Talk:John Bosco/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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 weak 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:CONCENSUS 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)

So far, your claims to defend the inclusion of this said controversy are based only in your idea that new users to the article should not remove texts. Please provide scientific evidences that the section should remain. It is my waiting from you. --Albeiror24 - English - Español - Italiano - ខ្មែរ 10:13, 1 May 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)

I strongly object to the proposed "improvement". Quite frankly it is possibly worse than the other version. Titling the section "Pederasty concerns". Are you joking? Aside from the very poor change in the title, the matter is practically unchanged. The problem with the material is that it is pure speculation and fringe by non-experts. Totally unreliable for such a serious claim. The first source is a totally nonscholarly "Who's who" books which surmises Bosco's homosexuality and pederasty based on the speculation of an early graphologist (The article on the subject states: "Graphology is now generally considered a pseudoscience.[3][4][5][6]". It may as well be based on a phrenologist. The next two sources are equally flimsy and weak, off the cuff statements of speculation. Mainstream historians and biographers do not make this assertion. This is a fringe theory. Even if it weren't, it is a serious claim and the sources are not sufficient to include it at all. Mamalujo (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The suggested neutral rewrite was brought to the attention of the LGBT noticeboard in this DIFF.--Morenooso (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I was not joking about "Pederasty concerns". Do you not feel that Bosco had concerns about pedarasty? Because that certainly seems to be what the quote is saying. Or are you suggesting that the quote is not an accurate one? (Oh, while I'm making comment I should also add that I'm dubious about the use of the LGBT group as a source of consensus for this article, as it is neither the group of editors of this article nor is this at heart an LGBT article; going to there for a consensus seems to be inappropriate venue shopping.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 09:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The section header is incorrect as Nat says it depicts no controversy but is only the discussion of a what if possibility. I would also say the section is misleading in that it gives the appearance that something actual happened when it is supposition and editorialist in nature. The opening comment Perhaps inevitably given his work with boys and young men, is very opinionated and POV, the whole thing is opinionated and POV, Off2riorob (talk) 05:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Im happy with the revision that (NatGertler sets out. I think this is helpful. I agree also that we cannot accept DallOrtos words alone - we need other sources. Therefore worth referencing the biography by Michele Stranieri (in Italian) published in 1987. This quotes Boscos confessor in Turin who said "Se non fossi certo che lavora per la gloria di Dio, direi che è un uomo pericoloso, più per quello che non lascia trasparire, che per quello che ci dà a conoscere di sé". Translated as "If I wasnt certain that he was working for God then Id think this man rather dangerous - more for what he conceals about himself rather than reveals." Nor is it right to call this fringe - the issue of Boscos relation to his charges has been covered at least in wide circulation mainstream newspapers in Italy including La Stampa and La Repubblica - see http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubblica/archivio/repubblica/1987/02/19/santo-ma-anche-mago.html Contaldo80 (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't support that suggestion and agree with User Mamaluigo about that write. I have done a small write which I think is less weighted, the write is not in support of the content. Off2riorob (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Nat Gertler's neutral rewrite and Contaldo80, who is a WP Saints member, brought to this article by someone's post there. --Morenooso (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Controversial content appears to be quite new and posted by Contaldo80 on Feb 3rd in this edit.

Well that citation provided has not even got a writers name, and doesn't mention anything about pederasty. Have any notable people speculated about his alleged pedophilia tenancies? Has there been any actual complaints or police reports of pedophilia? Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

