Talk:John Bosco/Archive 3

Controversy?

I removed the section "controversy" (see history) and I wait the author of such information. It is completely biased. Please do not use the Wikipedia to bring your personal interpretations. --Albeiror24 - English - Español - Italiano - ខ្មែរ 06:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

This article has been relatively stable with the exception of editors who want to delete cited text. A number of long time editors have this article under Watch. We help to insure that unsourced edits or WP:NPOV edits do not occur. You have no WP:CONSENSUS for a wholesale deletion of cited material. --Morenooso (talk) 06:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear sir, I am the author of Don Bosco as a Featured article. This article in English is not a featured article. Now well, in Wikipedia we do not have relatively stable articles. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. References are not by themselves supportive of any statement, especially with bias. I checked the history and you are protecting an intention of defamation. I will see it with other users. --Albeiror24 - English - Español - Italiano - ខ្មែរ 06:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand paper versus online. Stable is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to an article that is receives minor edits. I counted three admins on this article and one user, Bradjamesbrown who would take me down if they thought I was vandalizing, POV'ing the article, etc. I don't to throw around puffery. My history of comps here speaks for itself. --Morenooso (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hands at work. Working in this article.

1. It is needed to resolve the problem of the title controversy. Which controversy? How many people were discussing such controversy? Who established that was a controversy?
2. It is needed to be resolved the problem of the authority of the reference. One reference can established a conclusion? (This user is checking carefully such reference.)
3. This statement is legally a defamation. It is attacking the name of a person who cannot defend himself (though his legal representatives.) Every person has the right to the good name and, in consequence, it is not possible to establish by a reference that perhaps he has pedophile tendencies. We could face a legal sue just for this as any other media. --Albeiror24 - English - Español - Italiano - ខ្មែរ 12:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The section clearly does not maintain a neutral POV. It is a very serious charge (or insinuation). Consistent with wikipedia policy, serious claims require serious sourcing. This attack section does not meet that standard. Moreover, it appears to have wp:or and wp:syn. Wikipedia also has a preference against putting such matters into separate "controversy" sections. Based on those serious flaws I have removed the section. Mamalujo (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW, to both you relatively new editors to this article, this was a settled dispute that was settled in 2006. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Notice_board/Archive_2. WP:CONSENSUS was reached to include what was deleted today. As with other catholic articles on Wikipedia, deletion is never a viable or desired option because you light the powder keg for others to see why material was deleted. The old axim, be careful for what you wish seems to apply as deletions of settled disputes often rub editors the wrong way. Please see Catholic sex abuse cases if you doubt me. With all the alleged scandals being reported, an editor with an agenda touched off the raging debates and edits on that article. The case can be very easily re-opened because of this deletion. --Morenooso (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Just a note on Albeiror24 ... he is the one that forced through the John Bosco name change on the commons to Don Bosco. He kept badgering the editors until they gave up and walked away. He'll do it here too if you let him. Philly jawn (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This comment is out of context. Do you want to bring a rightful discussion of other problem here? We are not discussing on an user, but on a fact. Then, that older discussion was closed with good evidences and it was a single one. Your statement is just out of context. --Albeiror24 - English - Español - Italiano - ខ្មែរ 11:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the fact that a new user, user:Mamalujo, came to the article and deleted the controversy section. No consensus for this existed. And, I'm not about to go away. Granted, I don't like how the evolving scandal with the catholic community is being reported or handled but wholesale deletions of cited material is not warranted until consensus is reached. --Morenooso (talk) 03:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the honorific, Don, goes against Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Honorific_prefixes and even Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(clergy)#Saints. That too can be revisited for consensus. It is one thing as per WP:HONORIFIC to use a title like don in the initial paragraph but afterwards and even in the article name title is highly discouraged. --Morenooso (talk) 03:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, that is why it is let honorific Don underconstruction. "I don't like the fact that a new user" --> This statement is subjective. In Wikipedia it is relative to say new. Then new or old editors to an article do not gain more or less rights to improve it. To be more careful with my own objection, I have been through several pages of the references places by the creator of the "Controversy section". If I get enough info to conclude the same, that there is a real and evident controversy, I am openly ready not only to let such section, but to put it in the best way. The real problem is not who is new or old, who is the user or his creed, but how is the level of authority of a reference to start a controversy over a subject. In this I am strict. --Albeiror24 - English - Español - Italiano - ខ្មែរ 11:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Morenoso, I am not a new user to this article but am a longtime contributor going back to 2007, if not earlier. Also, the consensus on this page was to omit the material for the reasons I stated above and for reasons explained in the archive of this talk page, including that the accusation is serious and the sources are week for this POV, fringe theory claim. You will note that this article was stably without this section until it was reintroduced in February of this year. As to consensus, the consensus was to omit it. Moreover, it is those who would include it that have the burden and no one has addressed the objections to its inclusion. Mamalujo (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Underconstruction tag added 2010-04-26

