Talk:Al Stewart (bishop)

Requested move 11 March 2024

 * 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: Not moved * Pppery * it has begun...  16:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Al Stewart (bishop) → Al Stewart (Christian minister) – He was a bishop in the Austalian Anglican church. But As far as I can work out, now that he is the head of Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches (Australia), he is no longer a bishop. e.g. his FIEC bio at https://www.fiec.org.au/staff does not call him a bishop. And the bio in this 2021 article seems to refers to him as a bishop in the past tense. But it is possible that bishop is a "life" title in the Australian Anglican church, so I am putting up for discussion rather than boldly moving. Adpete (talk) 06:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2024 (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.
 * Oppose. He certainly was a bishop and that is largely where his notability resides. Obviously, we use this disambiguator for people who used to be bishops, too - especially dead ones. StAnselm (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose: Two sources were cited by the nom. The first one does not discuss his status as a bishop, so it seems irrelevant. The second one uses present perfect tense to describe his status as a bishop: "He has also worked with ..., as well as serving as a bishop and director within the ..." (I think it's a little ungrammatical, in fact). Present perfect tense is used to describe a past status that has continued into the present time. It is different than simple past tense. I therefore see no evidence that he has stopped being a bishop. Moreover, disambiguation terms in Wikipedia article titles are not for describing current status. They are also used to describe former status – especially if that former status was notable. If they were about current status, we would have a lot of articles with titles like William Taylor (dead person). Therefore, no real reason has been provided to justify changing this article's title. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Al Stewart (clergyman) would summarize everything while being unambiguous, no? 162 etc. (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. If I understand correctly, Wikipedia prefers general disambiguators over more specific ones – e.g., "musician" rather than "drummer". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, I just found WP:BISHOP. It seems to say should be used for disambiguation of article titles about bishops without mentioning the possibility of using  —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Replies
 * Here is a reference which specifically calls him "a former Anglican bishop" (admittedly self-published, but the author appears to know the workings of Anglicanism). And the use of "perfect tense" is pretty common in biographies, e.g. this guy "has sat on Supreme Court of NSW" despite leaving it in 2010 . I don't agree with the objection to my first cite; the point is that if he was still a bishop it would surely say so.
 * I think the more important objection is whether he is primarily notable as a bishop or as something else. My opinion is that being leader of an entire Australian denomination, albeit one way smaller than the Anglican church (55 churches), is more notable than being somewhere down the hierarchy in the Anglican church. In fact he was only a bishop for 3 years (2007 to 2010), then from 2010 to 2019/2020 he had other roles in the Anglican church, before leaving the Anglican church to head up this other denomination. Googling seems to give the majority of hits from his current role, a significant minority from his time as bishop, and fewer still from 2010-2019. So at the very least his current role is comparable to being a relatively minor bishop in the Anglican church, to the point that we should choose a generic term which covers both.
 * If folks are persuaded by the above argument, then whether to use "(Christian minister)" or some other dab like "(clergyman)": I am happy to follow what is most common on WP, though I'd like to see evidence one way or the other. Adpete (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The question of whether he is currently still a bishop or not seems irrelevant to the choice of article title. Two people already said this above in a very clear way (myself and StAnselm). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If they do nothing else WP-notable, then yes. But here his post-bishop role is probably more noteworthy - or at least comparably noteworthy. So is he primarily notable for being a bishop? I think no. Adpete (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If you say so, but are you still suggesting "(Christian minister)" as an improvement over "(bishop)"? If not, then what are you suggesting? Does "(Christian minister)" seem more noteworthy than "(bishop)"? I can see supporting a renaming for some other reason, but I don't see a reason to focus on whether he's currently or formerly considered a bishop. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it should cover both of notable aspects of his career, i.e. both as a bishop, and as the head of another denomination. I don't really care if it's "(Christian minister)" or some other generic term for a Christian/religious leader/preacher. The reason for my focus on whether he is a bishop is because when I found the article and read it, it struck me as odd to call him a bishop when he's not a bishop. It struck me as inaccurate, and why not make the article a little more accurate? Adpete (talk) 10:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. He was a bishop, so I see no problem. We wouldn't use "Christian minister" or "clergyman" in any case. For Anglicans, we always use "priest" as a disambiguator, but if he's no longer actually an Anglican then it would just be Al Stewart (minister). -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)