Talk:Michael Cox (independent bishop)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Consecration invalid?[edit]

Why does the article say that Cox's consecration was invalid? If, as is stated in the article on Ngô Ðình Thuc Pierre Martin, Archbishop Thuc consecrated Clemente Domínguez in 1976, then Cox's 1982 consecration in the Palmarian church is possibly valid. Presumably the Vatican agrees, if consecrations by Cox are regarded as "valid but unlawful". Frjwoolley 20:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What?[edit]

"Cox planned to protest against the ship being sailed into Ireland by the pro-choice feminist group Women on Waves."

This isn't clear. How it reads is Cox didn't want his ship sailed into Ireland by Women on Waves. How did they get a hold of his ship? Why didn't he want them to sail it? Like, what? Sorry, maybe I'm just daft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.232.96 (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

POV?[edit]

This page is blatantly NPOV, but I do not know enough about the specifics of Cox's clerical history etc to deal with it. - Kwekubo 03:11, 7 September 2005

  • There is nothing in the current version of the article that is not factual. I've removed the POV tag. - Brother Dave Thompson 02:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, the last sentence of this reads "opposes genereal immorality and abortion," and implies that abortion is an immoral act. Abortion is most certainly a controversial topic, but I don't think that everyone believes it to be immoral; there is a lot of debate on the immorality of a abortions currently for sometime. If you can think of a NPOV way to write this (maybe just removing "general immorality" as that is a pretty subjective term), I say go for it. Until then, this article is flagged for POV.Doyel 05:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think there's a POV problem here-- there's no problem to say that Cox opposes abortion. If that's his position, then it goes in the article. If Cox preaches that abortion is immoral, then the article should say that's what he does. But what in the world is "general immorality?" Is that the same thing as saying "he is opposed to bad stuff and abortion?" Sometimes people use the word "immorality" as a euphemism for "sexual unchastity." Is he opposed to sexual unchastity and abortion? If so, which definition of chastity does Cox use? Or does Cox think that "free love" is the way to go, and "general immorality" is another word for littering and air pollution? And where in the world is the source material for this statement anyway, so we can all go look it up for ourselves?DismasMama 04:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Page[edit]

I have moved this page to accommodate the other Michael Coxs who have Wikipedia entries. There is now a disambiguation page at Michael Cox. I hope everyone is OK with this and the name I gave this article, but please feel free to edit :) Aled Dilwyn Fisher 00:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original research discussion[edit]

Due to the recent edits, I've submitted this article to Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Ciarán Broadbery and Michael Cox (clergyman) for further input. --Closeapple (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article title[edit]

Anglicanus, if a move is controversial, there is a process you must use: Wikipedia:Requested moves. Do not just move the page again if the move you made has been reverted. In addition, there is a policy for naming articles: Wikipedia:Article titles. "Michael Cox (Irish bishop, born 1945)" would appear to be a bizarre construction, not used anywhere else. Cox is a Catholic bishop, just not a Roman Catholic bishop. "Michael Cox (Catholic bishop)" would therefore seem to be the most appropriate title. If you disagree, feel free to use WP:RM. Regards, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will be taking this issue further because there has to be some common sense limits to who can be called a "Catholic bishop" (or anything else) and I consider it to be entirely inappropriate for bishops of small vagante groups such as Michael Cox to be called a "Catholic bishop" in their article titles. No one is arguing that the Roman Catholic Church has a monopoly on being Catholic but in an article title including "Catholic bishop" this will probably be interpreted by virtually 100% of readers as meaning or implying "Roman Catholic bishop". For the sale of accuracy he should be referred to as being an "Independent Catholic bishop" or something similar in the article title. And, for you information, articles names such as "Irish bishop, born 1945" are not a bizarre construction" as you've falsely claimed. There are many such article names on Wikipedia. Anglicanus (talk) 12:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Article titles would suggest otherwise; we're supposed to name articles logically and consistently, generally using a name that people will enter in a search bar. Someone looking for an article on Michael Cox will probably not know when he was born... certainly I don't think I've ever seen someone's birth year used in the title of a biographical article. I stand open to correction. As to "common sense limits to who can be called a 'Catholic bishop'", it's not for us to say. NPOV and all that. He was ordained a bishop by Pierre Martin Ngô Đình Thục - that makes him a Catholic bishop. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He was not ordained as a bishop by Thuc himself. He was only, apparently, ordained in an episcopal lineage by bishops in the Palmarian church. Therefore your claim that he is a "Catholic bishop" is dubious at best. It seems to be your POV on this matter that is the problem here. Just because a bishop has been ordained in some kind of "valid" episcopal lineage in a breakaway group which uses the term "Catholic" in its name doesn't make him (or her) a "Catholic bishop" as commonly understood or recognised. By your logic then any such bishop is a "Catholic bishop", including all of the women bishops in groups such as Roman Catholic Womenpriests. Just because someone may be a validly ordained bishop with an "episcopal succession" derived from a recognised Roman Catholic bishop and is in some group which uses uses "Catholic" in their name (such as Old Catholic and Anglican Catholic) doesn't make it acceptable to just use "Catholic bishop" in their article name. This would be ludicrous, as it is in this instance. And, as I've already stated, many biographical articles use birth years for disambiguation purposes when this is a good way to do so. Anglicanus (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support Michael Cox (independent Catholic bishop) Elizium23 (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Anglicanus and Elizium23: according to Judge Patrick Durcan of the Children's Court in Ennis, Ireland, Cox "is not a bishop."

Durcan told the court "it is disgraceful that a young man like this is duped into believing that he is married by someone who parades around and calls himself a bishop, but is not a bishop."

︙

Durcan said: "This is the second example I have come across in this district of young people being duped into marriage by someone who has no function in that regards. It is very, very serious."

Insp Tom Kennedy said that the demand in December that the first marriage by Mr Cox be investigated "is being dealt with" and confirmed to Judge Durcan that this second marriage will also be investigated.

︙

Durcan said: "This man is not a bishop and he is not entitled to marry anybody."

— Deegan, Gordon (2014-02-13). "Teen duped into marriage by fake bishop". irishexaminer.com. Irish Examiner.
The title needs to be changed to reflect this fact. I suggest "Michael Patrick Cox" as the article title. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BoBoMisiu and Elizium23: : While I doubt that a judge has the capacity to decide who is or isn't a bishop, the problem with the article's current name is that it is misleading at best. While agreeing that the term "Catholic" does not only apply to Roman Catholics, describing Cox as a "Catholic bishop" without any qualification would lead most readers to assume that he is a bishop within the Roman Catholic communion. According to the MOS full names of people should only be used in their article title if that is how they are commonly known, which I doubt is so in Cox's case. I still maintain that Michael Cox (independent Catholic bishop) or Michael Cox (independent bishop) are more appropriate and that the current name isn't. Anglicanus (talk) 03:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Cox (independent Catholic bishop) would meet both disambiguation and neutrality requirements, while also keeping in line with naming conventions. No objection if you want to move it, @Anglicanus:. (Though a ping from either yourself or BoBoMisiu would have been courteous - it's normal to ping all participants in a topic rather than just those supporting one side). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Anglicanus and Bastun: I agree with Anglicanus that at least the word catholic should be removed. According to the judge, Cox does not have the capacity to marry people. He is permitted to call himself a bishop but he "has no function" as a minister of marriage, i.e. the marriage documents he provides are fictitious. It is misleading to call him a bishop – there is no WP:RELIABLE citation in the article that contradicts the judge's statement. Boyle's list is a WP:SELFPUBLISH WP:TERTIARYUSE that makes claims about third parties but does not cite sources. "Any controversial, alleged fact is essentially unsourced if the only citation it has is to a tertiary source of questionable reliability", according to WP:DONTUSETERTIARY. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're putting words in Anglicanus's mouth, BoBoMisiu. What he actually said was "I still maintain that Michael Cox (independent Catholic bishop) or Michael Cox (independent bishop) are more appropriate" and it was he who first proposed the move to "...(independent Catholic bishop)". I don't know how familiar you are with Irish law, but while a civil judge's ruling on the validity of a civil marriage is one thing, his opinion on the Valid but illicit ordination of a bishop is an entirely different matter. If I were you, I'd take the uncontested move to Michael Cox (independent Catholic bishop) as a workable compromise, and move on. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun: no, the judge's statements in court should be given prominence to prevent WP:FALSEBALANCE. The judge said: "This man is not a bishop and he is not entitled to marry anybody."
Bastun, WP:BISHOP states: "For bishops [...] in the Western world, do not use their episcopal [...] title in the article name unless necessary for disambiguation. For article names where there is both a forename and a surname, used also by other articles, inserting (bishop) afterward is common, [...] Adding "(independent Catholic bishop)" is not. Moreover, WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES states that "bishops of major denominations are notable by virtue of their status." Cox is not such a bishop, in fact, Cox is according to a court "someone who parades around and calls himself a bishop, but is not a bishop." –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BLP issue[edit]

BoBoMisiu, there is a WP:BLP issue with the recent addition of the claim that Cox conducted illegal weddings. A district court judge - in the course of separate, unrelated trials of people for 1) "a string of [unspecified] offences", and 2) "trespass" - has alleged that he did so. The Gardaí are apparently investigating the allegation of conducting illegal marriages. No prosecution has yet taken place that I am aware of and in fact I can't find anything to say Cox has even been charged yet.

(On a side note, the judge's remarks are... odd. "He added: 'You do know that the State and other organs within the State require that people be prepared for marriage?'" Um, no. The state requires proper notice of a marriage, no "preparation". The Roman Catholic Church, in some (not all) dioceses, requires people to attend a pre-marriage course - but the RCC is not an organ of the state. "if you are not property married, that will have severe implications for the status of your marriage, the status of your wife and the status of your baby that she is expecting." Um, the judge appears unaware of the passage of the Status of Children Act of 1987.) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bastun: I do not think it is a BLP issue. The judge addressed the court: "This man is not a bishop and he is not entitled to marry anybody".–BoBoMisiu (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is clearly a WP:BLP issue! See WP:BLPCRIME. I'm going to revert again and raise this on the BLP noticeboard for independent eyes to assess. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On a related note - the Episcopal Conference of England and Wales oversees Roman Catholic matters in - well, England and Wales. Not Ireland. Not Northern Ireland. We have the Irish Bishops' Conference for that. So if you insist on including an opinion (and that's all it is) from the English/Welsh Conference press office, the fact that they have no jurisdiction needs to be included. WP:BALANCE. Why are they even included?! Please stop edit warring. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun: ultimately, it comes down to no reliable third party source that that shows he was ever consecrated as a bishop. The Tablet reported that there was doubt in 1998. Howse's 2006 opinion, in telegraph.co.uk, pointed out that there was doubt. Durcan said in 2013 that Cox ws "a man who calls himself a bishop" and "who masquerades as a clergy man." In 2014 Durcan said that Cox "parades around and calls himself a bishop, but is not a bishop." Can you show otherwise? All I see you presenting are straw men and red herrings without links. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whereas all I see is you presenting the opinions (nothing more!) of people unqualified to comment. The District Court deals with minor criminal matters. A District Court judge is entirely unqualified - in unrelated criminal cases which had nothing to do with Cox! - to issue a ruling on whether or not Cox was consecrated as a bishop, and/or whether or not that consecration was or was not valid but illicit. Similarly, the Episcopal Conference for England and Wales is entirely unqualified to issue a judgement on the same issue regarding an Irish bishop within the jurisdiction of an entirely different episcopal conference, the Irish one. (You are aware Ireland is not the same as the England and Wales, yes?) All they can give is opinion. Which is not unencyclopedic. If you insist on including them (which is dodgy on WP:BLP grounds) then they need to be balanced. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun: a judge speaking to his court is qualified privilege. Yes, The Tablet is in London and the Episcopal Conference for England and Wales is in London but your questioning the location is a straw man – you and I simply do not know where the information that the press office provided came from, whether it is from the Vatican or the Irish Catholic Bishops' Conference.
I spent a few hours searching for reliable information about Cox and could not find anything positive to add for balance nor could I find reliable sources that he was actually consecrated. He seems to be a WP:BLP1E, I think he fails WP:NOTABILITY and I think the article should be WP:AfDed. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As explained on the BLP noticeboard, "privilege" is a red herring. It just means the judge can't be sued for anything he says, whether that's his opinion on Cox's validity or his opinion of the Taoiseach. It doesn't make him the Pope, speaking ex cathedra. I'm not questioning the location of the English/Welsh episcopal conference, I'm questioning it's jurisdiction over Irish matters. When I referred above to balance, I meant if you insist on including the opinion of the English/Welsh conference, then we'll also have to include the fact that they presented no evidence to back their claim and have no jurisdiction. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bastun: I do not understand your judge–pope comparison. Nevertheless, you are right about my theism WP:EUI (i.e. my excessive consumption of strong tea) of The Tablet article, I read "Catholic Media Office" but thought "the press office of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales". Collect partly corrected my poor edit but "Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales" should never have been added. The problem that I created about location and jurisdiction is not an issue. I apologize. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Howse in telegraph.co.uk[edit]

A 2006 personal opinion by a columnist, Christopher Howse, published in the "Personal View" section of telegraph.co.uk commenting, in part, on the personal website of his subject, Pat Buckley (bishoppatbuckley.co.uk). I gleen two facts about Cox from Howse's opinion:

  • Cox is an episcopus vagans according to Howse – he wrote that, "Buckley is one of a [...] bunch who [...] have been made bishops by [...] episcopi vagantes"
  • "There has been controversy over the validity of his [Buckley's] consecration" when Howse wrote his opinion in 2006.

Howse's "Personal View" is used to support this sentence:

Cox claims apostolic succession as a bishop from the Palmarian Catholic Church through the episcopal lineage of Pierre Martin Ngô Đình Thục, the former Roman Catholic Archbishop of Huế in Vietnam.

  1. "Cox claims" he is a bishop
  2. Howse wrote in his 2006 "Personal View" that "controversy over the validity" of one of Cox's acts
  3. Judge Durcan stated, in court, in 2014 that Cox "is not a bishop."

Including these gives WP:BALANCE and WP:RNPOV to the article. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 March 2016[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Double take on the date of this RM and almost did a procedural close; however, I went ahead and read it to find a consensus to remove the "Catholic" from the qualifier. I see no conflict with the archbishop since there is a hatnote with a dablink to both names. (page mover non-admin)  Paine  u/c 17:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Since this RM has been going on for so long, I would not be averse to a new discussion to garner consensus for an improved article title. Please be sure to read the move logs as linked in the box just above the TOC near the top of this page.  Paine  u/c 14:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cox (Catholic bishop) → Michael Cox (bishop) – By convention we have not included the denomination/church for bishops when disambiguation from other people is necessary. There are neutrality problems with labelling him a "Catholic" bishop since he is not part of the Catholic Church as most people understand it. I can find no other bishop Michael Cox he has to be distinguished from, so there is no need for further qualification than "bishop". Mangoe (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually another Bishop that shares this name Michael Cox (archbishop of Cashel). This may need to be looked into since at the very least a hatnote should be added.--67.68.210.65 (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@67.68.210.65: there has been a {{Other persons}} since 2010.–BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@70.51.46.39: Michael Cox (archbishop of Cashel) is disambiguated as archbishop with a location while the proposed disambiguation for the subject of this article is bishop without a location. I do not see that the Cox of this article has an association with Cashel, County Tipperary. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RECENTISM just because his final ecclesiastical rank was archbishop does not mean he was never a bishop. Indeed, he was Bishop of Ossory for 11 years. So, any works describing the bishop in Ossory for that period would be talking about the Anglican, and not the Catholic person, thus the rank "bishop" is ambiguous. The Archbishop was never elevated to archbishop without serving as a bishop, thus we have two bishops by the name "Michael Cox" with articles, so it is a WP:PRECISE failure as both were/are bishops -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
70.51.46.39 : These seem to me to be erroneous interpretations of the WP:RECENTISM and WP:PRECISE guidelines. As you obviously disagree then please enlighten us as to what article name you think is appropriate for Cox according to WP:BISHOP. Anglicanus (talk) 04:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Cox (bishop, born 1945) or Michael Cox (born 1945), just like any other biography article. The archbishop was also a bishop for a time, so both PRECISE, RECENTISM and PRESENTISM apply, since assumption of only the last ecclesiastical rank without historical perspective when dealing with other ranks previously held and the personal histories of that period of time when they held those makes the "(bishop)" use ambiguous. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Clearly the current title is misleading, and with an appropriate hatnote he can be distinguished from the archbishop. StAnselm (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm happy with Michael Cox (bishop, born 1945), mentioned above. This may be a helpful compromise. StAnselm (talk) 09:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've rarely, if ever, seen a disambiguation of date of birth in a BLP, especially when several rather more obvious disambiguation titles present themselves. Despite what the anon IP above says, using a date of birth to disambiguate is not normal practice. See WP:BISHOP. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This bishop is not dead WP:BISHOP uses date of death, which is not available for this person. Most articles on people deal with dead people, so dates of death can easily be used. There are many biographies that use dates of birth as disambiguation [1]; so it is not that uncommon. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun:, you must look at different pages to me. It's the standard practice in sports articles, and used in thousands of articles. Random example: Jack English (footballer, born 1923). StAnselm (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support some rename. The present title implies that his episcopal ordination is recognised by Rome, which apparently it is not. I express no strong view on what the precise outcome should be. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support some rename; if he's not Catholic he's not Catholic and the current dab is misleading. At the same time, just Michael Cox (bishop) is ambiguous with Michael Cox (archbishop of Cashel).--Cúchullain t/c 17:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about Michael Cox (independent bishop)?--Cúchullain t/c 17:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think we could get away with Michael Cox (vagante bishop), even though it's true.... "Independent bishop" is suboptimal in that in general churches that have bishops don't hold to independence as a legitimate state. Mangoe (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what the problem with "independent" would be, especially as it's used in the article and a few news sources. At any rate, just "bishop" is unusable due to there being another bishop of the same name.--Cúchullain t/c 18:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Cuchullain: I agree, I think Michael Cox (independent bishop) is good, news reports for the last 20+ years show he identified himself in several vague ways. @Mangoe: Cox does not clearly identify himself with a church, in the sense of a denomination or sect, e.g. even his church building in Cree is, according to the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage, not "in use as" a church.[2] He certainly fits the category of episcopus vagans but only one writer, as far as I can see, labeled him as such so far. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that in churches which have bishops, independence isn't a valid state. Cox is claiming his authority arises out of those churches, so he does have a legitimacy problem. If we can't come up with anything better than "independent", then we'll have to go with that; my point is that it isn't really a neutral label, and I was hoping that someone might come up with something better. Mangoe (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mangoe: in all the reading I did about vagantes, there is agreement that their ordinations are illegitimate and disagreement that their ordinations are valid. I agree with you independent implies a state of separateness from communion that the secular sense does not convey. Their minuscule groups appear to exist, according to The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, to exist only for the vagantes sake (p. 558) Sadly, it is also what some of these people are called, e.g. Independent bishops: an international directory (Cox is not found in it) and Who are the independent Catholics? (Cox is not found in it). I think it is, nevertheless, the best suggestion so far. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you read through all of this, you know the answer: that I had sufficient doubt about his notability to suggest that the article be deleted rather than moved. And he is not "most certainly" Catholic. Mangoe (talk) 22:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What's the basis for that statement? He was a Roman Catholic. He is no longer in communion with Rome. Hence he is still Catholic, just not Roman. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun: what is his denomination? He was ordained as a priest by an unknown bishop purportedly in 1978. He was consecrated as a bishop of the Palmarian Church purportedly in 1982 (on an undisclosed date). After 40 years one could reason that Cox would have cleared up simple things like dubious dates to show his credibility. Reliable sources mostly say he calls himself a Tridentine bishop and nothing more. I would like to see a link that shows that he calls himself a Catholic bishop. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Last I heard, all Tridentines were still Catholic, just like all Anglicans are. Maybe not Roman Catholic. Roman Catholics do not get exclusive use of the term "Catholic", even if they think they do. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of who "gets" to use the word; it's a question of what readers will understand. A sophisticated reader such as myself will understand that an unadorned "Catholic bishop" means that the claim isn't true because of several violations of the way bishops are supposed to be ordained, but I doubt the general readership would get that. It also verges on endorsement.
We seem to have come up with three candidate labels. Might it be good at this point to lay them out and express our preferences? Mangoe (talk) 11:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun and Mangoe: there are two separate questions:
  1. what is Roman Catholic (term)? – outside the scope of this discussion
  2. what is Cox?
Saying "all Tridentines were still Catholic" is like saying "all Palmarians were still Tridentines" while excluding the critical qualifier "until 1978 when the group became a recognised new religion in Spain and substituted Palmarian rituals for Tridentine rituals." Palmarians use the term catholic informally – even the church name does not include catholic: Iglesia Cristiana Palmariana de los Carmelitas de la Santa Faz. What is described as his order (a kind of group), "Irish Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church", includes the term church as part of the description of an order, the semantic drift of that term causes confusion as does the term Orthodox in that name. The whole name is open to interpretation yet nothing seems to be published on the meaning. Another Cox order, "Order Mater Dei," states "Novus Ordo is the Default Mass and Latin Tridentine Rite only when requested" and "We may be seen as an auxiliary force who promote the Roman Catholic Church as first preference."[3] Everything seems to have a very fuzzy meaning. None of these Cox groups or individuals are found in the unofficial thecatholicdirectory.com. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC); modified 13:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cox isn't "Catholic" in the way the vast majority of readers will understand the term, ie, he's not connected to the Catholic Church. As such it's very misleading to a lot of readers. And StAnselm has a good point below that in the broader sense of the term "Catholic", the Anglican bishop is also "catholic". It still seems to me that "independent bishop" suits our needs pretty well.--Cúchullain t/c 14:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the best way forward? I think it's clear the article isn't going to be deleted, which leaves the renaming question. Do we go for a preference-type poll between Michael Cox (bishop), Michael Cox (independent bishop), Michael Cox (independent Catholic bishop) and any other candidates? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My first preference is for Michael Cox (bishop, born 1945) as the most neutral and precise title. 2nd: Michael Cox (bishop); 3rd: Michael Cox (independent bishop). StAnselm (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My 1st: Michael Cox (independent bishop), 2nd: Michael Cox (bishop). Since 2006, the disambiguation page had labeled him as a Palmarian. If that is verifiably the case, then 3rd: Michael Cox (Palmarian bishop). –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Cox (bishop) is not an option. He's certainly not the primary topic for a bishop called Michael Cox, so WP:TWODABS does not apply. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Another fly in the ointment[edit]

