Jump to content

Talk:Gene Robinson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleGene Robinson was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 10, 2007Good article nomineeListed
April 25, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Did Barbara Harris really wear a bullet proof vest?

[edit]

In the section on Gene Robinson's ordination, citation #14 (Gledhill, London:The Times 2009) states that Barbara Harris had to wear a bulletproof vest at her ordination. The linked article does state this. However, Barbara Harris' own wikipedia article states that she was urged to wear a b-p vest, but refused. An offline Wall Street Journal article is cited.

Given the ambiguity, I would be inclined to excise the entire sentence: "The security was strong: just as Barbara Harris had to wear a bullet-proof vest at her consecration,[14] Robinson was showing his bullet-proof vest to Harris herself." I would not consider the Gledhill reference to be reliable. Is there a reliable citation about Robinson showing Harris that he was wearing a vest? Ideally, there should be a separate citation found for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tensegrity (talk • contribs) 17:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence about this and the "expected" crowd needs editing. I can't make sense of it.Conscientia (talk) 06:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Documentary "Live free or die" about Gene Robinson

[edit]

The documentary "Love Free or Die" about Gene Robinson is being screened in the UK at the moment (screened in the USA in January) but has yet to be mentioned in the article.[1] The documentary covers key recent events surrounding recent changes in church policy as well as supporting interviews relating to his personal life (such as the threats he received as mentioned in the article), the Obama speech (2009) and his experience visiting the UK in 2008. The documentary itself seems a useful reference and has sufficient impact to be worth mentioning in the After ordination section. I have taken the initiative to email the production company to ask if they would be interested in releasing any of the stills, on a free release, to be available on Wikipedia Commons. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Birth Certificate/Death Certificate

[edit]

The article states that the physician who attended Robinson's birth asked for a name for the death certificate as well as the birth certificate. This seems highly unlikely. If the doctor were only given a name for the birth certificate, wouldn't he use the same name for a death certificate? Does a person ordinarily change his name when he dies? Let's see a citation for this story.John Paul Parks (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In his interview with Terry Gross on WHYY's Fresh Air (http://www.npr.org/2013/01/14/169066917/retired-bishop-gene-robinson-on-being-gay-and-loving-god), Robinson states that the doctors told his father "your newborn son is definitely going to die and we need a name for his birth and death certificates." My take on the article is that this statement makes sense and is accurate. Jmanbeck (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

first openly gay, non-celibate priest to be ordained a bishop

[edit]

I'm inclined to drop the non-celibate as (a) he was the first openly gay priest ordained a bishop (celibate or non-celibate) as opposed to coming out later and (b) he was celibate at the time of the ordination (celibate means unmarried and due to the law both church and state he was not officially married or in a civil union with Mark Andrew at the time of ordination even though everyone in the decision making knew he was in a long-term relationship [which was legally formalized in 2008 when such became possible and became officially marriage in 2011]). --Erp (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a. You cannot cite any reference that no other priest ordained a bishop was openly gay. This also complicated by the fact that being "open" happens in degrees and would not necessarly be recorded for history.
b. Celibate does not mean unmarried. Celibate means not sexually active. tahc chat 05:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong - "celibate" does in fact correctly mean "unmarried". Over time, however, it has popularly but incorrectly been used to refer to sexual abstinence outside of marriage - for which the correct word is "chastity" although this term is also used for sexual faithfulness within marriage. Anglicanus (talk) 08:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have to use words in the way the typical reader would use and understand them, not just how a readers who have taken a vow of celibacy would use and understand them.
We can consider using "non-celibate (non-chaste)" but I do not think it is needed. tahc chat 12:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He was in a relationship with another man, which is believed not to be chast, when he was elected bishop. To have a openly gay and partnered bishop explains all the controversy that has followed.81.193.223.15 (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being openly gay even if unpartnered would have been controversial. I also suspect that Bishop Robinson and those who voted for him consider him to be chaste in that he has and had presumably kept sexual faithfulness to Mark Andrew. Also it is probable that in the past certain suspected gay episcopal priests who were ordained bishops were not celibate in that they had spouses of the opposite sex. --Erp (talk) 04:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then that make the current text the best text to use. tahc chat 07:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How so? "Openly gay non-celibate priest" is equivalent to in religious/legal speak (which uses non-celibate=married) to "openly gay married priest". Now from a very liberal Christian point of view I suspect he was married in the eyes of God (much like slave marriages in very early Christianity [the Christians recognized them even if the state did not]) but I suspect that is non-NPOV. --Erp (talk) 00:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If he were not in a relationship with another man, and had no intention of ever getting involved in such a relationship, there would be no reason for him to "come out" or discuss whatever attractions he might have.John Paul Parks (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the place for such a discussion and I'm not saying this is the case here but a man could very well come out to his wife so as to explain why he isn't really sexually attracted to her and perhaps can't satisfy her. He might come out publicly to give her a reason for divorce that doesn't put blame on her so that she can find someone else who could fully cherish her. A person might admit to being gay though not involved sexually with anyone just to show public empathy with those gays being hounded. Neither case supposes he is actually engaged in sex with a third party. In any case Robinson wasn't legally non-celibate when he became bishop (though the majority of Episcopalian bishops are non-celibate); he was celibate from the time of his divorce which happened well before becoming bishop until he formally married his current spouse which happened legally after he became bishop. --Erp (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to laboring under the delusion that "celibate" is another word for "unmarried", and that Biblical Christianity objects to gays as people-- rather that just objects to homosexuality activity. If you want to try to reword "celibate" as something else, then that is one thing-- but to remove "celibate" and claim he was "just gay" obscures any reason for any controversity in his becoming bishop and woefully misleads anyone reading the article. tahc chat 06:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is you who are mistaken. Non-celibate can mean in casual speech either "married" (and is neutral in implication) or can mean "unmarried but engaged in sexual relations" (which is negative in implication) so the meaning is vague. The Roman Catholic church defines it as 'unmarried' see Catholic encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm "Celibacy is the renunciation of marriage implicitly or explicitly made, for the more perfect observance of chastity, by all those who receive the Sacrament of Orders in any of the higher grades". In other words the formal religious definition is 'unmarried'. This is also the definition used in the article on clerical celibacy. Now in Bishop Robinson's case it can be argued whether he was married in the eyes of God (and therefore non-celibate and chaste) or unmarried but in an extra-marital relationship (celibate but unchaste). Some might also argue that he was still married to his first wife (as they don't recognize divorce) and therefore non-celibate and unchaste. Someone using the formal religious definition (which in an article on a bishop seems to be the obvious choice) would come to the conclusion that Bishop Robinson was the first married gay bishop (which a some would agree with but I think it is a disputable statement). BTW just being gay seems sufficient for controversy or why the dispute over Jeffrey John who is in a non-sexual relationship. --Erp (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The first external link is broken. The Episcopal Church in New Hampshire's site no longer hosts biographies of its former bishops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:3E0B:BA00:5CFC:2F5F:8049:C10B (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gene Robinson. 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:

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) 01:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gene Robinson. 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:

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) 10:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gene Robinson. 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:

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) 16:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]

Gene Robinson

[edit]

The following discussion 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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delist. A week has expired with no work or interest in fixing it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2007. Has been tagged for needing additional citations and for possibly using unreliable sources. Also, the article might need some updates. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gene_Robinson&oldid=1206077780"