Talk:LGBT bishops

Barbara Harris
Source for Barbara Harris being a lesbian? Evercat 01:57, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * My Bad. It was on the web and I believed it, checking it out, I think not. If it were true, she'd have had to come out after her ordination if Gene Robinson was the first known gay person to be ordained a bishop. I'll keep looking for lesbian bishops, but I think the official count is 0. -- Someone else 02:04, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * The Episcopal Church website don't mention it (Google search) contrast with: New Hampshire priest is first openly gay man elected bishop. --Ann O'nyme 03:36, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Anachronism
for historical examples the use of the term gay or homosexual would be an anachronism

Hmm? In what way? People's understanding of homosexuality may have been different in the olden days, but it still existed, surely? I don't think such basic human attributes as their sexual urges have changed, at least not since prehistoric times... -- Oliver P. 23:39, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * FYI: Merriam-Webster dates homosexual of 1892 . --Ann O'nyme 03:10, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

So? The word didn't exist, but they were still homosexuals. The word "Elephant" didn't exist until the 14th century; does that mean it's an anachronism to call Abul-Abbas an Elephant? - Efghij 23:51, Aug 29, 2003 (UTC)


 * Well, some folks consider that sexual orientation is strongly tied up in culture and as such these kinds of statements are anachronous, but this is more to do with gay than homosexual. Martin

Simply put, the idea that a person is defined by their sexual object choice is a very modern one. To map that definition back onto a person who existed centuries before that idea did is an anachronism. -- Someone else 02:14, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * The word Homosexual means "feeling or involving sexual attraction to persons of the same sex". This applies just as much to 15th century Popes as it does to Alexander the Great or Melissa Etheridge. - Efghij 02:43, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Well, while it is as such anachronism, do you go to a Shakespeare article and find it written in "King James" English? No. There has to be a certain balance of authenticity and accessibility. If anything, the word of the time would have likely been sodomy. So maybe use that? Master Thief Garrett 22:38, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VfD

 * Gay bishop - redirect. As if there's only one in the world... Evercat 01:51, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to a more apropiate redirect, but it should still be deleted. - Efghij 02:11, Aug 26, 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep the new redirect. --Ann O'nyme 03:20, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't a disambiguation-page be The Right Thing? For the time being, the controversy over Gene Robinson and Anglican views of homosexuality is probably what someone might have in mind if making a link gay bishop, but that will surely change.--Tuomas
 * Kill it, it seems pretty pointless and sort of demeaning. If its a redirect why wouldn't it point to gay rights instead of Christian views?  The redirect itself seems sort of NPOV due to where it is pointing.Ark30inf 01:48, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Check your jargon, Ark30... ;-) It's a good redirect, though a disambig page might be equally suitable. Martin 09:20, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Delete it, or change it back. The original redirect made more sense. If anyone can name another gay bishop (which there certainly have been), a disambiguation page would be reasonable. If no one can, "gay bishop" and "Gene Robinson" would seem to be the same thing. "Gay bishop" and "Christian views of homosexuality" are not. -- Someone else 17:34, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Now disambiguated. Needs more gay non-Catholic bishops, but of what can that not be said? -- Someone else 18:10, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Yep, the current page is nice. Keep. Martin 18:48, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep. --Ann O'nyme 02:44, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Moved from Homosexual bishops in keeping with our pluralization policy. - Efghij 01:24, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Nothing in the articles about Pope Benedict IX, Pope Julius III, Pope Leo X, Pope Paul II and Pope Sixtus IV makes any reference to their performing any homosexual acts. If they were, indeed, gay, their articles should say so, or their names should be removed from this list. RickK 01:45, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * They were not "gay". They were, however, at least alleged to have had sex with at least one man.  I'm not sure that's a significant enough fact to require inclusion in their articles.  -- Someone else 02:20, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Either they need to have that information included in their articles, or they need to be removed from here, or else something here needs to say what qualifies them to be included here. RickK 02:47, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * So do it. The reference is on the page. -- Someone else 02:58, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Where? I don't have a clue as to why these people are listed here, don't ask me to make it right.  RickK 03:00, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Here. *	The First Gay Pope and Other Records, Lynne Yamaguchi Fletcher, Alyson Publications, Boston, 1997. -- Someone else 03:06, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * So, in other words, you want me to go out and either buy a book or track it down at the library and look up why YOU put this information on here, instead of YOU (or whoever did it) letting us know IN THE ARTICLE why they should be included here. RickK 03:13, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * That's the general idea RickK. :) Martin 08:40, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Apparently the general idea is to delete footnoted information not found elsewhere in Wikipedia. Interesting approach. -- Someone else 01:16, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * What footnoted information? Where? RickK 03:11, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Here. *	The First Gay Pope and Other Records, Lynne Yamaguchi Fletcher, Alyson Publications, Boston, 1997. -- Martin 10:20, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

So as not to be totally uninformative, I should append some additional comments from Leigh W. Rutledge's "New Book of Gay Lists": John XII "an insatiable bisexual...he was accused of running a brothel out of St. Peter's"; Benedict IX "turned the Lateran Palace into the site of lavish homosexual orgies"; Paul II "known to his cardinals as 'Our Lady of Pity' for his tendency to cry at the slightest provocation, he allegedly died of a heart attack while being sodomized by one of his favorite boys"; Sixtus IV "took one of his beautiful young nephews, Pietro Riario, as his lover"; Julius III "lovers with his bastard son Berruccino...appointed handsome teenage boys as cardinals and allegedly ...brought them together for orgies where he would watch them sodomize each other. Della Casa's famous poem "In Praise of Sodomy" [De laudibus sodomiae] was dedicated to him. -- Someone else 03:29, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * RickK - see verifiability - it's polite to make a good faith attempt to verify information before removing it. Martin 08:52, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I disagree. It's not my responsibility to make your data work.  If you're unwilling to support your contentions, then don't be upset if they get deleted.  RickK 02:12, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * But they are supported - that's what the reference is there for. --Camembert

The allegations against the list of Popes should be in their individual articles where sources can be given, allegations detailed, and opposing arguments presented. You can't do all of that in a list. In addition, these men were known primarily as Popes, not Bishops, and the fact that they may have had sexual relations with another man does not necessarily make them homosexual. They might be bisexual, they might be experimenters. It is misleading to characterize them as homosexual bishops when in fact one might have actually been a bisexual Pope. The information should be moved to an appropriate place other than homosexual bishopArk30inf 02:29, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Popes are Bishops. That is, "Pope" is the most common title of the Bishop of Rome, who also has many other titles. The Pope is no less a bishop because he is Pope, than the Archbishop of Canterbury is because he is Leader of the Anglican Communion.
 * Yes, they are bishops, but they are not primarily known as bishops they are primarily known as Popes which makes the homosexual bishop title not a real good one for this list.Ark30inf 03:01, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree though that it would be incorrect to have bisexuals on the list, unless the article is re-named, which means at least that Pope John XII should be removed. - Efghij 02:46, Sep 5, 2003 (UTC)


 * If we called it Queer clergy we could be really inclusive... --Camembert


 * If you agree that bisexuals fall under the definition of Queer. Clergy who have or have been alleged to have engaged in homosexual activity is about the only thing that fits everyone listed in the article I think.  But the title is too unwieldy which indicates to me that it needs to be split into more focused articles Clergy alleged to have engaged in homosexual behavior and Homosexual clergy Ark30inf 03:01, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * "homosexual" is debatably anachronous, but "Queer" certainly is.
 * There's a use-mention distinction here. Just because we have an article on time travel doesn't mean that any of the alleged methods of time travel in that article will ever work. Just because we have an article on homosexual clergy doesn't mean that any of the people in that article are actually homosexual. It just means that they're relevant to a discussion of homosexual clergy. Martin 10:27, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I wasn't being entirely serious about queer clergy - I just liked the idea of the title. I think that homosexual clergy is probably fine. --Camembert

Deletion of homosexual bishop
Further discussion moved here from Votes for deletion


 * There is no information on the page as to why the people listed are included on the list, and no information in their respective articles to indicate why they are there. When I raised the question on the talk page, I was informed that I needed to go and either buy a book or find it at the library and correct the page, instead of the people who are responsible for the page actually making it meaningful.  RickK 03:16, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * Nobody is "responsible" for a page - or rather, everyone is responsible for every page. You wouldn't be the first Wikipedian to visit a library in a bid to improve an article. Martin 09:14, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to see it deleted. There are Popes on the list who are 'alleged' to have had sex with men.  If we have allegations they should be NPOV within the individual's article.  Putting them in a list format on a page called 'homosexual bishop' seems to give the allegations more weight and provides absolutely no context and does not explain just where the allegation came from or what it is.  In addition, even if it is absolutely true that one or more on the list behaved as alleged, that does not necessarily qualify them as a homosexual, such an encounter could mean the individual was a bisexual or an experimenter.  So the article shouldn't be specifically homosexual.  In addition, these men are primarily known for being Pope, not for being a bishop.  So the article shouldn't be titled with the word bishop either.  It looks like this one was about the Episcopal Bishop and then go expanded when it probably shouldn't have been.  Break it up and put the info in the places it should logically go.Ark30inf 04:31, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The subject is valid and should be covered. Just because it is a stub right now is not reason enough to delete it. See the talk page for more information that can be put into the article. --mav 06:25, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be covered. I'm arguing that the list of Popes does not belong under homosexual bishop. 1) These men are not best known for being bishops, they are known for being Popes.  2) These are allegations and allegations don't belong on a list, they belong in the subject's individual article where the source, details, evidence, and refutations can be placed.  This necessary context cannot be placed in a list.  3) Even if the allegations are absolutely true that does not make them homosexuals in the cultural sense of the word.  They might be bisexuals.  They might be experimenters.  If you put the allegations in the individual Pope's article I have no complaint.  If you put them in a list titled List of Popes alleged to have engaged in homsexual behavior then I have no problem because that is accurate.  But putting them under homosexual bishop just if flat out not accurate.  Leaving the article homosexual bishop does not bother me if you stick only with those who are best known for being bishops and are really actually known to have the sexual orientation in the title (and not just alleged).Ark30inf 07:04, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * All perfectly valid points. I don't disagree. Perhaps a more general article is needed then; homosexual clergy? --mav
 * The article title is badly chosen but the content is worth keeping. I see no reason for deletion, merely moving. FearÉIREANN 23:37, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * I have no problem if its elements can be moved to the appropriate places.Ark30inf 03:52, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I removed from VfD because most folks seem to favour a title change over deletion. Still not sure we agree on what the title should be, though! :) Martin 22:26, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * It bears mnetioning that every Pope is indeed a Bishop, every time. One of the requirements of being Pope is being a Bishop. A layman can be elected Pope, he would be ordained, consecreated as a Bishop, and then installed as Pope. A listing of those bishops who are verified as gay, and also Popes, would be appropriate here. As far as the name, like moving this to homosexual clergy can work, and be more general. Dominick (TALK) 17:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

remove if article has no info
See Talk:List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people. There has been a proposal to remove anyone from that list whose article does not mention that they are gay. We can't have it both ways. If those people are removed from the List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people, then the bishops should be moved from this list if their articles don't mention that they're gay. RickK 02:56, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * List selection criteria can vary on a per-list basis. Thus most in list of incumbents are complete lists, whereas most in list of people by belief are selected lists. Selection criteria should probably be chosen to maximise the usefulness of a list.


 * Which isn't to say that RickK's suggestion is wrong: only that inconsistency with LFGLB alone is not a reason. Martin 10:42, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Cleanup, etc...
I tried to clean this up a bit - I think the Gay Popes (or alleged at least) should go on the Gay popes page that there is, not here with no information. I hope I have improved on this article. JG of Borg 18:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

This article needed a massive rewrite. There is no need to have a section on gay popes when there is a separate article. Likewise, the priesthood section was totally speculative. It took a paragraph to say that there are no known cases of openly or outed gay bishops in the RC church. (Of course there are gay bishops, but that it beyond the scope of Wikipedia) And who says that some of the abusive priests have "undoubtedly" become bishops? Carolynparrishfan 23:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

One-sided
One would think that homosexuals in the episcopate were a novelty or peculiarly Anglican. I added some historical info. - there is a lot out there concerning the presence of gay men in the episcopacy, and the various reactions of their judicataries towards them. Fishhead64 19:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