It's not clear that anything in the article is true other than that Cox claims to be a bishop and that he has made the news on several occasions, and possibly the chain of consecrations that leads to him. For instance, I found a website for a "Irish Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church", which publishes a list of bishops. Cox isn't on it, nor is any other bishop mentioned. I also find no connection between Cox and the Palmarian Church other than Ngô Đình Thục, who was the source of the first Palmarian consecrations but who also consecrated a number of others outside Catholic authority. I have found no connection between him and any organized church. Mangoe (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe: even Buckley, on the defunct bishoppatbuckley.co.uk, a suspended and excommunicated Catholic priest, who took the website down after the UK Border Agency and police uncovered "bogus marriages" of immigrants that Buckley was associated with. Cox is not named in that article. Circa 2013, Buckley "received a suspended jail sentence in the last few days after he admitted officiating over numerous sham marriages." International weddings by arrangement at the Wayback Machine (archived May 1, 2015) with "wedding deposits" by PayPal. The same page, states Buckley was "consecrated a bishop by two bishops - one Irish and one American" but does not name Cox online. Buckley makes claims, in 2006 his book, that "The validity of [...] Cox, [...] has been recognised by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin, who have urged him to apply for laicisation." Buckley's logical fallacy is to equivocate being "urged [...] to apply for laicisation" with being granted such a rescript. But Buckley's claim of recognition is contradicted in statements by the Catholic Church and almost every source previously added to the article, talk page, and noticeboard.
The Cox WP article had revisions that named Ciarán Broadbery (or Broadberry according to Buckley's book) as Cox's consecrator. The 2011 deletion of Ciarán Broadbery has an edit summary that "Poorly sourced BLP, whose content is disputed by the apparent subject. I have removed some of this content while the Prod continues. The two sources given were a self-published website." –BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm beginning to wonder whether we should have this article. He is rapidly turning into a clause in a sentence the Sinéad O'Connor article. Mangoe (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mangoe : I certainly think it is worth raising the question of his notability. There are already far too many articles on Wikipedia of bishops of very small or even virtually non-existent churches who are of doubtful notability for much else. Anglicanus (talk) 04:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the claim of a Palmarian connection because the sources do not say that there is one. Thục is known to have done several irregular/illegitimate consecations beyond that which started the Palmarian church, and the chain from the 1999 article used as a reference for this does not go back to the Palmarians; it goes straight back to Thục. Mangoe (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are far more articles on Wikipedia for mainstream Roman Catholic and Protestant bishops who really aren't notable at all - just a couple of paragraphs saying they were born, educated, ordained, consecrated, and died. Being a priest or bishop in a mainstream church doesn't, in itself, confer notability. Cox, at least, has been named in thousands of news articles over a period of years for one event, and has featured in national press on several occasions. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of this has anything to do with the Palmarian church claim!!!! Come up with a citation which says that he IS in the Palmarian church, and then we can talk. Mangoe (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Back off"?! Really? WP:CIVIL, please. I was responding to Anglicanus, who had raised the issue of notability. Sheesh. On the Palmarian issue, nobody is saying he's a member. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun: your opinion about notability is different than what WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES states: "bishops of major denominations are notable by virtue of their status".
I think Cox is not notable for an article but I think something about Cox and Buckley should be included in the Irish Travellers § Marriage section. Cox ministers to Travelers.[4] Traveler practise child marriage.[5][6][7] In 2002, Buckley "defended his right to give blessings to teenagers as young as 14, after it was reported he performed a ceremony involving a 15-year-old Traveller."[8] "We have had cases like this before whereby the children actually believe they are legally married and it has taken a lot of effort to unwrangle everything," according to Father Stephen Monaghan, a Travellers' parish priest.[9] There is a common thread of some kind of ceremonies involving children who are under the impression that they are married when they are in fact not. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice. WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES, however, is an essay (not a policy or even a guideline) outlining how previous AfDs have gone. It doesn't apply here. Given your comments at various points above and on the BLP noticeboard, your new section below, and the fact you display "Roman Catholic" on your user page would lead me to believe you have something of a biased view... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun: yes I am Catholic. Could you please show me where you see this bias. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun: I am not Catholic (though I am an Anglican) so I don't have a dog in the "Catholic" thing other than the false advertising issue. Mangoe (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No political office[edit]