Be careful to follow the Wikipedia:Five pillars in editting this article. The Underconstruction tag is not exempt from them. --Morenooso (talk) 06:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. We old wikipedians (and founder), need to be remembered too. I will work in it as I did in Spanish. --Albeiror24 - English - Español - Italiano - ខ្មែរ 06:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

New editor to this article tonight 2010-04-26 has accused me of arbitrary edits

Please see this diff. As per my talkpage post, I am a Page Patroller who has been on this article long-term. You can check its RevisionHistory. There are also admins on this article. They would not let me do POV editting. You need to get your facts straight. --Morenooso (talk) 06:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can demostrate (for me it is not night, but afternoon). If you are patrolling this article, you did a mistake, because my accusation is that you are protecting a difamation intention. Now well, if you remove the POV, you go against the rules too. --Albeiror24 - English - Español - Italiano - ខ្មែរ 06:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I know all about maintenance tags. I even could tell you baited me and you just supplied that prove in your post about removing the tag.--Morenooso (talk) 06:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

This article:

• 1stDIFF - * remove this section of "controversy" that I find biased and I wait its author to assume any discussion'
• 2ndDIFF POV and we are going to see who is supporting bias under cooked references

From my talkpage:

• Your arbitrary reverts --Morenooso (talk) 06:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Intent to restore deleted section

There was no consensus to delete the controversy section. Since I had performed two reverts, I did not want to be caught up or accused of a 3RR situation. Tomorrow I will restore the section as no WP:CONSENSUS existed to delete it existed. --Morenooso (talk) 03:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair warning: should these editors try to tag-team the article again with a POV trick, the closed case will be re-opened and it will bring scrutiny. --Morenooso (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This issue was previously addressed and the material was omitted from the article for the reasons stated above and on the article's archive page. The consensus was to omit the matter and it was recently reintroduced in February of this year. Of course, those who would place material within the article have the burden. No one has addressed the objections to its inclusion, as such, I can't see why it should be restored. Its problems are many. Among them are that it is not NPOV, is highly speculative and plainly a fringe theory and thus does not belong in the article. Mamalujo (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. And, there was no consensus for its deletion the other day. We can open the case if you wish. --Morenooso (talk) 06:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

POV, disputed and reimprove section tags added: 2010-04-30

The POV Section tag was added because no consensus for its previous deletion was had. As per the tag, the tag cannot be removed until the dispute is settled.

The Disputed Tag was added for the same reason.

The Refimprove requires additional references for improvement edits or deletions. As per its tags, any addition or deletions can be challenged and removed/reverted immediately.

And to the two editors, who reappeared to this article, I do this not because I have a grudge, am POV'ed or anti-anything. I detest when editors come into an article and wholesale delete sections because they have an agenda.

