Talk:The Falls Church

message: "BUT THIS IS NOT THE PLACE TO DISPUTE THEOLOGY" - I don't really see much theology here.  It seems pretty historical to me.  The church was founded, the building was improved, congregations worshiped there, etc.  There is no theology.  The separation should come at the end because it happened last in it's history.  As for the property dispute, that should go on a separate page where it can be given the attention it deserves.  However, a note to the dispute is appropriate and if you want to link to a page that deals with that issue, I would support that.  I disagree with your notion the "The Falls Church" refers to two churches.  It refers to the "church at the falls", which is the congregation that worships at the historic site.  This has been several things in the past, but today is Anglican.  This is not theological, just historical.  Twakjaco (talk) 13:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would anyone remove the reference to the constitution of the Episcopal Church?  It is relevant to the separation because it is evidence of what the church is supposed to be.--------------------------------------------------------------------  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Twakjaco (talk • contribs). 
Please stop insisting that we broke away simply because of the ordination of Gene Robinson.  This is actually an extreemly unfair treatment of this issue.  The fact is that this split has been happening for over 30 years- long before this ordination.  It is a deeply theological divide which is rooted in a difference in how we view Christ.  
I also think it is somewhat inappropriate for someone to make a claim about The Falls Church's (Anglican) reasons for leaving if they don't actually go there.  It's the same a putting words in someone else's mouth.
-----------------------------------------------------
COI This page recently seems to be edited by people on both sides of a dispute, impartial editors may want to keep an eye out on this page for edits that do not fit Wikipedia standards  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.2.39 (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion Prior to Dispute Resolution

message: OK.  I'm not going to jump on either side of this.  Both of you need to take a step back and rethink what you two should do to achieve consensus.  
The paragraph should have been a comment in the code, not place a paragraph that has nothing to do with the topic content into the first paragraph.  - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 21:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The content you're adding is not remotely neutral. Those who did not support disaffiliation were forced to leave the building and property, and have continued to worship in exile as a Continuing Episcopal congregation in a separate location. Casting one side as refugees and then qualitatively comparing their viewpoints is not any any Wiki-sense of the word neutral. The neutral point of view is about honestly reporting what there is to say about an aticle's subject in reliable sources, and not pushing one point of view or another. And for the sake of argument, the subject of this article is the church that was most recently constructed in the 18th century, and not every church that bears the same name. If you want more information on the split to be presented in this article, then put up some reliable sources; without those, there is no way to determine what the neutral point of view is, and the only solution is to delete the material. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Though I didn't see the language above.  Please refer to new language and help begin disambiguation on issues post 2006. Cranmeresque (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE:Requested Dispute Resolution 

message: Hello.  I'm not involved in the church in any way, but in researching Falls Church city history, I ran across what looks like a reliable source for the year of re-establishment of the church, in 1836.  The source (cited) definitely has a point of view on what this means for the current controversy, but the research (that the church was fairly well abandoned from 1784 to 1836) seems in line with what was already in the wiki entry, just more precisely.  Troutfang (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  minor edit re: date of re-establishment 

message: The current history of the church site/building & its occupation seems to be taken straight from the website of The Falls Church and it has no citations whatsoever.  I'm going to start working in citations where I can, including correcting some info when necessary.  I'll leave intact, for the moment, what can't be verified, but at some point some info may need to be deleted if it can't be confirmed in secondary sources.  
For the very recent history, although it seems fairly neutral at this point (I appreciate the process the editors went through to achieve this), there are still no citations for anything.  Could those in the know add them?  I have some from major press coverage, and I've tried at least to link to other Wiki pages (on CANA, etc.); if editing that, I'll try to tread lightly, but it seems citations are needed and some detail would be useful to those not in the know, if it can be cited to external sources.
By the way, I am not a member of either congregation and have no stake in the current controversy. Troutfang (talk) 02:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations lacking 

message: I wrote up this version of the recent history for the City of Falls Church Wiki entry.  I tried to straighten out the associations, etc., and to rely on what seemed most factual in the news reports.  I'll try it out here.  Anyone care to comment?  I think this section really needs a more fully cited recitation of events.Troutfang (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent controversy rewrite - with citations - comments? 

message: I am proposing that the articles on The Falls Church (Anglican) and The Falls Church (Episcopal) be merged into this parent article.  The information in the three articles largely overlaps, and is not enough to justify splitting due to content.    Robert McClenon (talk) 01:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't looked at too closely but it seems to me that The Falls Church and Falls Church (Episcopal) could be / should be merged now that it's clear that the Episcopal faction will be remaining at the original property.  On the other hand now that FC Anglican is off on its own, and its connection to the Church building is historical and receding, maybe it warrants its own article still.  (With a lot of cleanup and some references, sheesh - the article's not a place for propagation or prostelytizing).  JohnInDC (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with JohnInDC for the merge of The Falls Church (Episcopal) into The Falls Church if the Falls Church (Anglican) had made the decision of not going to appeal with the US Supreme Court. Since they have not made such decision yet, and are still reserving themselves the right to go to the US Supreme Court, the merge proposed by John is most likely what is going to end up making sense, but for now is probably premature. --Newchildrenofthealmighty (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, referring to the breakaway group as Anglican is confusing because both churches belong to the global Anglican Communion, of which the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States is the principal national body.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, no. As the article explains, the Falls Church (Anglican) does not belong to the Anglican Communion. It rather belongs (through the Anglican Church in North America), to the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, the global network of conservative Anglican churches which formed in 2008 as a split from the Anglican Communion. --Newchildrenofthealmighty (talk) 01:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

text: I agree - now that the Episcopal Congregation and the church building are reunited there's no reason for separate articles.  JohnInDC (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Having reviewed the The Falls Church (Episcopal) a little more carefully, I really see nothing there that is 1) not present here or 2) appropriate for inclusion.  We don't need for example a listing of the doctrines of a traditional Episcopal Church here - particularly in an article that focuses on the building.  I found one useful ref there and added it here, and, absent objection in the next couple of days will redirect that article to this one.  JohnInDC (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I redirected The Falls Church (Episcopal) to here, and removed the merger template discussion from here and The Falls Church (Anglican).  JohnInDC (talk) 11:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Merger 

message: Most of the "The Falls Church" page's content is an exact copy of the home page at http://www.thefallschurch.org/history/.
There is too much material copied verbatim while not a single reference is given to the actual page it was copied from. The material copied word-for-word starts at "The New Brick Building" and it ends only where "Legal issues" starts (close to the bottom). Only some bold sections' content headings have been slightly modified, but the entire content under these sections remain exactly the same as the source (ie. http://www.thefallschurch.org/history/ ).  If one editor is to copy the same material from another website, the least the editor should do is to place the material within quotations and then cite the source; but there is just too much material copied to make it a citation. To learn more, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plagiarism 179.159.181.96 (talk) 08:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup.  I'd noticed this before and then forgot to do anything about it.  I took a crack at rewriting some of the sections - did it without reference to the source, so that I wouldn't be tempted to follow it, but I may not have fixed it well enough.  If anyone would like to spend some more time with it, feel free.  I also completely removed the more extensive section about the church and grounds because it appeared to be a straight lift from the source and I didn't feel like going through it line-by-line to fix it.  Thanks for the reminder.  JohnInDC (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagiarism