Talk:Gene Robinson/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Smear campaign?

I'm inclined to agree with a quote I saw in the Guardian that the allegations against Robinson were a clumsy smear campaign. In the grand scheme of things, they probably don't matter too much. Should the article discuss them in such detail? On the other hand, since he was cleared, it seems reasonable to give some reasons why, rather than leave doubt in the reader's mind... Evercat 02:24, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Marriage

In 1972 he married, even though he still had doubts about his sexuality, of which he had told his partner.

Does the term partner above mean his wife? Or what? Usually the term "partner" specifically means gay lover, so it's ambiguous here. -- Ed Poor

Yes, it means his wife, though I didn't want to use "wife" since that kinda implies he told her after they'd been married, which isn't my understanding. I suppose the solution is just to refer to her by name... Evercat 17:37, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Never mind, Someone else fixed it up. Evercat 17:51, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, Evercat. And now the burning "NPOV" question: could you tell from my edits what my position is on "gay marriage"? If not, then I guess I really have mastered NPOV writing. But if my position is obvious (or even discernable), then I guess I have a lot more to learn... --Ed Poor

Well I already knew from what you'd said on the mailing list. :-) You were probably right to reword the "cure" bit since my draft probably suggested my POV that homosexuality cannot and should not be cured... In turn I removed your scare quotes from "partner" since I don't see the problem with the word. Evercat 11:42, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Firsts

Robinson is best known for becoming the first openly non-celibate gay bishop in the Anglican Communion

Were there in fact celibate openly gay bishops in the Anglican Communion before him?--Pharos 07:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The Right Reverend Otis Charles came out when he retired in 1993 [1]. He is not celebate; he married his partner last summer in San Francisco. [2] It doesn't look like we have an article on him yet. We should. Jonathunder 04:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Charles is not the best example: he came out after he retired. So its not like he was openly gay when he was consecrated to the historic episcopate. Carolynparrishfan 17:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Bishop Charles, though retired, still remains part of the historic episcopate and is still part of the house of bishops in the Episcopal Church in the U.S.A. No Account 00:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

A Few Points

1. "Religious life" refers specifically to the way of life of monks and nuns.

2. I cringe at seeing a priest referred to as "Mister".

3. It is rather POV to refer to the bishop who warned of a schism, and then say that the Abp. of Canterbury "echoed" that statement by saying...something that doesn't "echo" it at all! Its quite different to say "Hey, guys, there might be a schism!" and "This will alter the Communion in some way". Williams' statement has been proven correct, Bishop Duncan's remains to be seen. The St. Michael Report has aleady found that the issue should not be communion-breaking. Carolynparrishfan 13:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Another Robinson interview

A friend of mine interviewed Robinson a few years ago for a Web site I run called Crunchable.net

The interview (read it here)covers a lot of the same topics as this Wikipedia article (growing up in the Disciples of Christ church, coming out to his family and so on), but Robinson tells the story in his own voice with an emphasis on his personal experience.

With the Episcopal Church back in the headlines now (to wit: Washington Post), I was wondering if people might find the interview useful or interesting, making it worth adding to the "External links" section.

Regardless, the Wikipedia article should probably also include this link to the Diocese of New Hampshire's profile of Robinson.

crunchyduck 02:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Vicki Gene Robinson

Note: refactored to consolidate three threads, one which had been orphaned above Table of Contents, and two which were in immediate sequence to one another on the same topic.LisaSmall T/C 09:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Good lord, his parents didn't name him "Vicki" did they? Bastie 04:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Vicki Imogene. They expected a girl, and thought he was going to die soon after birth. Carolynparrishfan
If at all possible, could somebody find a way to address this in the article? I saw the name and my first instinct was to go hunting in the edit history for vandalism. Bearcat 19:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Done Fishhead64 02:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Robinson's middle name is not Imogene, it is Gene. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1074456,00.html) This has been corrected previously but someone keeps putting in Imogene.

That links says nothing to that effect. In fact, A Church at War, which is also by Stephen Bates, states that that is his middle name. His parents were expecting a girl, and he was not expected to live. Carolynparrishfan 00:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see page 10 of Robinson's biography - Adams, Elizabeth (2006). Going to Heaven: The Life and Election of Bishop Gene Robinson. Brooklyn, NY: Soft Skull Press. ISBN 1933368225.  - where the birth name is explicitly printed as Vicki Gene Robinson. The author is from the diocese of New Hampshire - an active Episcopalian - and has known him for some time. She extensively interviewed him and the book is well edited. It is not an instant biography but fairly scholarly with footnotes. For example, the Concord Monitor interview is footnote number 3 of Chapter 2. I would consider the bio to be more reliable than a newspaper interview. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 03:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

On page 190 of the biography there is a photo of the 'official document' signed by Griswold and some 40+ bishops that made Robinson Bishop Coadjutor of New Hampshire. The name on the document is clearly readable and says 'Reverend Canon V. Gene Robinson'. I don't think they print nick-names on official documents. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 03:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
On page 145 of the scholarly and heavily footnoted history of The Episcopal Church - Hein, David (2004). The Episcopalians. New York: Church Publishing. ISBN 0898694973.  Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) - the authors print his name as Reverend Canon V. Gene Robinson. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 03:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

lead

The lead should summarize the whole article and be able to stand alone as a concise summary of the article. I've started. There's more to do. Leadwind 05:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Always more to do. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 05:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

See Also

I'm not deleting any of the links but trying to make the "See Also" section conform to WP policy: see Wikipedia:Guide to layout#See also and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#The "See also". The relevant bits of text are:

The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links to other articles in Wikipedia that are related to this one as a navigational aid, and it should ideally not repeat links already present in the article or link to pages that do not exist. Mostly, topics related to an article should be included within the text of the article as free links.

and

There may be a "See also" section which can include:

From my understanding, the "See Also" section should have links that can not possibly be fit into the text of the article but that may cause a reader confusion. So all the links that have been added to the See Also I've made certain that they appeared in the text before deleting. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 05:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Harvard referencing

I will over the next day or so convert the referencing to the Harvard system because the citation system is a good method to record page numbers. I am also expanding the text as best as I can. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 04:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Major Cleanup

I may have beat Wassupwestcoast to the punch... Sorry I didn't read this talk page first.

