User talk:TerrierHockey

Horatio Alger, Jr

I have no sympathy for those convicted of crimes including child abuse but we can't use unreliable sources as fact and we can't use a parody biography at all. Cat clean (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The primary source for these allegations is the very church that forced Alger to resign because he was molesting boys: http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/horatioalgerjr.html This is not unreliable, nor is it a "parody."--TerrierHockey (talk) 04:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the church wants to lay blame but the church's historian is only one version and certainly a bias one. Cat clean (talk) 05:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you say it's "only one version," but what is the "other version"? Why would the church make this up? It has no motive to make it up.--TerrierHockey (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The motivation is to stop scandal and rumors, true or not-magnified person to person back then, from being associated with them. People were run out of town or killed for all sorts of reasons - being unwed and pregnant, in love with a married person, the wrong color, etc etc etc. We have to weigh how much the parody biography had an impact on other historians with the bare facts. The church's position was that allegations were made and rumors were flying so they had to do something. Interviewing the boys? Who did that? How? Certainly it wasn't handled by a professional as we would expect in our time. If another well vetted biography pieces all the dots together and comes up with more evidence one way or another then we can rely more on that. We cannot use unreliable sourcing and should be careful with original sourcing and very bias sourcing. Cat clean (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord. The church story goes back to Alger's lifetime, there are documents proving it. As the article says: "In letters housed at the Harvard Divinity School, Brewster church officials wrote to the hierarchy in Boston, complaining of "deeds that are too revolting to relate." This story originated from Alger's lifetime, it was not invented. You have no good reason to change it, this is the original source.--TerrierHockey (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One further message. You are apparently confusing the additions I made to the article with information from "Horatio Alger: A Biography Without a Hero," which is apparently the hoax or parody biography you are referring to. I did not cite anything from "Biography Without a Hero," so your argument that my citations are unreliable is unwarranted. If you can prove the Unitarian Church wrong (which is unlikely, given that the allegations are based on letters originating from Alger's own lifetime) you need to stop deleting sourced material.--TerrierHockey (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove the UUA source I took the molesting boys out of the summary - he was never charged, right? He left town so all could avoid the scandal, right? Look at what your own source states first and please don't re-add completely unreliable sources again. Cat clean (talk) 04:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you read what the sources state he is not known for "molesting boys" he is known for being an accomplished author and actually advocating against child abuse. If you are not willing to discuss this and if you keep adding unreliable sources (not the UUA one which does meet a reliable threshold) than I will have to get others to intervene. Cat clean (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have never even stated which sources are "unreliable." Which ones are unreliable and why? You should state this up front when you delete changes. --TerrierHockey (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stated "removing unreliable sourcing and matching content to reliable sources only" - that's unambiguous. Cat clean (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you acknowledged that the UUA biography is reliable and yet most of the stuff you removed was based on that. So again, you have deleted content that you admit is from a source that is reliable. You claimed that I was "adding unreliable sources," which indicates I added at least two unreliable sources. Which ones were they? Seriously, I would like to know.--TerrierHockey (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternet.org is not a reliable source, anyone can post there. I changed the UUA content to only reflect what they stated and nothing more. There was no trial just accusations and Alger left, we don't know which accusations were true or what he confirmed, so the only account of this is the church's which has its own best interests at heart. About.com was the other source I don't think is ever reliable. Cat clean (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The AlterNet post was an excerpt from a published book: http://www.amazon.com/Fog-Facts-Searching-Truth-Nation/dp/1560257679 This is NOT a case of a random person writing something. It is a published book that happens to have an excerpt on AlterNet. Here is the Google Books reference: http://books.google.com/books?id=8NiiHYvuTHQC&pg=PA137&lpg=PA137&dq=fog+facts+google+books&source=bl&ots=j48gq7B3nU&sig=5wss5IzicGxfQCgiICiF_LJSF5U&hl=en&ei=QTmSTLK4FcP48AaO17TLBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=alger&f=false

