Talk:Episcopal Church (United States)

message: Regarding this removal of LGBT information from the lede,  failed to state a valid reason for removal; just because LGBT is not mentioned for the Methodists does not mean we need to delete it here. It is quite WP:DUE to include something about how the USA ecclesial community fits into the worldwide Anglican Communion's controversy on acceptance and ordinations. Elizium23 (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't meaning the Methodists...  I meant other denominations that support LGBT inclusion.  The ELCA article doesn't mention their inclusion in the article lead, for example.  It just seems weird that the lead for the Episcopal Church would.  Necropolis Hill (talk) 01:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The lede is supposed to be an overview of the entire article, WP: Lead. For better or worse, the controversy over sexuality and the Anglican realignment it has accelerated is a big part of the recent history, and the church's stance on LGBT issues is also explained in the social positions section. Can we have a proper overview of the article if this isn't at least briefly mentioned? Ltwin (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

text: Though, looking closer at the paragraph in question, it probably needs to be re-written. The paragraph above it (now the last paragraph in the lead) also mentions the church's LGBT stance, so the last paragraph has some redundancy. Maybe the last paragraph should just focus on the consequences of the church's inclusive stance, such as the fact that a several dioceses and lots of parishes voted to leave and form other Anglican denominations. Ltwin (talk) 01:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: In general inclined to agree with Elizium23 (talk) and Ltwin (talk): both WP:DUE and appropriate in the WP: Lead as a "prominent controversy" - but not as a separate paragraph, and with a focus on the <I>controversy over</I>, not on the <I>issue of</I>.  Springnuts (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other stuff doesn't exist 

message: I am currently looking at the "Logos, Shields & Graphics" page of the official website for the Episcopal Church. They provide color codes for the specific colors that make up the shield, as well as pictures of the shield - but I find the mini crosslets in the upper-left corner of the shield are different from the ones on this Wikipedia page. I don't know technical heraldic terms, but it doesn't appear to be a "cross bottony" with the knobs. I'm not sure of the origin of the Wikipedia page's variant and thus whether I should attempt to change it. I'm including the version of the shield from the website for comparison.
https://www.episcopalchurch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/12/Shield.png
2610:48:100:1A9E:0:0:0:DC (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been fixed! Garnet Moss (talk) 02:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crosses Bottony? 

message: under 'separations' in 'recent history' - The Epixopal Diocese of Fr Worth lost the court case.  https://www.episcopalnewsservice.org/2021/02/22/fort-worth-loses-fight-for-church-properties-as-us-supreme-court-declines-to-hear-dioceses-case/  142.163.195.154 (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  legal cases Fort Worth 

message: Instead of text in the info box going on multiple lines, the info will only use one line continuously and this makes the info box large and unwieldy and more difficult to read the main body text next to it that is now spread out over many lines. It is even weirder as if you go into visual editing the info box issue is fixed and it is normal and how it should be. This should be fixed as it will make the page easier to read and digest TheMightyShipp (talk) 23:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: never mind, it seems to be fixed now TheMightyShipp (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The info box at the top of this page is too large  

message: :I was admonished one time that I didn't need to be so zealous in reassessing B-class articles for fairly minor issues. This made sense so I changed a few things. I tend to attempt talk page discussions first. The "B-class criteria" (#1) states:  This article has "Articles with unsourced statements" tags from February 2013, April 2020, and now January 2024 that has not been addressed. The last three paragraphs of the "Ecumenical relations" section are unsourced. It also has an "Articles needing additional references" tag from April 2015, "Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases" from March 2017, and "Vague or ambiguous time" from March 2017. It is not unreasonable to consider B-class criteria (#2),  is relevant. Unsupported content, that has been tagged can be removed. However, there is the concern of original research.
:The last paragraph in the "Governance" subsection is unsourced but links to ecclesiastical courts and again to "Ecclesiastical courts" Episcopal Church in the United States of America. It mentions "the Canons" and the General Convention, but I could not seem to locate "Title IV of the canons" in the links. Another issue, that is not uncommon on Wikipedia, is unsourced sentences placed after sourced content. 
:Lastly, I am confused at the "Worship and liturgy" section, three paragraphs with the wording "In theory:" followed by content of "High Church", "Low Church", and "Broad Church" with an inline citation "Grace Church in Newark", (currently Citation #156 "How the Episcopal Church Teaches the Catholic Faith") following the last paragraph. The source content includes, , and list of various and sundry things but nothing, that I found, to support the content.
:I am sure I might have made some errors that I am equally sure will come to light, but I don't feel I am mistaken in my consideration that a review is in order, substantial edits are needed, and/or a reassessment. The article has enjoyed "1,634 editors with 460 watchers". This page has 460 watchers so I hope someone has the time to look at this.  -- Otr500 (talk) 07:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article issues