Or is the Social Gospel article wrong? It talks more about other strains of American Protestantism, like Rauschenbusch, and does not mention F. D. Maurice, who despite being Anglican was not Episcopalian. Perhaps we are being a bit too imprecise in our application of terms related to Christian social concerns here?--Bhuck (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not familiar with this topic, but given that "social gospel" doesn't appear in the article body, I think we could safely remove that sentence from the lead. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 00:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be better to find a more appropriate way to describe the relationship of the church to social questions, rather than to just ignore the subject entirely. But, of course, that requires more effort and skill than a mere deletion. I myself am not intimately familiar with the details and would not feel certain about possible formulations without further research, but my gut feeling tells me that there is a good reason to address the subject, just with more appropriate words.--Bhuck (talk) 12:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure it would, but I don't know where to go for that information. And if there's something in the article unsourced and questionable, is it better to leave it than to remove it? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This book, for example on page one, might serve as a source for the statement that the Social Gospel movement was not just in the twentieth century, but also active in the nineteenth, and that the Episcopal Church's involvement in that movement also spanned the turn of the century. It might also be something that could be used in the Wikipedia article on Henry Codman Potter. But the Social Gospel article could also use some revision on the basis of this book as well. So perhaps you should not remove the sentence here but instead remove something from the other article.--Bhuck (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Social Gospel]] reference in the introductory paragraph 

message: Currently in the membership section, there is a reference to an article from the Christian Century, reporting a membership loss of 115,000 for the period 2003-2005. This does not agree with the figures here. These statistics show a membership in 2003 of 2,433,340; for 2005 the number is 2,372,592. By my arithmetic that is a difference of 60,748, not 115,000. Even if we only look at the US membership, the decline is slightly less than 80,000 over the same time period, though arguing that the ordination of Gene Robinson would cause a growth in membership in overseas dioceses of 20,000 baptized members would also seem a bit far-fetched. Furthermore, looking at the figures from 2003 (the first year that overseas dioceses were included in the statistics) until 2010, the two-year period selected does not seem to stand out as having a higher or lower rate of loss than any other two-year period. I therefore do not quite understand why that period is picked out. I added some statistics for 1967-69 to try to balance this, but it still seems that someone has picked these two years as a way of trying to make a political POV argument, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia.--Bhuck (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rates of membership loss and the period 2003-2005 

message: As an Episcopalian, I was quite surprised to see that my Church is "formally known" as "The Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society"...because it isn't. After searching the archives, I noticed that this was brought up previously in the past, but correctly rejected as an archaic full name for the Church's national corporate body. In other words, it's both irrelevant to the introduction and misleading (it makes the Episcopal Church sound like an evangelical one, which it on the whole is not.) Furthermore, the only instance that occurs in the body of the article isn't even redlinked, and the two provided references do not provide support for it being the church's "formal name." In fact, the 2006 constitution clearly states "Canon 3 (Of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society), Article 1: This organization shall be called the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, and shall be considered as comprehending all persons who are members of the Church" (emphasis added); making a clear distinction between the Church itself and one of its governing organizations.
As such, I have removed it from the lede, and replaced it with the proper long form name. Please don't regard this as a POV edit, but simply as a correction by someone who has firsthand experience with the Church. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for spotting that. Your edit is not controversial at all. In fact, the lede only mentioned the TEC and PECUSA labels until August 9. Then someone changed PECUSA to DFMS. So no worries. Ltwin (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society" removed from lede. 

message: I'm seeing some errors in the "Parishes and dioceses" section.  I believe a parish does not elect a bishop's committee.  Eligibility to a Vestry depends upon the cannons of the particular parish and diocese etc.  174.52.43.207 (talk) 05:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors in Parishes and dioceses section 

message: After reading this article, I am surprised it is rated B class. The whole section on high and low is unreferenced OPINION. "Very" high??? Come on! It either needs a reference that it is somehow different qualitatively from High Episcopal or should be removed. I, personally, have never heard of it (but then again I've not been an active member for decades). I challenge the existence of a recognized body of "very high" churches.  The use of the word "very" in describing the most formal of the "High Episcopal" hardly justifies a separate category (in my opinion, its more about size of the Church (and how deep its pockets are) that distinguishes how "high" a High Church service is).  The structure description is really bad, all it does it toss jargon around.  Actually, I came to this piece to find out what the status is of priests.  I find it odd that that term is not contrasted with other priests (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, etc.). I also find it odd that the formal title of the various Church positions are not spelled out.  I guess if a Bishop is a active homosexual, then the reader doesn't have to be told that priests are allowed to marry? (Why not? Why not spell out major differences with other priesthoods?). It might also be useful to contrast priests with ministers and reverends and spell out the differences. Also, who is and who is not "clergy" needs explanation. FWIWAbitslow (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly the section on "high", "low" and "broad" church needs more references and clarity of definition, and some comparisons with (at least) the Roman rite would help. Does a high church liturgy imply celibate, male clergy?  Judging by a recent (2017) post on Facebook, traditional music and other liturgy may be disappearing from ECUSA - this needs to be documented (if so) & the section brought up to date. D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 01:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Officials, misc 

message: Something regarding the recent Primates Communiqué should go in the article, but we must be careful to give it balanced and accurate coverage. It is not correct to say that TEC is suspended from the Anglican Communion. Exactly what the statement says is "for a period of three years TEC no longer represent us on ecumenical and interfaith bodies, should not be appointed or elected to an internal standing committee and that while participating in the internal bodies of the Anglican Communion, they will not take part in decision making on any issues pertaining to doctrine or polity." Since the suspension relates to participation on ecumenical and interfaith bodies, it should go in the ecumenical relations section, not in the lead, which is for summarizing the entire article. Jonathunder (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: please do restore an improved version :)  Springnuts (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Fools go .... well I have had a go.  Springnuts (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks good IMO. I made a slight change--I added quote marks where possible, to indicate that the text is a direct quotation from the Bishops' statement (with an ellipsis and a couple of bracketed rephrasings), rather than just an editor's opinion. — Narsil (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you both. This is a difficult thing to report correctly. Jonathunder (talk) 04:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

text: The suspension of the church is a major event as indicated by the extensive media coverage. It requires more treatment than a brief mention. And it should be in the lede. Also multiple reliable sources Time BBC CNN specifically and consistently use the word "suspension." – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 00:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primates Communiqué 

message: I would like to suggest adding sub-headings under the social issues section. Currently there are paragraphs about financial equality, LGBT issues, abortion, and racial equality, which have nothing in common other than their categorization as "social issues." If this change is made, I believe it would allow each section to be fleshed out more fully, as well as make the article more organized and easy to read. Any thoughts on this proposal? 
Michelangelo1992 (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing no immediate issues, I'll go ahead and make the changes as per WP:BOLD. Feel free to discuss or critique here. Thanks, Michelangelo1992 (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for "Social Issues" Section 

message: The Anglicanism series template was recently removed from this article and I have reverted it as per WP:BRD. I strongly believe it should be included because it leads to many in-depth links that discuss the theology and history of the Episcopal church, and provides a centralized location for these resources instead of forcing readers to pick through the article for these links.
The relevant help page says that every article that transcludes a given navbox should "normally" be bidirectional. However, since there are so many sub-jurisdictions of the Anglican Communion, I think it would be unwieldy to expect them all to be included in the template. However, if consensus arises, I would be happy to add a collapsible section to the Anglicanism template listing all sub-jurisdictions and thus making the template bidirectional (for this page and every other Anglican page as well). Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks, Michelangelo1992 (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglicanism Template 

message: Section 9 could use some clarification, and probably some expansion.  I am not knowledgable, or I would tackle it.  Rags (talk) 10:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Or possibly simply removing?  These seem to be voluntary societies rather than a part of the church per se - I'm not really sure if they are a sufficiently notable aspect of the church itself to require a section here?  A church with 3 million members inevitably does lots and lots of things - we can't cover every one of them and keep the article's usefulness as a digestible overview of the subject; in some cases even mentioning something may be undue weight.  TSP (talk) 11:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical societies 

message: I've removed the content about the church's alleged stance of not denouncing Trump because it didn't have any sources. Also there's the fact that even with sources it probably shouldn't be near the lede since that's for giving basic information about the church. Where (or if) it should be included (once sources are provided) probably should be discussed. Sakura CarteletTalk 05:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trump edit