In any case, I've just rewritten a major amount of the article, with two aims in mind. First, the mixture of Harvard and Inline citations was totally bothering me - an article really should only have one. In addition, there were tons of the Harvard refs - 102 of them, to be exact. Waay too many, IMHO.

Secondly, there was a lot of extra stuff in here that wasn't about Bishop Robinson. For instance, a couple paragraphs on how the Episcopal church elects bishops. While a little of that was needed to set the stage, I trimmed a bunch out.

I hope I didn't step on any toes, and I hope the article is better from my editing, but if not, I won't be upset if it gets changed :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This is getting close perhaps I can pitch in before/during GA review. -- SECisek 22:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Please! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 01:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of December 10, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Prose flows fluently and text is well structured. The part on "Election as bishop" could perhaps be even clearer written but is okay. Perhaps the section of "Allegations of impropriety" could be shortened, since it appears to be a minor incident. No major issues.
2. Factually accurate?: High accuracy. Good use of seemingly authorative work "Going to Heaven [..]" and several news sources where needed
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass. The book "Going to Heaven [..]" has been used a lot and I think the most useful parts have been well selected.
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass. The "Fallout" is short but important, and other parts make it clear that he as bishop is not liked by everyone.
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Good images.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Fred-J 19:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This was added to the portal, as well. It may be the first Anglican project article to be recognized that is not CofE-related and I think it is the only about a living figure or current event. Congrats to all! -- SECisek (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Nice! Question, though - is there a reason the WPBiography assessment hasn't been changed? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I've up classed it. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Tks! SECisek - which portal? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Anglicanism, although LGBT will want him up ASAP. Bio may even be intrested. -- SECisek (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

is there a reason the WPBiography assessment hasn't been changed? No, I just missed it... / Fred-J 22:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"Jeffrey Johns"

As far as I can tell, only the second sentence of this section has anything to do with Robinson - am I missing something? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The point of this section is this: the case of Jeffrey Johns was and still is brought up by various commentators as an example that Robinson could be 'fired' by the TEC if it wanted to. Since, the TEC hasn't sacked him ergo the whole TEC are a bunch of hopeless liberals that should be given the boot out of the Anglican Communion. What this particular section is trying to say is that the TEC can not do that because of its democratic process. You can remove an English King (see Edward VIII) but not a U.S. president, for example. Now, I don't know if the section says this properly. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"Jeffrey Johns" subsection moved up to first place in general "Ordination of..." section because it seemed to make more sense if it came in immediately following the large "Election of..." section. —LisaSmall T/C 09:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"Fallout"

I'm a bit worried about this section, as some of it sounds POV. For instance, it currently says Robinson has not been invited to Lambeth due to the controversy. The source referenced says nothing about *why* he hasn't been invited. Furthermore, the article here makes it sound like Robinson has been expressly omitted, while the BBC article makes it sound like the invitation is in the mail and just hasn't made it yet.

I don't know how or what to change, but something's not sounding right to me. Anyone else have some input? or should I just leave it alone :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree; the section is not quite right. I will work on it. However, the situation on the ground is indeed foggy. The Archbishop of Canterbury has not actually said why Robinson was not invited. On other hand, recent news reports - reading between the lines - makes one think that he will be. On the other hand, the bit about Jerusalem seems to be a no go; the bishop in Jerusalem has told the GAFCON people to bugger off (sorry, for my Monty Python-esque expletive). Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"Fallout" was renamed to "Consequences" today as a subheading under "Ordination as bishop" in attempt to make the whole section clearer, and because the latter word is more encyclopedic and possibly more NPOV than "fallout." —LisaSmall T/C 09:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Age/Birthdate Redundance

Since the article gives Robinson's birthdate, it's redundant to say right after it that he's age 60. Not only can and should people do the math, but putting a specific age means it would have to be updated every year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.200.177.10 (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Not so: the age is calculated on the fly by the wiki software (and this is true for everywhere we give birthdates). I think it helps people to see the age without having to do the maths in their head. The Wednesday Island (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Yup, the age is updated automatically! And, why on earth would we demand our readers to do the math? Very odd: We want to be useful...we don't write articles to inflict punishment on our readers. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Spelling of Partner's Name -- should be Andrew, not Andrews?

Google seems to show more hits for the name "Mark Andrew" than "Mark Andrews", but this Gene Robinson page has four references to Mark Andrews. I have a hunch the correct spelling is as the NY Times and other seemingly more reliable publications have it: Andrew, singular. My previous edit used Andrew. Does the current editor know the name is Andrews? Google the following, with quotes and + as shown: "Mark Andrew" "Mark Andrews" +Robinson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.233.34 (talk) 08:01, 14 June 2008

The diocesan news page also has Andrew, so we will go with that. I am changing the page. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

When divorced? When practicing homosexual?

Because the piece tackles the question of sexual morality and marriage with respect to the moral suitability of Robinson as bishop, it should specify when exactly "in the 1980's" he was divorced, and when exactly he began have sex outside that union, whether with his current partner or others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.53.169 (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense to specify the yearof the divorce (but not more exactly than that). But as for when he has sex with whom, that's not something which is a matter of public record. Tb (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)