New Addition
Information is correct, but it's not really neutral in presentation in my opinion. Any other thoughts. (About 2/3 of people...) 69.236.160.12 (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Gay apostolic succession
I think that in certain cases, there were reports that one gay bishop had been succeeded by another gay bishop, in a strange phenomenon that might be called gay apostolic succession. For instance, take the series of affairs in the diocese of Palm Beach, where Anthony O'Connell suceeded Joseph Keith Symons as bishop. Is it possible that certain bishops are deliberately demanding that their episcopal successor be a homosexual just as they are ? With all the public tensions that we have seen in the Catholic Church in recent times, I feel that it is not at all unreasonable to presume that there is. ADM (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia isn't the place for unsourced presumptions, either that such "demands" are made, or that either O'Connell or Symons is gay. +Angr 22:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If we can find relevant sources for this article that discuss the likelihood of two consecutive gay bishops in one single diocese, I believe that it would be noteworthy to mention. ADM (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Only if it's asserted that it's not a coincidence. And either way, that's a very big if. +Angr 23:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There is an interesting source here from Richard Sipe which asserts that it is not a coincidence. It also asserts that Symons and O'Connell are gay. ADM (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is contentious content and has to be sourced to an exceptional level to match the exceptional assertions made. Please don't post sourcing which would never meet our standards. If you have specific content and a source please propose them and others can evaluate what is the best way to go. -- Banj e  b oi   23:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is complete nonsense. Everyone knows that papal legates have a role in identifying potential episcopal candidates; and all successful applicants must be approved by the Curia and in most cases, the Pope. A bishop cannot select their own successor! Had you considered perhaps that O'Connell and Symons may have both got the job because they were actually good and the best candidates! Contaldo80 (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you incidentally have evidence that O'Connell amd Symons are gay? The article on O'Connell suggests he was caught up in the sexual abuse scandal but you may be wrongly assuming that abuse is connected exclusively with homosexuality (your comments above seem to suggest this). In fact sexual abuse of minors is no more common among homosexuals then it is among heterosexuals. Please stop confusing the two issues - they are not the same thing. If you look into the details of the O'Connell case the depositions suggest that as a man in his 40s he was involved in inappropriate, non-consensual, predatory conduct with adolescent boys - at least around the ages of 13-14. Doe - one of the abused students - seemed genuinely confused about his sexuality; while O'Connell argued that he could "cure" him of his homosexual tendencies. O'Connell is not "gay" as we would understand the term.Contaldo80 (talk) 10:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Look, it's a known fact that many episcopal appointments are just vetoes, the bishop tells the nuncio who his designated successor is, and the curial congregation merely rubber-stamps it. Both O'Connell and Symons apparently were engaged in sex with males over an extended period of time, and this clearly amounts to having a same-sex orientation. See for example the article pederasty, which describes a peculiar form of homosexuality ADM (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well not really. Someone who assaults children or adolescents not only abuse their position of power but are acting on either paedophiliac or hebophiliac tendencies. This abuse can and is male-female, male-male, or female-female. With regard to the priesthood, only when a male is slightly older and the relationship is consensual could you argue that pederasty comes into play. Homosexuality or being gay is normally understood as a consensual and mutually reinforcing relationship between males or females. It's a mistake to imply the sexual abuse crisis was the fault of the "gays". Instead it reflected a bad policy (clerical celibacy) which encouraged and gave succour to sexually immature and poorly-adjusted men, and then wrapped it up in a climate that encouraged secrecy, authority and obedience. Let's avoid perpetuating the myths in this article. It's meant to focus on men and women with a homosexual orientation rather than men and women who are abusers of the vulnerable. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

LDS Church section
The "Ron Boston" mentioned in this section is simply not notable. The source is not reliable: it's just a blog which doesn't cite it's own sources, and its claims that Boston was a high ranking LDS official is ludicrousness (he was just the equivalent of a parish priest or a local pastor). Additionally there is no evidence demonstrated that this nn individual is deceased, so it fails both WP:N & WP:BLP. This "conversion" is so unremarkable and so poorly documented it does not not even qualifying for a passing mention as a WP:ONEVENT. The whole section should be replaced or removed. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, and have removed it accordingly. If a reliable source can be found then there would be a case for adding it back, but the existing one seemed insufficient. - Bilby (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think the text argued that he was high-ranking but rather that he was defined as a bishop in the LDS - then going on to clarify that bishops are akin to pastors. But I accept the point that the source would have to be improved. Raher than look for bishops in the LDS I think in the context of this article it might make sense to focus on high-ranking official (which is the helpful point that is raised above). In which case it might be good to include something on Joseph Fielding Smith - making the point abour organisational differences within LDS. I'll try and add something. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I had meant that the former source had itself made such a poor representation of a bishops place in the LDS Church's organization as to discredit it even if it had come from the popular media, instead of just a blog. Additionally the mention of Joseph Fielding Smith (presiding patriarch) is out of place on this article, as he was not a bishop, and the position of a Presiding Patriarch is not analogous to that of a bishop in any other denomination. This is not an article about gay clergy in general; it is instead limited in scope to those that are called by the title of bishop. Arguably this article could include those called other titles but that would be recognizable based on their function/roll as a bishop, but Joseph Fielding Smith does not meet that criteria. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A fair point I guess. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Grammar in lead paragraph
The grammar in the following sentence in the first paragraph "Homosexual activity was engaged in secretly" should be cleaned up. The adverb "secretly" modifies "engaged". Putting the word "in" between the two is either redundant, grammatically incorrect or both because "secretly" becomes a dangling modifier.

Better to just write "Homosexual activity was engaged in secret" or "Homosexual activity was engaged secretly". A third alternative is to change "secretly" to a noun, hence "Homosexual activity was engaged in secrecy". Neargonad (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The in is necessary because the complete verb is to engage in. In the active, you have to say "They engaged in homosexual activity", not "They engaged homosexual activity". Because the in is required in the active, it is also required in the passive: "Homosexual activity was engaged in", not "Homosexual activity was engaged". The sentence "Homosexual activity was engaged in" can then be modified with the adverb secretly: "Homosexual activity was engaged in secretly". The in goes with engaged, not with secretly. —Angr (talk) 05:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. Thank you. Neargonad (talk) 07:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Scandal around John Favalora
In 2010/2011, bishop John Favalora in Florida was mentioned in a sex scandal in Florida.
 * Renewamercia:The case against Archbishop John Favalora of Miami: why he must resign
 * MiamiNewTimes:Archbishop Favalora Accused of Turning Miami Archdiocese Into "Corrupt Homosexual Superculture"188.118.174.122 (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"Gay bishops"?
Would it not be more appropriate to title this page "Homosexual Bishops", as that is the more correct term? "Gay bishops" could just redirect to that, and not the other way around. Timotheus1 (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How is homosexual "more correct" than gay? They mean the same thing. Angr (talk) 09:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I meant more politically correct. Timotheus1 (talk) 11:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Gay is slang and has other meanings (happy). With reference to female bishops, it would not be clear whether gay encompasses lesbians. You wouldn't title the article, "Queer bishops", now would you? Homosexual, on the other hand, is precise and universally accepted. What bothers me, though, as discussed below, is the article's conflation of orientation and activity; "homosexual bishops" implies strictly the former. --SlothMcCarty (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Orientation vs. activity
Wow, the article as it stands comes off as incredibly ignorant.

There is a HUGE distinction between being a homosexual and engaging in homosexual coitus. There are, no one would doubt, plenty of continent homosexually-oriented clergy, and there are plenty of heterosexual clergy who have engaged in homosexual activity (experimentally, on the down low, whatever). Conflating the two is just an embarrassment to Wikipedia.

From the first line: "The existence of homosexual bishops... [was] never... considered licit."

This couldn't be more wrong. See, for example, CCC 2357-2359. Homosexuality has always been accepted, at least officially. In the Catholic Church, since married men may not be ordained to the episcopate, ALL sexual activity of bishops is illicit, regardless of whether the partner is male or female. So, neither a bishop's orientation, nor the homosexual or heterosexual nature of a bishop's sexual activities is of any relevance whatsoever.

--SlothMcCarty (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ou are mistaken, married men were at one stage ordained to the Catholic episcopate. Nor do I think the article is "incredibly ignorant", but I accept it could do with a bit of work to make sharper and more accurate. For example we could change the lead to say: "Traditionaly, homosexual activity was condemned within the majority of Christian churches (and least unti modern times); and those that did engage in sexual activity most often had to do so secretly."Contaldo80 (talk) 10:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Whatever "gay" means here, it seems odd that such an article exists. We don't have one on "red-headed pharmacists", do we? Maproom (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

