Talk:Anglican Church of South America

message: A proposal is being floated at the project page that there be a  standard format for organising each article about national provinces of the Anglican Communion, including this one. Please consider participating in the straw vote and discussion. Cheers! Fishhead64 21:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Uniform format proposal

message: I'm getting pretty fed up with the anonymous editor(s) who keep(s) calling Bishop Venables 'homophobic', saying that part of the church is not in communion with him (he's the Presiding Bishop) and linking a blog. It'll be treated as vandalism unless there's discussion here. — Gareth Hughes 00:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homophobia claim 

message: Should this article be moved to Anglican Province of the Southern Cone?  That's the version I have seen almost universally in English sources such as    etc. , though the official name is in Spanish.  Eluchil404 (talk) 07:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: I realize that this church province is topical b/c of current controversies within the denomination, but I'm thinking in different directions - about some simply facts.  Why for instance, is it named "Southern Cone" - that's a pretty odd name.  Is there some meaning to the name?  An additional question is whether the "presiding bishop" should be entitled "archbishop". I have seen only the presiding bishop title for USA bishops (but this may be my limited exposure to the area), with others places calling them archbishop.  It might be good to explain or link to something saying what "presiding bishop" means.  Finally, I see there is controversy about the present "presiding bishop".  It would seem to me that this might belong in an article about this man versus the church province. Kindly and respectfully, Fremte (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  One more comment: I think this is more properly a mid-importance class of article.  Why is it assessed as high? Fremte (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "Southern Cone" is a not-uncommon geographical designation, as the southernmost third of the continent of South America resembles, on the map, an inverted cone (commonly used as shorthand for the nations of Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile in aggregate; here, clearly, somewhat expanded).  "Archbishop" is the title of a man who presides over an archbishopric; the diocese of Argentina is not an archdiocese, nor is the Southern Cone:  the office of chief bishop of the province could, I think, be passed next to the bishop of Chile, say, or to the bishop of Perú.  Further, when introduced (when he was to me, at least), Bishop Venables is accorded the title of "bishop", not of "archbishop"; the Anglican church differs in styles of address from the Roman church or the Lutheran.  Firstorm (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for Name? and couple of other things

message: I'd find interesting any informed commentary on the place of the Anglican church within the societies and culture of the Southern Cone.  My impressions (from extended visits to the Southern Cone, as a Spanish-speaker but North American) are that Protestant churches there generally occupy much the same position as the Roman church in the United States -- a minority denomination, viewed as more than a bit foreign and as a resort of the poorer and less well-educated -- but, curiously, that the Anglican church is (at least in Argentina and Chile) accorded more respect than the Roman, except, perhaps, by the aristocracy of those countries, in part because of the high regard in which English entrepreneurs and technocrats are or have been held.
Has anyone else an impression formed from actual experience?  Might anyone know of any study or analysis of this apparent phenomenon?  Firstorm (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place in society 

message: It is illegal under the canons of the Province of the Southern Cone to exercise jurisdiction outside of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay.  The article suggests that jurisdiction over a diocese in the United States is somehow legal or unproblematic.  What do editors think?  fishhead64 (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are indeed correct. The "Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin" is not recognized by Canterbury or the Anglican Communion as a whole, and then there is the issue of canonical jurisdiction. This group of dissidents may call themselves the "Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin" but they do not (and very likely never will) have official standing within the Anglican Communion. Including them in this article is incorrect. TechBear (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I support TechBear's statement here and the recent revision he/she did to the article.  The San Joaquin diocese is mentioned earlier in the article and this is sufficient about it, otherwise it starts going in the POV direction and a lobby for a particular factional group.  --Fremte (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Legality

message: This one is in the same category as the San Joaquin diocese?:
diocese-of-fort-worth-council-endorses-realignment-with-southern-cone-province--Fremte (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like it, so the same type citations should be required for this one as well: until and unless official references show that this diocese is an acknowledged part of the Province of the Southern Cone, it is not listed as a member diocese of the province. TechBear (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My thoughts were to not repeat the problems with San Joaquin with this one.  I'm not expert on either of these, being from Canada. Thanks!--Fremte (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just commenting for the record. For what it is worth, I can easily see the issue of diocesan membership and canonical jurisdiction blowing up into revert wars. In an effort to forestall this, I have made a request to WikiProject Anglicanism for guidelines (see their talk page, heading The Anglican Province of the Southern Cone and dissident US parishes and diocese.) TechBear (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

text: support.  I have tagged the section of the article and added some comments above. --Fremte (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fort Worth, USA diocese 

message: There is in fact no entity whose name is Provincia Anglicana del Cono Sur de América. The name of the entity being discussed is "Iglesia Anglicana del Cono Sur de America". The church of that name constitutes a province of the Anglican Communion, which has that same name.
The situation is the same for the Anglican Province in the United States. Its name (as a "national" church, and as a province of the Anglican Communion), is "The Episcopal Church in the USA". There is no entity whose formal name is "The Anglican Province of the United States of America".
It is of course reasonable to speak colloquially of The Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, but that is not the formal name of anything.
Reference: http://www.anglicancommunion.org/tour/index.cfm
Doug Kerr (talk) 03:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, this is an error.  In addition, there is the question of which language to use.  Sometimes (Japan, China) we use the native language; sometimes (Brazil, Mexico) we use English.  I think we should generally use English, We cannot simply use the name on the Anglican Communion site, alas, because they get things wrong ("Episcopal Church in the USA," for example).  But there isn't any doubt that we should use the correct name here: the doubt is, for me, whether we should use Spanish or English--and it seems to me that this decision should be made and all the province pages should be made to conform to some sensible decision. Normally, this is the English Wikipedia, and we should use English names.  Tb (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Name fixed.  Tb (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The Actual Name of the Province

message: A new editor disagrees with the edits made by Bhuck and me to this page recently, and with edit logs claiming that I'm pushing a POV or using unacceptable weasel words.  He does not seem to understand what "weasel words" mean in the Wikipedia context, nor has he explained what POV I'm supposedly pushing.  I would invite comment about the following items:
* "claims that it includes" in the lead, with reference to the US claims of the province; the editor wants this phrase dropped. I believe it is essential, because the claim has been advanced, but not recognized by, for example, the Anglican Communion Office, and is disputed by the Episcopal Church and others.  The situation is explained fully later on in the article; the question is simply what the lead should say. I believe that "claims that it includes" is clear and fair.
* "have seen as untoward novelties", which the editor wants to read "loudly criticize as grave immoralities".  This is not fair to the actual statements of the US dioceses in question, which repeatedly stress novelty, and do not use the language of "grave immorality" in the statements I have seen.  "loudly" is also a difficult term to substantiate.
* Characterization of Venables' positions.  I am happy with saying that he "advances a conservative position on homosexuality", but the new editor wants the text to read, "has been an [sic] vociferous critic of the ordination of homosexual clerics and has likewise maintained the traditional Anglican view on other issues, such as the inspiration of Holy Scripture."
** First, regarding homosexuality, Venables takes a conservative position not merely on ordination, but the topic as a whole;
** second, as Bhuck pointed out, "vociferous" is a value-laden word we should avoid here;
** third, "the traditional Anglican view" is POV, since there is dispute about what that is and whether Venables has it right; and
** fourth, the reference to inspiration of Holy Scripture implies, likely incorrectly, that Venables' opponents do not hold the traditional view here.
I invite the comments of other editors.  Tb (talk) 07:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made an intermediate edit which alleviates some of the worst POV implications, but in general agree with Tb here.  Particularly the question of "includes" vs. "claims that it includes" is one which it would be misleading to say "includes" when the claim is not generally recognized.  The question of "untoward novelties" vs. "grave immoralities" is one to which I would like to give further thought regarding the context.  Perhaps it would be good to document Venables views on homosexuality in general, beyond the question of ordination.  The values with which the word "vociferous" is laden are perhaps a two-edged sword...the word is not always used in a positive way.  Regarding the "traditional Anglican view" and the question of the inspiration of Holy Scripture, I have linked another article and changed some of the context surrounding the attribution of this view to Venables so that it is clearer that his views on that question are far from unique within Anglicanism.--Bhuck (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After further reflection on the untoward novelties vs. grave immoralities question, it would seem to me that the subject of the sentence (those doing the criticizing) is the vague group of "conservatives", rather than any specific US dioceses.  My perception of such conservatives is that they are indeed quite loud, though it would be more objective if we could provide a specific decibel level in a footnote.--Bhuck (talk) 13:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Some recent edits

message: Apart from the Traditional Anglican Communion, the article should really consider verifying whether groups within the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone of America have ever sought a similar canonical structure to the proposed personal ordinariates. ADM (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk:Personal Ordinariate

message: I am trying to complement the historical data and improve the references.  There is still some way to go, please be patient! --Jpacobb (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision November 2011 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Anglican Church of South America. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.falklands.info:80/history/histarticle18.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928132649/http://www.samsusa.org/missionaries-frames09.html to http://www.samsusa.org/missionaries-frames09.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified