Talk:Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina

Using terms "claims" and "argues"

Explaining a little about my changes today, I think when there is a legal dispute, it is problematic to say that one side "claims" or "argues" something, unless you also say what the other side "claims" or "argues." Saying that somebody "claims" or "argues" something can be a subtle way of implying that they are wrong. If they were right, they wouldn't have to make claims or arguments. They could just state things as facts, and it would be self evident. While the dispute is unresolved, if we want to describe it in neutral terms, we shouldn't say what one side "claims" without saying what the other "claims." So in this case, it's not just the ECISC that "argues" it has the right to use the name that EDOSC is using. BOTH groups "argue" that they have the right to use the name. We won't know who is right legally until the lawsuits are over. Dunncon13 (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Diocese of TEC and member of Anglican Communion

I just undid a revision that incorrectly claimed the ECiSC is not a diocese of TEC, and also not a part of the Anglican Communion. These claims were not sourced, and the change was clearly not neutral. It is NOT true that TEC has never admitted ECiSC as a diocese. The diocese was admitted centuries ago, although under a different name. The only reason the Episcopal Church's diocese in South Carolina is not using the name it historically used, is that there has been a schism. The group that left TEC currently has the legal right to use the historic name "Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina." The Episcopal Church in South Carolina views itself, and is viewed by TEC and the Anglican Communion, as the same entity that has been a diocese of TEC since TEC's founding. They don't need to "admit" it to the Episcopal Church. It has always been a part of the Church, and remains a part of the Church today. Dunncon13 (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Effects of Supreme Court ruling

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that 29 parish properties legally belong to the continuing diocese. But the congregations (the church members who worship in those buildings) do not automatically become TEC congregations again. I think it's too soon to say what's going to happen - we'll have to wait and see. For now, the ECiSC still has 30 congregations. It also has legal control over 29 additional buildings, which up until now have housed ACNA congregations. Those congregations are still, as of right now, ACNA congregations. At least that's how I see it. Dunncon13 (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The link to the court ruling does not seem to work anymore (or at least is not reachable from the EU). Which are the 29 properties returned to Episcopal control, and which are the 7 that were ruled not to have acceded to the Dennis Canon? I assume St. Philip's is among the 7? Perhaps that should also be mentioned in the article about the parish?--Bhuck (talk) 14:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

To User:Bhuck Ltwin (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

We actually don't know what will happen. The Supreme Court ruling was complex. Each of the 5 judges issued their own ruling, and the circuit court judge now has to make sense out of all of these different rulings. Circuit Court Judge Edgar Dickson ruled in June 2020 that, taken together, the controlling decision Supreme Court require each parish to have consented in writing to the Dennis Canon or else they keep their property. I don't think any parish in South Carolina ever consented to the Dennis Canon in writing, so that would mean that the parishes of the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina keep the property.

Of course, the Episcopal Church says this is the wrong way to interpret the Supreme Court ruling, so it will have to be addressed by the Supreme Court again. But the membership of the Court has changed, so anything could happen. The Living Church has an article on it: S. Carolina Court to See Case It Thought It Settled. Ltwin (talk) 02:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we don't yet know what will happen to the 29 buildings, but what about the 7 others? The following text is currently in the article: "On August 2, 2017, the South Carolina Supreme Court held in a split decision that 29 of the parishes in the lawsuit and the St. Christopher Camp and Conference Center are the property of the Episcopal Church in South Carolina and must be returned, but that the 7 remaining parish properties are owned by the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina." If it is not clear about the 7, either, then we should not have that text in the article. And my original question was, which are the 7? Is it not clear which 7 are meant, but just that for each building, there is a 7/36 chance that it might belong to the ADSC?--Bhuck (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Episcopal Church in South Carolina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070814220100/http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_88803_ENG_HTM.htm to http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_88803_ENG_HTM.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Date in infobox

