Talk:Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject California This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class becuase it uses the [[Category:California stub]] on the article page.

  • If you agree with this assessment, please remove this message.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WikiProject California|class=stub|importance=}} above to the appropriate class and removing the stub template from the article.

Contents

[edit] Schism

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20071208/tpl-uk-episcopals-schism-820eaf9_1.html - Worth adding? Asexual Hydralisk (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article should reflect....

This article should reflect the disputed status of the Diocese. http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1066 states that the Diocese is now part of the Southern Cone province, as does Iglesia Anglicana del Cono Sur de las Americas. It is my understanding from the current text of the article that the ECUSA disputes this claim and states that the diocese is still within its province. Both sides, of course, should be reflected in the article. Thanks. --64.113.89.191 (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I see what you're saying, but...

The Diocese is the basic unit of Anglican Christianity, as declared by Rowan Williams, Cantuar. Therefore, the diocese is in whatever province it and the bishop providing pastoral oversight say they are in. However, I will add a section on the dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.70.40 (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biased Much?

This is definately a one sided article. The link to "Remain Episcopal" speaks volumes. Will be editing in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.44.178.253 (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please add

Info on number of parishoners, number of clergy, and maybe, if available, numbers on both sides of the schism. It would also be good to have a focus on basic facts, avoiding controversy in accord with wikipedia policies. Fremte (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think nobody knows things like number of parishioners or clergy until the dust settles. Tb (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Info on the diocese pre-separation

I think the statement about the conservative nature of the diocese prior to the split needs to stay in this article as background, without the existing conservatism, the split would never have arisen, the statement could usefully be better supported with citations however.

Perhps I'm wrong, but I assume it is less conservative people within the diocese who wish to remain within TEC? David Underdown (talk) 09:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that including the information is useful for understanding the context. My intent was to clarify the difference between a diocese that is part of the Episcopal Church and one that is not. I have made another attempt at this.--Bhuck (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Map

I am not good with graphics, but it seems to me that it would be a good idea to change the map. While the diocesan boundaries are the same as those of the Episcopal Diocese, it would make more sense to include the other dioceses of the Province of the Southern Cone on the map. The current map shows the boundaries of other Episcopal dioceses, with which the Anglican Diocese is not affiliated. If it is too difficult to show the other Southern Cone dioceses, then at least the map should be changed so that the only borders outside the diocese which show up are state borders, and not the purely Episcopal constructions like the circle around the Four Corners area of Navajoland, etc.--Bhuck (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)