The controversy section is disputed. Any attempts to remove will go to the appropriate noticeboard. --Morenooso (talk) 07:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is your agenda: "I don't like how the evolving scandal with the catholic community is being reported". Are you assuming that is there any "scandal" with Don Bosco? Scientifically none. So far, the section is referring to a theory. With the readings I am doing, the more precise title should be theory than controversy. Now well, do we have enough references to settle it as an authoritative theory as well? Reading about it, I find that several saints are pointed by some references as possible-homosexuals and lesbians and transgenders. Do we have to create a section as controversy for every Saint placing such references? --Albeiror24 - English - Español - Italiano - ខ្មែរ 11:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

From this point on, comment on the article or towards improving as per the talkheader. Otherwise, warniings for WP:NPA will be issued. --Morenooso (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is DISPUTED. Maintenances cannot be arbitrarily removed. The next deletion will place this article at the appropriate administrative board. --Morenooso (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPA

All edits from this point should be about the material and not the editors. Any comments directed towards any editor that reflects not about content should be addressed by other editors. --Morenooso (talk) 07:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Attempts to insert the poorly sourced and POV fringe theory that Bosco was a pederast

There have been repeated attempts to insert the poorly sourced and POV fringe theory that Bosco was a pederast. This was tried a couple of years ago, too, but for good reason, the article has been stable without the dubious matter for some time. Then, in February, there was an attempt to insert it again. Claiming that someone was a pederast is a very serious claim. It is axiomatic on Wikipedia that exceptional claims require exceptional sources:

"See also: Wikipedia:Fringe theories Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:

• • surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
• • reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
• • claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources.[5] If such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and the undue weight provision of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." [Emphasis added]

I checked and none of the biographies of John Bosco (i.e. "mainstream sources") contained any of these claims. There are not high quality sources for this grave claim, hence per Wikipedia policy "the material should not be included". I have deleted it. Until, the proper standard is met (which it cannot be), it should not be reintroduced. Mamalujo (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Initial dispute placed on noticeboard

With the last deletion without getting WP:CONSENUS and failing to abide by the Section tags requiring improvement/consensus, this article has been advanced to the LGBT noticeboard where the last dispute was moderated. Please see this DIFF. --Morenooso (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible rewrite of Controversy section

Somebody asked me to come take a look at this discussion, based on my outsider status on this particular talk and having done some enhancing middle-road editing on another article. Looking at it as it is, I have the following concerns:

• The title, "Controversy", is inappropriate for the section as stands, as it depicts no controversy - no people taking opposite sides on a matter. And given that there is only one topic under discussion, it doesn't need more general descriptor anyway (it would be different if there were several contentious points, and thus be "controversies". I am suggesting the title "Pederasty concerns", because it reflects both the concerns Bosco is expressing about others in his quote, and those that Dell'orto expresses about Bosco (although even then, "concern" may not be the right word; as D's views are described here, it's less a concern - "sublimated" suggests he doesn't act on them - and more supposition.
• The statements had unneeded and unsourced editorializing - the material about such suppositions being inevitable.
• There appeared to be unsourced inflation of the widespreadedness of the theorizing by making it sound like D was just one of a number of theorists when he was the only one apparently sourced. Having not read the D material, it may be that D cites others, but then the references rather should be used as the reference to the others and not to D himself (as Wikipedia generally wants secondary sources.)
• The suggested rewrite that follows covers the actual referenced facts in the previous edition, but addresses the concerns listed above. One concern it does not address is whether D is a source of sufficient stature that his suppositions deserve a place in this article, whether he has some particular professional insight on mental state or whether he's just some guy presuming that anyone who is nice to boys must want them sexually. I am not familiar with D and am not trying to make a judgment on that at this time.

Shortly before his death, Bosco commented "I will reveal to you now a fear... I fear that one of ours may come to misinterpret the affection that Don Bosco had for the young, and from the way that I received their confession - really, really close - and may let himself get carried away with too much sensuality towards them, and then pretend to justify himself by saying that Don Bosco did the same, be it when he spoke to them in secret, be it when he received their confession. I know that one can be conquered by way of the heart, and I fear dangers, and spiritual harm..

Giovanni Dall'orto suggests he had sublimated pederastic tendencies, contrasting his tenderness towards boys with the harshness of most schools of the time, and interpreting a number of statements by Bosco and others in support of this theory.

Please comment. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)