Also, I did not quote anything from About.com. The only two sources I used were the UUA biography and a published book. I therefore believe your objections to my sourcing are unwarranted. I am going to add this back in and use the Google Books reference. --TerrierHockey (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you finding the book, that's much better than alternet. I do question why this belongs in Alger's biography at all? Do we note every group that named themselves after every famous person on that famous person's biography? No. It seems like and end run to again link Alger to pedophilia when in fact he was never charged or found guilty - he left of his own accord and we only have the church's records to go by, they are surely bias. Cat clean (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NAMBLA is an advocacy group trying to justify itself, that a chapter named itself after Alger might be relevant to the group but not so to Alger who was never tried or convicted, just accused. Even in the rather inflamatory book it's treated as a trivia add-on. Cat clean (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know, it's rather hard to take you seriously given that you have consistently deleted passages from sources that even you have acknowledged to be legitimate, such as the UUA and Seaburg biographies. You're simply deleting all negative info even when it is properly sourced. For your information, I am in the process of acquiring a copy of "The lost life of Horatio Alger," which according to the UUA is "the only reliable biography" of Alger. I will be interested to see whether you continue to delete my additions even when they are based on the most authoritative biography of Alger. --TerrierHockey (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that "Bishop Accountability" is not a proper source ignores the fact that the website simply reprints an article that appeared in the MetroWest Daily News. The article is the source, and it is a reliable one. Further, your deletion of the description of the allegations against Alger is puzzling, I simply don't understand what justification you have to delete that. Your latest revisions caused the page to be protected again. --TerrierHockey (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the MetroWest Daily News but not Bishop Accountability which is yet another group trying to push the idea that certain people simply must be child molesters. You are missing the point here, Alger is known for writing books and his work to better living and working conditions for children. He was accused of sexual relations by some church folk, he was never tried, never convicted just run out of town. Adding unneeded scandalous text for unproven accusations and trying to post-humously label him as a child molester and namesake for a pedophile group is not acceptable. Cat clean (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is good that you are trying to get this worked out. I will unprotect the page when it appears that there is agreement on what is to be done. It would be good if you went and filed a request for a third opinion. Just drop a note on my talk when you have figured it out. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 22:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TerrierHockey is there anything actually missing from this biography? We put the rumors of sexual relations in the summary and devote a whole section to it as well. I cannot fathom adding in the NAMBLA appropriating his name as they are an advocacy group trying to legitimize their position. If a chapter of the KKK called themselves the Reagan KKK's would we put that in Reagan's bio? No, and unless reliable sources saw it as newsworthy we wouldn't even use it on the KKK article. Cat clean (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't rumors. He admitted doing it and had to leave a church position to avoid prosecution. Plus this isn't just about the Nambla name issue. you have consistently deleted details about the pedophilia incident itself, including details that were in the article and properly sourced well before I ever edited it.--TerrierHockey (talk) 12:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute that he ever "admitted it", if you are again referring to the UUA (again their version of the incidents) it states "At the start of 1866 stories began to circulate concerning his conduct with boys in the parish. Upon investigation they proved to be true. When confronted he did not deny them and elected to leave town before charges could be brought." This is vague at best and we don't know which stories were true exactly what he was confronted with and what he did not deny. It's vague so we must be as well. Also he didn't have to leave the church - the church right there says he elected to leave. You need to use the most reliable sources and what we have instead is accusations, stories, no charges, no trial, etc. Is there anything actually missing from the article that should be there about this? I think it's neutrally presented although the section probably should be just another paragraph rather than it's own section. His real story all happened after that. Cat clean (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, I am acquiring the biography that is known to be the most reliable source and my future contributions will be cited from that book. Based on what I see from you on my own talk page, the Alger edits, and looking at past disputes you have had with other Wikipedia users, you will probably still continue to delete my additions no matter what source I use. You need to be a little more reasonable. It seems you are not willing to compromise given the fact that you have deleted everything I added to the Alger article plus other edits made by other users, and most of the content you have deleted comes from reliable sources. I'm willing to compromise as evidenced by the fact that I have already given up on certain issues related to the article because of your persistence in deleting and undoing revisions, even though I disagree with your stance. But I do intend to expand the section on the pedophilia allegations using a source that even you cannot reasonably disparage.--TerrierHockey (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point I think. It's not disputed that he was accused of something. What is disputed is that Alger is not known for this, and as such the reliable sources give weight to his writing and his charitable work, not this aspect. Sure a mention makes sense but inflating the section with more accusations, innuendo, and scandalous trivia only makes Wikipedia look as dumb as some of the blogs that report this as fact. If a book of 500 pages on Alger and only three sentences are about this then we should not blown this up more than they do. Cat clean (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Horatio Alger, Jr.. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Courcelles 13:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]