Talk:List of bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America

message: Was the Bishop of Ross, from Ireland or Scotland.  I found Ross's in both places. Eluchil404 06:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ross in Scotland.CJJDay 21:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not certain where the Primus of Brazil came from, but with regards to Henry Scriven, he was ordained by Carey to be a bishop in Europe but then was received into the Episcopal Church as bishop, thus the odd date sequence.  He is currently an assisting bishop in the Epicopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.  I have contacted him with attempts to get clarification regarding his ordination, so as to make that more clear and to add a page on him specifically. CJJDay 21:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Different subject, but can't find where to write this.  W Michie Klusmeyer is STILL the Bishop of West Virginia!  He has not retired as of this date.  His retirement date is 13 October 2022.  Please make correction on page.  Thank you!  The Rt Rev W Michie Klusmeyer...Current Bishop of West Virginia. 173.219.91.178 (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions

message: What is the Primus of Brazil doing on here as "H" but not taking part in any listed consecrations?  And why is Henry Scriven listed as being consecrated by George Carey and as a number which is chronologically out of order for 1995?--Bhuck 13:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not certain where the Primus of Brazil came from, but with regards to Henry Scriven, he was ordained by Carey to be a bishop in Europe but then was received into the Episcopal Church as bishop, thus the odd date sequence.  He is currently an assisting bishop in the Epicopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.  I have contacted him with attempts to get clarification regarding his ordination, so as to make that more clear and to add a page on him specifically. CJJDay 21:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Different subject, but can't find where to write this.  W Michie Klusmeyer is STILL the Bishop of West Virginia!  He has not retired as of this date.  His retirement date is 13 October 2022.  Please make correction on page.  Thank you!  The Rt Rev W Michie Klusmeyer...Current Bishop of West Virginia. 173.219.91.178 (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Something wrong?

message: I've just checked in revisions to 1-100. Comments are welcome. If somebody else plans to take a section of the table, make a note here. Bpmullins 19:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good. Your work hasn't been unnoticed! Be aware that the San Joaquin pages are occasionally problematic (but then so is the Red Book!). In particular, I know that they're wrong about the enumeration of the Bishops of Hawaii. They have Edmond Browning as VIII Hawaii by starting their count with the CoE bishops, before the Hawaiian church was transfered to PECUSA. In fact you have to begin counting only when the American diocese is established. Hawaii is currently searching for their fifth bishop. -- Bpmullins 17:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Why is the 1000-1099 table appearing at the bottom of the article, below references, etc.?? InkQuill 19:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There were a couple of vagrant characters on the last line of that table section. s/b okay now. -- BPMullins | Talk 03:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, I figured it out. I hope we haven't been editing over each other again! InkQuill 06:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think using the previous names of dioceses can be problematic, though I can see the reason to do it, too. If one bishop is I Northern New Jersey, and the next is II Newark, does it confuse the reader? Maybe the solution is in what I did with Jackson Kemper, when I was apparently thinking more like you. I made him I Wisconsin (Milwaukee) to show what the diocese is called now. This is all assuming that the boundaries haven't changed at all and it's just a name change. How do you like that convention? InkQuill 21:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I had hoped that the differing names behind the link would make it clear what was going on. If the table said Newark, but the link was to Northern NJ (and the article for the diocese noted the name change) we'd get the best of both worlds. The only boundary change combined with a name change that I'm aware of is when the diocese of Illinois was divided. Quincy and Springfield became new dioceses while Illinois changed its name to Chicago - but in the history Chicago continues to begin its history with the initial creation of the diocese. The south Florida dioceses are another complication - they split up, but all three (I think!) of the current dioceses continue to claim the history of the original diocese. -- BPMullins | Talk 22:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When the Diocese of Indiana was split, the northern third of the state became the Diocese of Michigan City. The southern two-thirds of the state continued as the Diocese of Indiana, but with its name changed to the Episcopal Diocese of Indianapolis. John Hazen White, the then bishop of Indiana elected to become bishop of Michigan City. The second bishop, Campbell Gray, though moved the cathedral to South Bend and I think that is when the diocese became the Diocese of Northern Indiana. It may have been earlier. I am intrigued by the thought that it was the General Convention that sought to name dioceses after their see cities rather than their geographical territories. The use of city names causes much confusion when there is a Roman Catholic diocese in the same city, e.g. Chicago, where the RC diocese is now an archdiocese, but there are still many historical records calling it the diocese of Chicago.   clariosophic (talk) 10:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Shouldn't it be the other way around? The table would say Northern New Jersey but the link would be to Newark, wouldn't it? InkQuill 00:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It is common for dioceses to list missionary bishops and even bishops of parent dioceses, but in my experience only the diocesan bishops rate numbers (usually Roman numerals). clariosophic (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Completing the Table

message: Here is a list of bishops whose consecrators are needed. I don't have them because I have an old Red Book:
# 985: Joe Goodwin Burnett, 2003 InkQuill 02:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consecrators Needed!

message: Hi - I notice that you changed my entry for Starkey from Northern New Jersey to Newark. My choice there was deliberate: when he was consecrated the diocese was indeed called Northern NJ. I've been attempting to track the various changes in the names of the dioceses in the table. In my sources, he was identified as NNJ. There are many other changes as well; Northern California and Northern Michigan were known by those names when they were missionary districts but General Convention imposed the see city's name (Sacramento and Marquette) when they became dioceses. Both later reverted to their original names. -- BPMullins | Talk 18:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think using the previous names of dioceses can be problematic, though I can see the reason to do it, too. If one bishop is I Northern New Jersey, and the next is II Newark, does it confuse the reader? Maybe the solution is in what I did with Jackson Kemper, when I was apparently thinking more like you. I made him I Wisconsin (Milwaukee) to show what the diocese is called now. This is all assuming that the boundaries haven't changed at all and it's just a name change. How do you like that convention? InkQuill 21:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I had hoped that the differing names behind the link would make it clear what was going on. If the table said Newark, but the link was to Northern NJ (and the article for the diocese noted the name change) we'd get the best of both worlds. The only boundary change combined with a name change that I'm aware of is when the diocese of Illinois was divided. Quincy and Springfield became new dioceses while Illinois changed its name to Chicago - but in the history Chicago continues to begin its history with the initial creation of the diocese. The south Florida dioceses are another complication - they split up, but all three (I think!) of the current dioceses continue to claim the history of the original diocese. -- BPMullins | Talk 22:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When the Diocese of Indiana was split, the northern third of the state became the Diocese of Michigan City. The southern two-thirds of the state continued as the Diocese of Indiana, but with its name changed to the Episcopal Diocese of Indianapolis. John Hazen White, the then bishop of Indiana elected to become bishop of Michigan City. The second bishop, Campbell Gray, though moved the cathedral to South Bend and I think that is when the diocese became the Diocese of Northern Indiana. It may have been earlier. I am intrigued by the thought that it was the General Convention that sought to name dioceses after their see cities rather than their geographical territories. The use of city names causes much confusion when there is a Roman Catholic diocese in the same city, e.g. Chicago, where the RC diocese is now an archdiocese, but there are still many historical records calling it the diocese of Chicago.   clariosophic (talk) 10:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Shouldn't it be the other way around? The table would say Northern New Jersey but the link would be to Newark, wouldn't it? InkQuill 00:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changed names of dioceses

message: I've been trying to complete dioceses in the order formed, adding the number of the diocesan in succession (I Connecticut, etc.). I'm having a problem with Arkansas Bpmullins has said (above) that missionary bishops should not be included in the numbering, but Arkansas considers Larry Benfield as its 13th, which would mean including four missionary bishops. Here's the list (dates omitted) from the diocesan Web site:
Bishops of the Diocese of Arkansas
Leonidas Polk, Missionary Bishop
James Hervey Otey, Provisional Bishop
George Washington Freeman, Missionary Bishop
Henry Champlin Lay, Missionary Bishop
Henry Niles Pierce, Missionary Bishop and first Diocesan
William Montgomery Brown, Coadjutor, Diocesan
James Rideout Winchester, Coadjutor, Diocesan
Edwin Warren Saphore, Suffragan, Diocesan
Edward Thomas Demby, Suffragan for Colored Work
Richard Bland Mitchell, Diocesan
Robert Raymond Brown, Coadjutor, Diocesan
Christoph Keller, Jr., Coadjutor, Diocesan
Herbert Alcorn Donovan, Jr., Coadjutor, Diocesan
Larry E. Maze, Diocesan
Larry R. Benfield, Diocesan
Other sources list Benfield as 13th and Winchester as 6th. I assume this means Otey is not considered in the list, although The Tennesse Encyclopedia of History and Culture calls him a missionary bishop rather than provisional. What to do? InkQuill 20:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is common for dioceses to list missionary bishops and even bishops of parent dioceses, but in my experience only the diocesan bishops rate numbers (usually Roman numerals). clariosophic (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbering diocesan bishops

message: Contributions I have made to this page have come from the "Red Book" Morehouse Publishing's Church Annual for the Episcopal Church.  So far there have been a few errors found, so if you can verify information with other sources, please also do that. 
===Errors found===
Perhaps any errors found could be put here, so as to be sent to Morehouse to update their publication. (Note: I've noticed list of bishops in succession tends to be accurate, while lists on diocesan pages have more errors. InkQuill 03:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note on Morehouse Publishing

message: Perhaps any errors found could be put here, so as to be sent to Morehouse to update their publication. (Note: I've noticed list of bishops in succession tends to be accurate, while lists on diocesan pages have more errors. InkQuill 03:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Errors found

message: I've been adding letters in sequence as I've come across bishops who are listed with Red Book codes AAI, AAJ, etc. I skipped the letter I to avoid confusion with 1. But I'm wondering if it wouldn't be better to make them the same as the Red Book, to make it easier to figure out who is who. Instead of changing AAI to H, it would just be AAI. What do you think, bp? InkQuill 06:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been avoiding making that decision :). Actually, I think going with the Red Book precedent is probably best - that has at least semi-official status. -- BPMullins | Talk 16:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Codes for other Anglican and Old Catholic consecrators 

message: Is "Succession of" the proper name for this page.  Should it be "List of Succession of"? -- Mbisanz (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "Succession of" is fine. This isn't really a list in the sense that most WP articles so named are. I start twitching to the AfD button whenever I see an article titled "List of..." anyway. -- BPMullins | Talk 19:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about renaming it Succession of Episcopal Church Bishops (U.S.) if only to shorten a long title and make it more coherent across multiple nations.  Mbisanz (talk) 06:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, the naming of Anglican bodies around the world isn't coherent. The subjects aren't Episcopal Church Bishops; they're bishops of the body known as The Episcopal Church (unfortunately IMO), or bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States. I might go for "Succession of Bishops of The Episcopal Church (U.S.). Opinions, please? -- BPMullins | Talk 19:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like "Succession of Bishops of The Episcopal Church (U.S.)"  The first one including the term Protestant might be a bit misleading, since I don't think any of the churches usually called "Protestant Churches" actually refer to themselves at that.  Mbisanz (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: I was trying to fill in the blanks at the bottom for consecrating bishops, but the news reports I found kept listing more than three.  Is this normal?  Should we add them all to the list?  For example, for David M. Reed, I found this , which lists six bishops consecrating him.  Same for Todd Ousley, here .  What should I put on the list?  Coemgenus 22:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We list the first three, as they are found in, for example, the Episcopal Church Annual.  Tb (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  (I noticed the previous comment after I had posted mine; hence the change): Previously, the number was limited to three, the canonical requirement. Beyond three, the number of consecrators is more related to a new bishop's desire to honor or please his/her colleagues than anything else. In actuality, there are at times numerous bishops with their hands on or near the new bishop. Where does it stop? The problem, of course, is that the only place where the official consecrators are listed is in the General Convention office or somewhere. But I'd prefer to keep the list to the three official consecrators.   ~ InkQuill  02:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think three is right, for the reasons stated above. -- BPMullins | Talk 13:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It stopped, IIRC, at 65 for Barbara Harris.  I have no idea if that's a record, but it was a whole lot of men around one little woman.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  16:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a reference for the 65 co-consecrating bishops, that's an interesting fact that should be mentioned in the article on her. Obviously, this was a special case. Jonathunder (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

text: We seem to no longer be following the rule for just listing 3 co-consecrators. If we are listing all co-consecrators, and not just the three official ones, what about ELCA bishop Bjornberg co-consecrating Bishop Vono--how do we make links to non-Anglican bishops? Bjornberg is bishop of the Rocky Mountain Synod.--Bhuck (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure how you want to correct all the consecrator links that are going to the wrong article vs a William A. Brown (bishop) yet to be created ~concerned 15:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consecrating bishops 

message: By definition, all bishops are episcopal; many denominations and provinces style themselves as episcopal.  The title of this article, therefore, needs to describe more specifically its contents.  I propose List of bishops of the Episcopal Church (United States) (i.e. being precise about the name of the church), but let's get a proper consensus this time, rather than the "bold" previous changes. Kevin McE (talk) 10:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We were already being precise about the name of the church when people started moving the page. I've given up this fight. (Good luck!) -- BPMullins | Talk 17:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page title 

message: Some numbers are 906a (following 905 and preceding 907) or 1004a  -- these are bishops of Venezuela or Puerto Rico -- the consecutive numbers run normally, but what is the "a" for?--Bhuck (talk) 11:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are the "a"'s in the numbers? 

message: Is there some consensus among Episcopal Wikipedians as to what the proper way to link to page for a new bishop is?  On this page most bishops are listed with full first middle and last names, but links to the pages for individual bishops are inconsistent.  Some are just First Last other are First M. Last and Some are First Middle Last.  Before creating a page for our new bishop, Megan M. Traquair I though it would be appropriate to inquire as to what preference we might have for naming the link.
Also to avoid original research, what sources are considered appropriate as citations for the biography of a sitting bishop?
Jfmiller28 (talk) 02:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link name for new bishops