BLP violation
An editor is claiming that a sourced statement concerning Hipólito Reyes Larios violates BLP but has yet been able to point to the Wikipedia guidance that confirms this. In the absence of such guidance the text may remain in place. I would rather that editors avoid edit warring and address concerns constructively. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP clearly states that for Wikipedia to identify a living person by sexual orientation requires that the person unequivocally self-identifies with that sexual orientation. That has not been sourced, so please revert your edit and stop edit warring. Thank you. I have made a report at WP:BLPN. Sundayclose (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV reads We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But you haven't yet been specific as to why the material in the article does violate the BLP policy. I'm finding this discussions somewhat tedious now. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * All you have to do is look at the source and read the policy. The source cited by Contaldo80 does not state that Hipólito Reyes Larios himself states that he is gay. If anyone thinks that he has done so in the source, please give us a direct quotation from that (or another) source. That is a direct and unequivocal violation of WP:BLP: "sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life" (bold added). Furthermore, the policy states: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" (bold on the policy page). There's nothing unclear or tedious about that. Wikipedia has much higher standards for BLPs than other articles. Sundayclose (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolute nonsense. The text we have says "In October 2016, a group in favour of marriage equality in Mexico called the Pride National Front (FON) outed a number of Catholic leaders who they said were homosexual. The list included Hipólito Reyes Larios (Archbishop of Xalapa in Veracruz)." This is simply a fact. The source is a reliable and mainstream one, and the story is reported in several other news articles. The wiki article doesn't say that Larios is homosexual. So I can see no violation of BLP. And in any case what is contentious about saying someone is homosexual? Contaldo80 (talk) 11:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you seem to have a gross misunderstanding of WP:BLP. We don't even allude to sexual orientation unless it is stated directly by the subject. If I put an article on the internet claiming that every head of state in the world is gay (or if I claim that every celebrity who has come out as gay is actually heterosexual) and someone puts that on Wikipedia, it would be removed in a matter of minutes. And if someone repeatedly restored it, that editor would be blocked within a matter of minutes. As for "what is contentious about saying someone is homosexual" you missed the point entirely (again, you don't understand WP:BLP); the issue isn't whether it is contentious, the issue is Wikipedia policy. This is not an anti-gay conspiracy by a handful of editors on Wikipedia. It's policy. And the policy applies to any sexual orientation, including heterosexual. Take a couple of minutes to actually read the policy. If you disagree with the policy, the appropriate step for you is to raise your objection on the policy's talk page, not blatantly violate it. In my first comment above, I stated that I raised this issue at WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive247. You never bothered to comment there. So if you think editors here are abusing WP:BLP, let me urge you to report it at WP:BLPNB. Sundayclose (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "If I put an article on the internet claiming that every head of state in the world is gay (or if I claim that every celebrity who has come out as gay is actually heterosexual) and someone puts that on Wikipedia, it would be removed in a matter of minutes." Agree. But that isn't what happened. The line in the article refers to media reports that said he had been outed as gay. That is simply a fact. The article is not referring to the original source but to media reports. Therefore there has been no violation of BLP. I don't think you yourself understand the policy. Finally, if you say you raised the issue on the noticeboard you should have alerted me on my talk page - that is the proper procedure. You didn't. And anyway, no-one else has said they have a problem with the article. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I had no obligation to "alert you on your talk page." You started this discussion; it's your responsibility to look at the responses. Again, take it to WP:BLPNB if you don't like the way others feel about the policy. This isn't just about one article; it's about a policy. See what kind of support you get there, then we may have something to discuss. I may respond there, but I'm finished discussing it here. Sundayclose (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is actually common practice to alert. I also didn't start the discussion - you did. I don't have a problem with the policy - the policy is fine. I have a problem with your interpretation of it. So I'm not going to start debating the policy with others. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Anglican Church of Canada
The three bishops elected in Toronto in the fall of 2016, including Bishop Robertson, were consecrated over the weekend, if someone wants to update that section of the article (since my doing so is apparently so objectionable). Carolynparrishfan (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 24 November 2023

 * 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. Per consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Gay bishops → LGBT bishops – The lead of this page starts off with: "This article largely discusses presence of openly lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender and queer bishops in churches governed under episcopal polities. The existence of LGBTQ bishops in the Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist and other traditions is a matter of historical record, though never, until recently, were LGBTQ clergy and bishops ordained by any of the main Christian denominations." It is therefore clear that the article encompasses more than simply gay bishops and that this is not the sole or even necessarily the primary focus of the page, as lesbian, bisexual and transgender are also primary points of focus. Helper201 (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 08:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support precisely per nom. BD2412  T 22:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Include a 'Q', per the quote above? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: LGBT bishops or LGBTQ bishops? NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 08:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As long as the main article is at LGBT, I would say this should be consistent with that and all the "LGBT history in..." "LGBT rights in ..." articles. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:58, 8 December 2023 (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.