This guy that is being quoted in the article, Giovanni Dall'orto appears to be a Homosexual and some kind of activist and as such should be considered to be very opininated in the issue. See his bio here Off2riorob (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and there are three admins and one other page patroller on this article. In case the full history was not reviewed, I have been reverting vandalism here for the past four months with the other admins/page patroller. We don't let uncited stuff get by us. And, since he editted it in, he has a right to agree to the rewrite --Morenooso (talk) 23:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I am only interested in this issue, this content is very opinionated and is good for removal. Pedophilia and its addition to articles in very controversial at wikipedia and has recently been an issue in the press, weakly cited and asserted as it is here is pretty controversial content to insist on warring over when it is disputed. Off2riorob (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It would rather help if you read the text before setting out your views. It talks of pederasty, but nowhere of paedophilia. These are, of course, two different things. And Im puzzled by the assertion that the proposed rewrite is "opinionated" - in what sense? Calls for police reports seem to suggest a fundamentally flawed concept of 18th century Italy. Did they have a police force then!? And I really have no idea what value there is in stating that Dell Orto is gay - should we edit the rest of the article to point out which of the commentators are black or perhaps Jewish? It simply looks like a poor attempt to discredit Dell Orto to me.Contaldo80 (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Contaldo80. NatGertler has not editted this article (to the best of my knowledge. He was asked to perform a neutral rewrite of the section which he did. If anything, the new section by Off2riorob is POV. --Morenooso (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't remove my cited comment agan, why should it be an attempt to discredit him? he is a gay activist and proud of it. His personal opinions are very relevent to what he imagines and opines .. The whole comment is a POV push it has no basis at all in anything factual, it is all opinionated people and if the person opining is a loud and pround gay activist it is very important in this case to report that. 14:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk)

Your insertion attacking the its writer is contra WP:NPOV and deserves to be reverted.--Morenooso (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Morenooso and NatGertler - I hope yu dont mind but I have suggested moving the text into the main body of the article so that it doesnt stick out oddly. Thus highlighting Boscos good work but highlighting his own fear that it may be misperceived. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. I reverted as maintenace tags and the disputed section is marginalized. --Morenooso (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It is this weakly cited and opinionated content that is attacking the subject, it makes the content worthless and the templates can sit there forever, it is a lot better to write something that is balanced, the writer is a gay activist and you should not try to present him as unopinionated in this situation, all the guy writes about is gay people. Its like fishermen writing about fish, you see what you are interested in. Off2riorob (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It was a neutral rewrite. In effect, you are performing a WP:NPA attack on the writer. --Morenooso (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

He is, presumably, many things - a biped, Italian, incapable of juggling trucks.... no relevancy has been shown for "gay activist" to this topic. "Historian" might be a reasonable cite from that source, as it goes toward establishing why he is a source of interest here. Having said that, I am not yet convinced that he is providing anything that rises to the reasonable import needed here; has his material been used extensively to shape the modern view of Bosco? (Also, is his material commenting on the Bosco quote? It sounds to me like it's commenting on Bosco, not on one particular quote. As such, the new header is problematical.) -Nat Gertler (talk) 14:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

heres his bio, if he is a juggler it is not at all relevent. he is a gay activist and proud of it, at least he is not ashamed of that. You should remember that the fact that he is a pedarist is not a fact it is some people opining that thet think he could have been, in that situation it is very relevent to the opining the positions of the commentators, it is like reporting that mr harris said that Real Madrid are a rubbish football team and not reporting that he is works for Inter Milan. Off2riorob (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Still not seeing the relevancy. If he claimed to be a pederasty advocate, perhaps, but such is not the case. -Nat Gertler (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

NatGertler, I would have preferred to go with your neutral rewrite totally. But, in the spirit of compromise decided to use Off2riorob's section header. Morenooso (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not a neutral rewrite and neither NatGertler nor anyone else has addressed the section's fatal flaws, i.e. that the material is a fringe theory and that as a grave matter it requires serious sources.

The problem is not so much that the source is a gay activist, it is that he is highly biased and unreliable. All three sources make claims not found in mainstream biogrphies and histories based on no evidence. The wild speculation that Bosco was gay and a pederast is based on NO EVIDENCE. The only thing that is cited is the proposition of a psuedoscientist, this is the definition of a fringe theory. Fringe theories are problematic, but they are even more so when they make a grave claim in a biography.

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]

There are not high quality sources for this grave claim, hence per Wikipedia policy "the material should not be included". Since no one has addressed these issues, it should be deleted. I am deleting the matter. Until, the proper standard is met (which it cannot be), it should not be reintroduced. Mamalujo (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. Natgertler has provided a neutral rewrite using sources that reflect the concern. --Morenooso (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

My rewrite did not add any sources; in relation to sources, what I did was strip away unsourced material, including editorializing. Having said that, as I have noted repeatedly in my comments, I am not convinced that the Dell'otro material is sufficient for inclusion. I have not read that source myself. I have not seen anyone put forth sourcing that backs up what appears to be speculation. Even if it was mere speculation, it might be sufficient for inclusion if there was evidence to show that D's speculation has a significant impact on the current view of Bosco (much as we might discuss the historically unverifiable tale of George Washington and the cherry tree in the way Washington is viewed today, or as the Richard III article might cover Shakespeare's depiction of him, which is influential in the common view of Richard despite its historical inaccuracy.) However, all that is separate from the inclusion of Bosco's concern about those who might think they were emulating him, which seems well-sourced and valid in an article that carries a lot on his influence and legacy. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected and should have been more clear. Yes, NatGertler did not provide new sources. He took the old section and did a neutral rewrite that used the old references. --Morenooso (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Under dispute - disputed maintenance tag cannot be removed

The dispute has been far from settled. Until WP:CONSENSUS is achieved, as per its template it cannot be removed. --Morenooso (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW, this does not mean the section cannot be editted. However, great care should be taken by all when editting this section. Think of the Refimprove tag as a request to better this section with appropriate citations that will provide a compromise. --Morenooso (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree. The article is in clinic. No tag should be removed by any single user. Tags will be removed only after a good and neutral consensus. --Albeiror24 - English - Español - Italiano - ខ្មែរ 05:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Albeiror24, in the spirit of compromise and consensus, I would like either you or I to make a Wikipedia:Third opinion request. While the third opinion is non-binding, I will respect and support whatever is suggested and would hope the other editors will too. The disputed section now seems to be between us. What do you think? If you agree, a a new section should be introduced that neutrally asks for a third opinion on the disputed section of this article. --Morenooso (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am agree Morenooso. I find it appropriate and objective. Meanwhile, I continue in the general improvement of the article. Disputes in Wikipedia are not problems, but opportunities in the best for the improvement of our documentary. Please go ahead in creating the new section. My best regards. --Albeiror24 - English - Español - Italiano - ខ្មែរ 06:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I will now make the request. I promise that it will be neutral as per the process. --Morenooso (talk) 06:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Current version of disputed section

The current version is certainly an improvement, but after looking at it and the quote, the sources and other sources, I still have some concern that it is not adequately sourced, not an accurate and reliable quote and that it is not notable. It certainly doesn't warrant its own section. When I searched Google Books for "John Bosco" it returned 908 results, but when I searched for the quote "I fear that one of ours may come to misinterpret the affection that Don Bosco had for the young", it returned zero results, zero. Now if this quote were accurate, verifiable and notable you would think at least one of the nearly thousand books that reference John Bosco would have it. I fact when I searched Google for the same quote it only returned two results! One was this article, the other was a posting on a website apparently quoting this article. Considering that the two sources to which this quote is attributed have a definite POV, it would seem that this "fact" is not very verifiable, that it, even if accurate, is not notable and that it's inclusion in this article smells of POV pushing. Mamalujo (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

First off, those books that "reference" Bosco aren't all books (Google Books includes other things - one listing I see is for a 3-page item) and aren't all referencing the man himself (for example, a membership directory of a church named after the man), and there aren't as many of them as Google may at first suggest (when actually flipping through the pages of them, I see it stopped at 395 items; initial count overstatement is common, for some reason, with Google search results.) But more importantly, I wouldn't expect to find a search for that exact quote, because Bosco was Italian - presumably, we are looking at a translation, and different sources would be apt to translate the material at least somewhat differently. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but if it was an actual quote and if it is notable there should be something in a mainstream source, preferably one without a transparent agenda. Mamalujo (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The source of that would seem to be a lot more mainstream and not borne of a POV than many sources refered to in this article, which are published by "Don Bosco Publications" or "Salesiana Publishers" or similar. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Well the sources are not by experts or biographies, so the are inferior in that regard and, unlike the other sources to which you are referring, these sources insinuate the issue of pederasty. As such, they, per Wikipedia policy, are held to a higher standard as I have twice noted on this page. Mamalujo (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no insinuation of pederasty on the part of Bosco in the currently-quoted material. Quite the opposite, in fact. As such, that objection doesn't hold up. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Indeed, you yourself used it as part of a section titled "Concerns of pederasty", or something to that effect. Mamalujo (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I used it as part of such a section because Bosco was expressing concern about pederasts trying to pass of what they were doing as merely following in Bosco's non-pederast actions. You're fighting to excise a section in which Bosco takes a stand against pederasty. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Definitely agree. The cited source is a single author, who exposes his theory where he concludes that Bosco could be homosexual, deducting such statement from writings and studies about Bosco's life. Reading the authors' theory it is not possible finding a reliable base to bring out conclusions about the sexuality of Don Bosco. Historically (meaning history for science), there are not factual sources to conclude it. Therefore, the mention is vain. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. It is our rule since the beginning of our Wikipedia. --Albeiror24 - English - Español - Italiano - ខ្មែរ 06:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not the part under discussion here. The Dell'orto material is, at this moment, out of the article. It's the quote we're discussing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Coming back to this after a break with a fresher eye, I'm content to see the Dall'Orto theory of pederasty left out. So far I can only find that it's Dall'Orto making this claim and the evidence is by no means convincing or conclusive. That said looking through some biographies of John Bosco there does seem to be an intense obsession with dealing with "impurity" amongst the boys in his charge (presumably a reference to masturbation), and there is a period late in his life when "calumnies" whispered against him lead to a break in correspondence with the pope (who up to that time has received and responded to letters). But we're not told what those calumnies are. I guess we have to wait until reliable writers decide to look at this, otherwise we're risking original research. But that should not affect the inclusion of Bosco's quote itself. This is important because it seems to reflect the perception of his work by others. The problem with the article currently is that it's very light on covering the real opposition to Bosco and his work. It says nothing about the aggression which he faced from the Waldensians (which leads to at least 2 shots being fired at Bosco), nor does it set out his harassment by the Italian State authorities (for Bosco's loyalty to the papacy, perceived as a treasonable offence). Contaldo80 (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion requested

Re: this section John_Bosco#Bosco.27s_concerns_over_his_influence. --Morenooso (talk) 06:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey. I've removed the 3O request for a few reasons. First, there are three people involved here, which technically makes it ineligible for an opinion from a third unconnected editor. Second, it's unclear what the 3O is about: there's no section in the current article with the title "Bosco's concerns over his influence". Are you looking for help from one of the many discussions above? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, several editors have jumped in since the request was made. And, yes it basically concerned that section but spills out to several sections here on this talkpage. It would have been nice to had the opinion given but with the other editors having added comments, the TO is nulled. --Morenooso (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Disputed section now at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-05-10/John Bosco

The disputed section is now at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-05-10/John Bosco which is the next step in Dispute Resolution process. As best I could, I tried to discuss the matter in a way that the Mediation Cabral could look at John_Bosco#Bosco.27s_concerns_over_his_influence and hopefully render a neutral solution for the dispute. Hopefully that committee of editors will come to consensus and provide this talkpage and its article a neutral decision. --Morenooso (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Context and synthesis

There has been some strong, well-intended effort to create some context for Bosco by discussing various geopolitical situations of his era. The problem with this, from a Wikipedia view, is that it's a form of WP:SYNTHESIS - by noting the relative time of these things, we are suggesting that there was some deeper relation, which is the sort of thing we're only supposed to do with sources. Otherwise, it's like my saying "A few hours after my Uncle Bernie was born, Hitler killed himself." While this may be true (actually it isn't; I have no Uncle Bernie), it creates an inappropriate implication that one event had something to do with the other. -Nat Gertler (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

To which specific portions of the article are you referring? Without knowing that, it is difficult to discuss. Mamalujo (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Much of the Background section. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Nat Gertler. --Morenooso (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't tell if it's synthesis or OR. The background section is almost completely unsourced. I suspect some of the biographers do give some background of this type. The section could definitely use some work, particularly on sourcing. With regard to the three sources that are found in the section, in the Turin subsection, they appear to be from works about Turin not Bosco. Unless they reference Bosco, they probably are synthesis. Perhaps someone who's in the mood to do the work could start to develop a properly sourced background section. Mamalujo (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The context section