In order to maintain neutrality, if there is a date in the infobox, both 1785 and 2012 should be included, since the diocese claims to be the original diocese dating back to 1785. StAnselm (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone claim 2012 is the date the diocese was formed? Unless there is a neutral source for that somewhere, it seems to me that 1785 is clearly the date to use. I'm going to make a change to that effect. When the split occurred in 2012, the Episcopal Church diocese didn't re-establish itself. It had to rearrange governance and elect a new bishop, not re-found itself. Dunncon13 (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, there is certainly an interpretation of them re-establishing themselves: e.g. "In the intervening time, The Episcopal Church re-established itself as The Episcopal Church in South Carolina overlapping the boundaries of the Diocese of South Carolina." But that's from someone sympathetic to the ACNA group. StAnselm (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the argument is that, if a group is legally unable to use the name of the original diocese, then it's up in the air whether it is, in fact, the original diocese. But it is certain that a legal entity called "Episcopal Church in South Carolina" was created in 2012. Hence, neutrality should favor both dates in infobox.--Wikibojopayne (talk) 03:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The group (subject of this article) was forbidden from using its original name for a while, but is now able to again. It is NOT certain that a new "legal entity" was created in 2012. I'm pretty sure there was no new legal entity created at all. I could be wrong, though - is there a source? At any rate, the subject of this article is not primarily a legal entity, but rather a constituent diocese of the Episcopal Church, regardless of legal corporate structures. In 2013 (not 2012), because of a court order, the diocese was forced to call itself something else for a while. The 2019 federal court ruling ended that requirement. Legally, under that ruling, today's diocese is the continuation of the old pre-2012 diocese. Under Episcopal Church canon, today's diocese is the continuation of the old. I have no issue with putting 2012 in the infobox also, provided there is a neutral source noting 2012 as the date of foundation or establishment. StAnselm's source above is not a neutral source, it's a self-published blog. Dunncon13 (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The only date that should be in the infobox is 1785. It's not a neutrality issue to exclude the 2012 date, it's a factual one. The diocese did not cease to exist when the 2012 break occurred, and it did not become something different in 2012. What happened in 2012 was the election of a new bishop as a result of the former bishop and several parishes choosing to leave. The court rulings to date support that this is the continuation of the diocese founded in 1785. Ncjon (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the update; I was unaware of the federal ruling in 2019 to that effect. I now fully agree that the 1785 date is the only one needed. --Wikibojopayne (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 26 July 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

---

Episcopal Church in South Carolina → Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina – For reasons explained in the article, the diocese has since 2019 called itself the "Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina," [1] and ECUSA calls it that too. [2] The Anglican Diocese of South Carolina calls itself "The Anglican Diocese of South Carolina." [3] There's independent agreement in the press: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Ductwork (talk) 03:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. The main page of their website has all three: The Diocese of South Carolina – The Episcopal Church in South Carolina – The Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina.[9] StAnselm (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think uses of "The Diocese of South Carolina" run too much against this move request—Episcopal diocese Wikipedia pages have generally necessitated the "Episcopal" title prefix as a natural disambiguation with other dioceses, as in the dioceses of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, and Pittsburgh. See also the Episcopal Diocese of Upper South Carolina calling itself the "Diocese of South Carolina": [10]

  But true, there's a subheader on their website's logo with "The Episcopal Church in South Carolina." I assume that's a bit of laziness on their part, since they make a point of explaining their name as "The Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina" in the graf below. To make the case better, here's, Twitter Facebook, and Instagram accounts named "Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina," and press releases from the current year that refer to themselves as the "Diocese of" and not the "Church in": [11] [12] [13] [14]. Ductwork (talk) 05:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: You would also need to demonstrate that it's the primary topic over Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina (before 2012). StAnselm (talk) 04:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  Ooh thank you, will try to follow WP:DPT. Episcopal Church in South Carolina has gotten more traffic than Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina (before 2012) since the page's inception by a margin of 2.5:1, though the pre-2012 article is impressively long. [15] And the five news articles linked in the original proposal refer to the current "Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina" without it being necessary to specify that it's the post-2012 diocese. Ductwork (talk) 05:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, fair enough. We would need a hatnote, though. StAnselm (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support all other US ones use Diocese.---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 04:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.