Talk:Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada

message: What is that in the name of the current head bishop?
it not listed here  Smith03 (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bishop Johnson is an honorary canon of Christ's Church Cathedral in Hamilton. Honorary canons are customarily known (when ordained) as "the Rev. Canon NN." See   and most tellingly  Carolynparrishfan (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Canon

message: There's seems to be a little cabal determined to excise any information on the Eastern Synod's position on same-sex blessings. If anyone wants to make such changes, let's discuss it here. Vandalising my talk page with anti-vandalism messages, or making soapbox edits (and accusing those who oppose them of soapboxing) accomplishes nothing. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please sign your edits by typing four ~ at the end. The Eastern Synod is one of the most high-profile in this debate, and its position is definitely notable, especially since there is not, as yet, an Eastern Synod article. Please feel free to add information on the positions of other synods and bodies, but do not remove notable information from the article. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

text: My own denomination, the Anglican Church of Canada, recently defeated a resolution allowing same-sex blessings, but no one would ever be so naive as to suggest that it's "over." Why? Because we know that it will be on our agenda again the next time, as it will be on the ELCIC's no doubt as well. It's still a live issue by any objective standard. To say that "any" mention of SSBs is a bias is laughable. But at least it leaves me feeling better about being accused of bias, since you clearly  don't know anything about the policies you and your alter-ego keep citing. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi Carolyn your bias is clear.  It is also being reflected in your responces on this talk page.  The simple fact is that ssb is not an issue, and, you keep digging them up.  I have no motive here but to make the ELCIC page relect the church.  It is very clear that you are using this page and others to support the ssb side.  This is not the point of wiki and I feel you are trying to make a WP:POINT.  In any event stop making baseless personal attacks. Thright (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For the love of God, please stop. Some of us are capable of suppressing our biases. You've accused me of 1) bias, 2) soapboxing, and 3) personal attacks, all of which are bogus. I realize that you are new, and I implore you to sit back and get a feel for the process before you start misquoting every known Wiki policy to people who are just trying to preserve the integrity of the encyclopedia. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  ps I also see that you are in violation of the RV3 rule.  However, being the type of person I am I will not report this event.  A topic such as ssb can become heated very fast. Thright (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 3RR prohibits one from making four or more reversions in a day. I have made a total of three edits to the article today, only two of which were reverts. Read the policies before you hit other people over the head with them, genius. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

text:  Why are you trying to cause a fight by calling me names?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thright (talk • contribs) 23:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me - I'm trying to cause a fight? Thright, your comments are quite contentious, so it's hard for me to take that in a non-ironic way. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  In any event this converstation is about the ELCIC page and not about our disagreement.  There it is over!  If you would like to talk more about ssb, then lets do somewhere else.  Blessings.Thright (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The disputed section had "apparently" been moved according to this edit (diff here). We shall see if it really does appear at Eastern Synod, or has just wafted into the ether. --Skol fir (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately Eastern Synod (the article, not the entity!) didn't yet exist at the time of this dispute, when the SSB debate was indeed taking place at a synod level. Since the national church is due to vote on same-sex marriage next month, though, any move seems to be moot now as no one can claim that the issue's scope is too "regional" for this article. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  SSBS 

message: The issue appears to be how (and whether) the dispute over the blessing of same-sex unions in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada ought to be covered. Thright feels, if I'm not mistaken, that any mention of Eastern Synod's actions in approving such blessings (and their later overruling by the national church) is POV-pushing. S/he states that the "debate is over" and not worth discussing. I believe that, while the debate is on hiatus (it's certainly not "over"), the events that transpired are notable of themselves, and that including them per se is not a violation of NPOV. Please help. See also Talk:Blessing of same-sex unions in Christian churches. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with Hohohahaha. A one or two sentence statement would be sufficient, as the subject appears to have had some notability. John Carter (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

text: (coming in via RFC) Looking at the article, it seems that this decision received enough mention in 3rd party sources to be sourced for inclusion- there are small mentions in some general large-scale media (the linked CBC article, a Washington Post article that popped up on a Google search...) and more discussion in specialty religious media (the Anglicans Journal has some discussion around the topic here).  Compared with other procedural decisions made by the church, this one seems to have drawn attention from outside the ELCIC itself.  As this is a significant ongoing contemporary issue for much Christian denominations, and as its drawn mention in 3rd party sources, it seems reasonable to include some discussion of the controversy in the article.  --Clay Collier (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, it's notable and has third-party coverage.  But, it should not be given undue attention (WP:UNDUE).  User:Hohohahaha's proposal is reasonable and I support it.  Windy Wanderer (talk) 03:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have re-added the info that Carolynparrishfan deleted.  Consensous here suggests that it should remain.  Furthermore, the use of the words ' weasel words and crystal-balling' in the edit summery is non-productive.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TerryH12 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment 

message: Apart from the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church, the article should really consider verifying whether groups within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada have ever sought a similar canonical structure to the proposed personal ordinariates. ADM (talk) 05:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk:Personal Ordinariate

message: A single user has changed the entries of the ELCA's German sister churches to their German names because he thinks the "concept" can't be translated. Most of the discussion takes place on the wikipedia article on the Evangelical Church in Germany, the roof organisation of the Evangelical (Lutheran) churches in Germany. Maybe you have a look? Because according to that user (and he really insists) the Church should not be called that way. Some of the member churches are outspoken Lutheran like the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Bavaria, some are "united" like the Evangelical Church in the Rhineland, 2 are Reformed like the Evangelical Reformed Church. Usually one member church covers a unique area (pretty much like a diocese). Maybe you want to take part in the discussion? --Mk4711 (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  impossible name?