Losing a single election and never holding a political office is not a political career. The section title is irrelevant and misleading. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The section title should be changed or removed all right. The sentence is worthy of inclusion, though, as clergy and bishops do not usually run for or hold public office (in Ireland, at any rate). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun: Cox was a candidate who lost one election – the fact is irrelevant – if he were a jockey his gates opened and the pony stood still. The reason clergy incorporated in the Latin Church of the Catholic Church do not hold political office is because they "are forbidden to assume public offices which entail a participation in the exercise of civil power" and "are to refrain completely from all those things which are unbecoming to their state".[1] –BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ CIC 1983, c. 285.

Consecration[edit]

@Collect:, thanks for your edits. Just to note, Cox doesn't say or claim he was consecrated by Thuc. He was consecrated by his episcopal successor. Your current wording is therefore misleading. Cox "saying" he is a bishop sounds, to me, as if WP is saying he's just making it up, but (although I accept "claims" is normally a word to avoid), "Cox claims" reads more neutrally in this context than "Cox says". The other option, of course, would be to just state that Cox is a bishop without going into how he became one. Second issue - Cox consecrated Buckley - he didn't ordain him. I also think the inclusion of what the English/Welsh conference's press office thinks about an Irish bishop is a complete red herring. It's equally unqualified to speak about the German RC hierarchy, the price of fish in Adelaide, or the Oscars. It should probably be removed in its entirety but if it is retained, the clarification should also be retained. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Ordaining" and "consecration by laying on of hands" (which is what Apostolic Succession entails) are essentially theological equivalents. And "day" is better than "claim" as a general rule. "Bishop" is not a special class of priest, by the way, it is a hierarchical position as being head if a diocese and not a "super-priest." Even the Pope remains a "priest" by the way. The person does not assert that he is a "Roman Catholic Bishop" - but that he is Bishop (that is, a hierarchical title) in his "Independent Catholic Church." As he does not say it is "Roman Catholic" it is pretty much irrelevant whether the RC church considers him a "bishop" or not. See such sources as http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/jmjoncas/LiturgicalStudiesInternetLinks/ChristianWorship/Texts/Centuries/Texts_1900_2000CE/RCWorshipTexts1900_2000CE/Rite_of_Ordination_of_a_Bishop.htm and http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/vocations/priesthood/priestly-formation/faqs-priesthood-ordination-seminary.cfm . Note that "ordination" is currently more common than "consecration" for the act. Understood? Collect (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun and Collect: a 2004 AP story in the Sydney Morning Herald said: "Cox, [...] says he was ordained a priest by a Vietnamese Tridentine bishop in 1978, then consecrated to become Ireland's only bishop of the Tridentine sect," –BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And again - he was ordained a priest, and ordained a bishop - the term "consecrated" does not have a separate and distinct theological value from "ordained". And, in fact, mindlessly copying exact words from a source is improper where simple synomyms are at our disposal. See also Puglisi 1996 "consecratio and benedictio are, in the Roman sacramentaries, the proper designation of ordination prayers, and there is no apparent distinction of meaning between these two words." Collect (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Collect: I am not arguing with you. The sacrament is ordination. In the context of episcopal, both terms are used in documents on vatican.va, Catechism of the Catholic Church, and in Code of Canon Law translation. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer "ordination" to "consecration" and, with bishops, both words are officially used and acceptable but I think it is preferable to have consistency in the article. Anglicanus (talk) 22:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Effort to grab headlines[edit]

@Bastun: the 2016 AfD has shown that the consensus, as of April 2016, is that Cox is a controversial figure.

In 2001, Cox planned to convert his 75-foot (23 m) commercial fishing trawler, called The Little Bishop, into "a mobile floating church, offering on-board marriages and baptisms to people around the British Isles." Cox planned to protest against the ship being sailed into Ireland by the pro-choice feminist group Women on Waves.[10] In 2004, Cox's 84-foot (26 m) trawler, called The Patriarch, caught fire while underway and sank – the sinking "destroyed what would have been Cox's latest effort to grab headlines" in 2004 by planning to shadow "the abortion ship, Aurora."[11][12] Cox also planned to use The Patriarch as a church.

Irishtimes.com points out that this plan "destroyed what would have been Cox's latest effort to grab headlines" – he is only notable for his publicity about his planning to do something. The sources do not mention that he actually followed through and completed what he publicised that he would do. For example, there are no news articles about him actually protesting at sea or even converting a fishing boat into a church. But, the publicity is all about his planning and nothing more. Removing "would have been Cox's latest effort to grab headlines" is sanitizing his adventures. Published interviews of local people frame him as "a bit of a crackpot" in the 1990s.[13] In 1998, Cox and Buckley planned to "co-operate pastorally" and were "looking at re-enacting the Holy Orders of [...] priests" as part of their business model.[14] But Buckley doubted the validity of Cox's sacramental acts and wrote to the Irish Times in 1999 that he was conditionally consecrated as a "precaution" because Buckley was "conscious" that Cox "was somewhat of a 'loose canon'."[15] He seems to be a "crackpot" or a "loose canon" whose notability is his antics.

The phrase "would have been Cox's latest effort to grab headlines" should remain in the article. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful even if the personal opinion was attributed to someone with competence in the field of Irish religious affairs. As an unattributed quote made by an AP reporter, published in the Sydney Morning Herald? Not a hope. Please read WP:BLP. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just to note, it's not anyone in the Irish Times making any remark about Cox grabbing headlines. It's an unnamed AP reporter offering personal opinion in something of an AP colour piece that seems to have been picked up by a couple of Australian newspapers and Fark.com. "Published interviews of local people"?! From 30 years ago?! See WP:COATRACK. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun: please address each item individually. I do not understand which ones you are writing about in this thread.
The 2004 AP is not only about the sinking that "destroyed what would have been Cox's latest effort to grab headlines" but also describes that "Cox has attracted special attention with a string of stunts, including exorcising alleged demons from a Dublin radio station and the national parliament; setting up a confessions-by-phone hot line; and selling a 'Heal yourself, by the miracle bishop' home video."[16] The odd duck quacked more than once.
So reporting something that is syndicated is BLP because of what specifically in the cited articles? There is no coatracking, the articles are about Cox. "From 30 years ago" – without a doubt – is what biographies contain; biographies are not sanitized advertisements about anyones recent ventures. People are born, they live, and they die. The interesting part is about how they live. He is exclusively notable for his controversies. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You said "Irishtimes.com points out that this plan "destroyed what would have been Cox's latest effort to grab headlines." It did not. This is an encyclopedia article. We do not include sentences like "[the sinking] destroyed what would have been Cox's latest effort to grab headlines", written by some unnamed news agency reporter. I've been to (Roman) Catholic ceremonies, and seen priests exorcising evil and demons from babies at them, turn wine into the blood of Christ, and forgive people's sins using God's power - it's what Catholic priests do, isn't it? If you think the sentence in question should be included, by all means, see what the BLP noticeboard thinks... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun: the boat exploded and sank. It was a sinking (because simple past tense, sank, cannot be used), it was on the water then it was under the water. Cox is exclusively notable for his controversies. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what point you're trying to make. Nobody disputes that the boat sank. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun: Cox is exclusively notable for his controversies. My opinion was explained above. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reading between the lines, that's what we're tending to get in the article: a tiny bit about his background and the circumstances of his questionable ordination, and then basically a list of a stunts that have got him in the news. The whole thing is hardly coherent because the narrative isn't coherent except on that basis. Mangoe (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I gathered what I could find about Cox on a workpage (User:BoBoMisiu/28-March-2016-draft-michael-cox). Does anyone want me to move here to use or work on? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dominguez by Thuc in 1976[edit]

@Bastun: removed with edit summary "Not per source - personal opinion being introduced?" What is not in the source? Here is what you removed:

Domínguez was irregularly consecrated in January 1976 by Archbishop Ngô Đình Thục of the Roman Catholic Church.[17]

... Gomez ... had been made a bishop by ... Ngo-Dhinh Thuc (1897-1984), who died apparently reconciled with the see of Rome.

Please quote what you read as "Not per source - personal opinion being introduced". –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you stop using the coloured-in templates, please? It's distracting, and unnecessary.
I did not remove what you claim I've removed. I removed one word, "irregularly", which - per the edit summary - is not in the source. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun: no, I will continue to use templates to distinguish what I write from previously added content.
You are right about only removing irregularly, it was the extra line endings you added that confused me.
Do you think irregularly is contentious (WP:BLPCITE)? Please read about Thục and this event to familiarize yourself with the content. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a forum. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun: of course this is not a forum. Do you think irregularly is contentious (WP:BLPCITE)? You did remove what I thought was not contentious and well sourced in this article. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:V. Your constant questions about every edit are now bordering on disruptive. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bastun: no, I am not disruptive. Do you think irregularly is contentious? It is very straight forward question. I believe it is not. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe you can ignore WP:V to insert your own commentary? The reference supplied does not say what you claimed it said. Simple as that. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun: no, I am not ignoring WP:V. No, I am not inserting my own commentary. Irregularly is not an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim and I believe it is not contentious to be removed. Reading Ngô Đình Thục, Clemente Domínguez y Gómez, and Palmarian Catholic Church articles shows the 1976 acts by Thục were not normal and resulted in excommunication of all involved. I have added references about this into the article. I believe irregularly is not contentious.
If it is contentious then an academic source cited on another page can be referenced. It says, for example, "1976 (January 2): Archbishop Bueno declared the ordinations irregular" (p.3). "1976 (January 14): Archbishop Bueno declared the consecrations irregular and the newly consecrated bishops suspended" (p.3). I am familiar with the material. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Travellers in Kantz[edit]

@Bastun: removed with edit summary "Cox ministers to *people*. 'Gypsies' in the source? What's that about?!" What is not in the source? Here is what you removed:

Cox ministers to Travelers.[18]

O'Connor stated that the money was "an act of charity" to set up a healing center for Cox's ministry to travelers (Gypsies) as well as to fund a hernia operation for the bishop.

Why was this removed? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you stop using the coloured-in templates, please? It's distracting, and unnecessary.
Why did I remove that Cox ministers to "Travelers" (sic)? Because it's a complete non sequitur, obviously. He's a minister. Every priest I know ministers to Travellers. It's not notable. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun: I have replied about use of templates above.
According to David Lynch, in Voice of Travellers, Cox "plays a special role for some in the Travelling community. He is willing to marry young Travellers under the age of 18."[19]
Cox said to Lynch that "I recognise their [Irish Traveller] customs and appreciate them."
Do you think this is contentious? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what the sentence said, though. It just said that he ministered to "Travelers" (sic), full stop. Do you think that priests in Ireland don't normally minister to Travellers? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun: the article is not about speculating what other priests do – I think that is a modal scope fallacy – many or most news sources describe Cox interaction with Irish Travellers. This is a documented part of his ministry. Do you think this is contentious? You are removing content for little reason. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, most sources don't do that. Some of the sources specifically mentioning Traveller weddings do - that is all. The priests in the last three parishes I've lived in all ministered and minister to Travellers. It's unworthy of special comment, or inclusion in an article. Would you add that a bishop in a predominately white American town ministered to black people?! Your inclusion is just as offensive. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun: the article is describing what sources write about Cox. Yes, I would add that a bishop ministers to black people or any other group. For example, there are Roman Catholic parishes that minister to migrants that are established by Canon Law for "reason of the rite, language, or nationality of the Christian faithful of some territory, or even for some other reason."[20] They help, for example, people who are victims of forced labor or victims of sex trafficking or victims of war.[21][22] They even translate liturgical texts into languages people speak.[23] –BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of which is in any way comparable to an Irish cleric ministering to Irish Travellers, which is a lot more mundane. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bastun: in Ireland, there is The Parish of the Travelling People in the Archdiocese of Dublin which is one of two such parishes in Europe.[24] Of course this is another red herring which does not describe what Cox does. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is indeed such a Roman Catholic parish. Your point? Look - if Cox refused to minister to Travellers - that'd be notable. Doing what every other minister does simply isn't. Performing wedding ceremonies for Travellers who appear to be underage is notable, and that's included and referenced. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a distinctly RS/OR reaction to this. The actual source here is Sinead O'Connor, and I'm not inclined to go from "she is donating money for a ministry center" to "Cox himself conducts such a ministry." Mangoe (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mangoe: do you think adding an additional reference would be adequate: Cox said in a 2008 Voice of Travellers interview that "I am saddened that less people are going to mass and the sacraments. But it is true that faith is still strong within the Travelling community. My phone is always hoping of the hook. Travellers tell their friends and family about me- and I am very much in demand."(pp.24–25) "I go around to people, visit hospitals, provide healing. I think I am well known and well liked in the (Travelling) community."(p.25) –BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Mangoe - it seems to be a poorly researched article culled from other news agency reports. Irish Travellers (two 'l's) aren't gypsies, for a start. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The spelling in the article, traveler vs traveller, is nothing more than accepting a default suggestion of a spell checking program. The context from several sources is quite clear that the idea is "Irish Traveller". The addition of the term gypsy adds disambiguation within the article for an American reader who may not be familiar with who this may be. The distinction between gypsy and traveller was not as clear in the 20th century. Looking at the sources in Irish Travellers there was a shift in style that took place. For example, in the 1984 The Traveller-Gypsies, the term Gypsies or Travellers is used. The articles that I have found about Cox do not write about Romani people. The sense of traveller changes between (Britain) A modern-day gypsy, tinker, caravan dweller, etc. and (Ireland) A member of the nomadic ethnic minority, but traveler is the American standard spelling of traveller. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can use the traveller magazine article to put the marriage controversy in a larger context. But it's not clear that what he does specifically for travellers goes beyond satisfying their desire for underage marriages. Mangoe (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mangoe: the wedding-like ceremonies may be the core of a few paragraphs with explanatory footnotes but little else is published about his ministry to include. Cox's ministry is notable for differences from and not for similarities to Roman Catholic ministry, e.g. the wedding rituals Roman Catholic priests perform are legal contracted marriages. That is a very notable difference since couples in legal contracted marriages gain rights in the law. Those involving Cox do not gain rights.
Another notable difference, at least for members of the Roman Catholic Church, is that the sacrament of confirmation is valid for a Roman Catholic recipient when the minister is a Roman Catholic bishop; the validity of that sacrament is doubtful when the minister is a cleric whose ordination originated from Thục and a Roman Catholic recipient should receive that sacrament conditionally from a Roman Catholic bishop (or priest with that faculty) because of that doubt.[25]
I think it is a logical fallacy to argue further assumption of notability from what is documented about Cox into what is undocumented about Cox, i.e. a ministry beyond the wedding-like ceremonies for anyone. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Church jurisdiction[edit]

@Bastun: you added these edits which is fine. But, you also the edit summary: "An opinion of the bishop's conference for England and Wales re an Irish bishop is out of jurisdiction and irrelevant; Irish opinion now also included"

Your opinion seems to contradict at least one source: Ratzinger reply to Murphy-O'Connor about Broadbery's request for a declaration on the nullity of his ordination.[26]

Can you find a source for your opinion? We can add that. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you change the heading of this section? It's not my opinion, it's a fact that the English and Welsh Bishop's Conference has no jurisdiction over Ireland. Thanks. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun: no, the heading is precise. Please read about this to familiarize yourself with the content. It is your opinion about who is the competent authority involving events that several people participated in, and that occurred in more than one diocese in more than one country. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not supplying sources for edit summaries. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun: fair enough, but you may want to familiarize yourself with more background material. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Order Mater Dei[edit]

"The Official Website of: The Order Mater Dei" ordermaterdei.fortunecity.ws is not a reliable source. An image depicting a mass with a caption "We are a universal religious order Order Mater Dei within "The Irish Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church": having clergy all over the planet in Continents and Countries which includes: America, Europe including the British Isles (Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales)."

The same image is on page 5 of a promotional PDF for Parishsoft church management software with a caption "Bishop Jerome Listecki presides over Liturgy of the Eucharist at St. Joseph the Workman Cathedral, La Crosse, Wisc". A comparable photo of the Roman Catholic cathedral is found in an article lacrossetribune.com about the Roman Catholic cathedral.

It is certainly not related to a Cox group as implied on the dubious website ordermaterdei.fortunecity.ws. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another website associated with Cox is archbishophynesomd.webs.com. Ironically, because of the file structure of the website, the about us page is a webstore structure that presents bishops as its product.

Of 15 photos in the photo gallery (in April 2016), 2 photos depict Pope Francis,[27][28] 1 depicts Pope Francis with Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI,[29] and 2 depict a man in a cassock with St Peter's Basilica in Vatican City as a background.[30][31] Regardless of what the photos imply, the lack of listing in directories of Roman Catholic organizations informs that the Roman Catholic Church has no relationship with either Cox's "Irish Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church" or with Cox's "Order Mater Dei".

Other men also use photos taken in Vatican City to imply a relationship with the Roman Catholic Church, e.g. David Bell in 2012 (Bell is a self-described Tridentine), Ralph Napierski in 2013 (all 3 men surrounding Cardinal Sergio Sebiastiana in this headline photo as well as the photographer within the photo take part in Napierski's hobby), and others. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is this section about? Getting your retaliation in first? Throwing red herrings all over the place? The article does not use either of the sites mentioned as a source! What "other men" do with photos taken in Vatican City is also irrelevant to this article, as is David Bell. Please stop treating this article's talk page as a personal forum. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun: no the article does not use either and should not. I visited the sites hoping to find reliable information but quickly saw what is a common technique on episcupus vagans websites – out-of-context message design. By starting a discussion, future editors can see what I saw. Yes, discussing both sites is salient because both identify Cox as a leader. Noting that both sites use photos in a way that implies a relationship with the Roman Catholic Church shows the illusion – it places the Roman Catholic Church on a cognitive map but in the wrong context, in effect guiding the audience to draw false conclusions about a relationship with the Roman Catholic Church. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bullshit practice and a prime example of poisoning the well. And one you've used before - pretty much the only contributor to that page. Don't start the same here. If someone introduces a dubious source, then, yes, absolutely open a talk section about it. Not before. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not poisoning the well. I disagree with your change to the section title. The photo of Roman Catholic bishops at a Roman Catholic Mass in the cathedral of the Roman Catholic Diocese of La Crosse, Wisconsin, has nothing to do with this non-Roman Catholic group. The photo is used in a demonstrably false context. Use of the photo discredits the website ordermaterdei.fortunecity.ws. It is not a reliable source for information about itself. The other Cox associated website, archbishophynesomd.webs.com, also uses out-of-context message design. Sharing that is collaborating with other editors.
Showing a history of a talk page is vague. To prevent fragmentation of the discussion, please explain what you mean in those Talk:Arnold Mathew discussions where I will reply. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you absolutely are poisoning the well. You are discrediting something that nobody has introduced to this article, or has even suggested adding to the article, plain and simple. It's pretty much a textbook example! Can you please just stop? There is nothing "vague" about the talk page history I linked to. It's you, having a discussion with yourself, with nobody else participating. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neither ordermaterdei.fortunecity.ws nor archbishophynesomd.webs.com should be added into the article and other editors should know about these sites. I hope we both agree on that. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the point here? It's par for the course to try to paint vangantes like Cox with some varnish of legitimacy, but really, the nuances of this are beside the point, and never mind that ordaining O'Connor puts him beyond the pale. Mangoe (talk) 01:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe: I was looking for sources about his groups. I saw the photo of something that seemed familiar and did an image search on it. It turned out to be unrelated to the website. I looked at both sites and realized they are not reliable. Editors may get the impression that the photo is about the group when it is not. The rest is context about others (some Thục related) who also use photos that imply a relationship with the Roman Catholic Church. The same page also uses words that imply a relationship with the Roman Catholic Church "Our Holy Father, the Pope, [is] successor of Saint Peter and as such is chief pastor of the Church."[32] The page also mentions canon 844 in a way that implies the group is an organization within the Roman Catholic Church. It are not. Moreover the § Requested move 22 March 2016 has some discussion about Cox as a Catholic but not Roman Catholic, but what is found on ordermaterdei.fortunecity.ws seems to point toward a Roman Catholic identity. But he is excommunicated and the groups are not Roman Catholic. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's almost like you're trying to engender a Streisand effect or something... Look, the way this works is simple. People add material to articles. If the material satisfies verifiablity, sourcing and other policy requirements, great, it remains. If it doesn't, then it can be challenged and/or removed. We don't pre-approve and pre-disallow individual sources, except by general reference to policy. (That said, I wish to point out that this is also an unreliable source that should never be used in the WP articles about Michael or Courteney Cox). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Using WP:COMMONSENSE there is distinction between random sites and what are purported to be official sites. Both ordermaterdei.fortunecity.ws and archbishophynesomd.webs.com are WP:SELFSOURCE that "involve claims about third parties", i.e. represent being organizations within the Roman Catholic Church. They have WP:EXCEPTIONAL use of out-of-context material. The confusion also affects how this article is titled – both sites convey a Roman Catholic self-identity but the above discussions (especially § Requested move 22 March 2016) point to a distinction between Roman Catholic identity and Catholic identity that is not seen in the self-identity projected by both sites. Yet they are not organizations within the Roman Catholic Church. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And, once again, using WP:COMMONSENSE, if and when someone asserts something using those sites as the source, you can subsequently challenge the inclusion, or at least the quality of the sources. Until then, maybe step away from the dead horse. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is about discussion of identity elsewhere on this talkpage not about inclusion. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Cox (bishop). 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Cox (bishop). 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Cox (bishop). 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church[edit]

Hi TheDodoBird01. See the sentence "He is the founder and bishop superior of the Irish Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church"? See the number right after it. Click on it, it brings you to the reference used to back up the previous sentence. In this case, it's this newspaper article. Wikipedia relies on verifiable, reliable sources and the source in question backs the statement. You can't remove it because you disagree with it or don't like it. If you continue to remove sourced content, you risk being blocked. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bastun, I understand your point of view, but I changed that information because if you search about the Orthodox Church you will find out that it was not founded by this bishop, the Orthodox Church appeared in 1054 when the Church of Christ divided in two: Orthodox and Catholic. Also, it has a different organisation, and in this Church are not allowed female priest. There are various countries that have this religion, as: Russia, Greece, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, Serbia etc. I don't know what sources has that newspaper, but I can search for credible sources in order to show that I'm not talking about something I invented. I believe that the people that need to know that this bishop has nothing to do with the Orthodox Church. So thank you for telling me what you have said, I will come back with the information I told you about, and hope you will consider suitable for Wikipedia! Have a nice day! TheDodoBird01 (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And the article doesn't claim that Cox founded the Orthodox Church, it claims he founded Irish Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is something different. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bastun, search for any Orthodox Church, it is the same, but depending on the country it can be Russian, Romanian, Greek, Bulgarian, Irish etc. The term"Catholic and Apostolic" after Orthodox comes from the greek language "catholiki kai apostoliki" which means in greek "universal and Apostolic" church. This is why I wanted to change that information. I did not have time to search for the articles I mentioned you about, but when I'll have some free time I will come back with those. TheDodoBird01

Requested move 2 July 2018[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved to Michael Cox (independent bishop). Everyone appears to agree that the article must be moved, and "independent bishop" appears to be the solution drawing the least objection. bd2412 T 15:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cox (bishop) → Michael Cox (bishop, born 1945) – The present title is WP:INCDAB due to the presence of Michael Cox (archbishop of Cashel), another bishop of the same name with more historical significance. Michael Cox (bishop) should redirect to the dab page. Other options for the disambiguation were named in the previous RM and other discussions, such as Michael Cox (independent bishop) and Michael Cox (independent Catholic bishop); any of them would be suitable. Former title Michael Cox (Catholic bishop) would not be suitable for the reasons highlighted in the last RM. Cúchullain t/c 18:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page move, 1 April 2020[edit]

I am confused about the rationale for moving this page. @Chad The Goatman: said something about his "denomination" being clear? Why does that matter? Per WP:CONCISE I believe we endeavor to use short and sweet disambiguation suffixes. There was no need to tack on "Catholic" to this dab. There is no other independent bishop named Michael Cox, am I right in thinking this? Elizium23 (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Cox_(independent_bishop)&oldid=1201210327"