1. The article is under construction, reference and investigation. We should wait until it is fully complete.
2. "The problem with this, from a Wikipedia view, is that it's a form of WP:SYNTHESIS - by noting the relative time of these things, we are suggesting that there was some deeper relation, which is the sort of thing we're only supposed to do with sources.": It is not true. Context in biographies are required (see as an example.) At the same time, the life and works of Don Bosco is closely linked to Pope Pius IX, the Unification of Italy, Count of Cavour... The challenge is to demonstrate it on the article. Let the editor (s) working in the development of it, proceed, after you can analyze section by section.
3. "The background section is almost completely unsourced.": ???? Prove it.
4. The section could be short, I agree, but it is early to think it.

--Albeiror24 - English - Español - Italiano - ខ្មែរ 05:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Responding numbered point by point:

1. All articles are presumed to be under construction - and in fact the time to bring up objections to that construction is while the construction is under way, so that one can fix problems before too much effort has been put into them. There is no such thing as a "fully complete" Wikipedia article.
2. Saying something is not true does not make it not true. You may want to look more into both WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR. The example that you cite heavily references sources which are talking about Joan of Arc and the context in which she appeared. " The challenge is to demonstrate it on the article" - no, the "challenge" is to find sources for the relevancy, not to create demonstrations of it; to do otherwise is to be dealing in OR.
3. "Prove it"? There are six paragraphs to this section, only one of which cites any sources.

--Nat Gertler (talk) 08:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Re/ at the same order

1. "All articles are presumed to be under construction" --> Agree. "the time to bring up objections to that construction is while the construction is under way, so that one can fix problems before too much effort has been put into them." --> Agree. "the time to bring up objections to that construction is while the construction is under way, so that one can fix problems before too much effort has been put into them." --> Agree.
2. "Saying something is not true does not make it not true" --> That is completely true :) Every editor has an overview of the matter he/she is working in. An article is technically a demonstration. What cannot be demonstrated, has not place in our documents in Wikipedia. If you have a total overview of this biography, then you can see that the history of Italy at that time keeps a link to the life of the character. It might be evident only when you finish all the life's study. For this reason, as the life's section is so untidy (working in it), it's early to discuss about the background. Feel free to shorten the background if you consider it is too long.
3. Pay a look to this article of mine.

Thank you, Nat Gertler :) --Albeiror24 - English - Español - Italiano - ខ្មែរ 14:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I've read your article, and the argument that we shouldn't stuff an article with low-quality references does not mean that we should have unreferenced material; it means we should find quality references or do without. As for If you have a total overview of this biography, then you can see that the history of Italy at that time keeps a link to the life of the character, it really doesn't matter what link I would find or what link you would find. We're not supposed to be finding new links, we're supposed to be documenting already-documented links. To be finding new links is WP:OR. It's not that I consider the background portion too long, it's that I consider it too unsourced when it comes to its relation to Bosco. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Not wanting to sound unduly harsh but I do feel the background section is really just waffle and mostly irrelevant. I'd be inclined to take the whole lot out rather than start reworking it. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

deletion of the concerns of influence section

An editor has been repeatedly deleting the section in which Bosco cites his concerns over his influence, claiming both that it is not sufficiently sourced and that it is not relevant. It is actually far better sourced than most of this article, much of which is unsourced or sourced solely to various sources eminating from what might be described as Bosco fan clubs, and thus biased. And Bosco's influence is key to why he's notable, and his own concerns about his influence are thus of appropriate interest. This section should be restored. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The quote is written in 3rd person, it's verbose, and never succinctly makes a point. After a few readings I got it. I couldn't find any reference to this quote. It seems that it was just plucked out of obscurity and plopped down on a WP page. It might work better paraphrased as part of the "Preventive" section. As it stands now, it doesn't improve the article and shouldn't be restored. LionelT (talk) 04:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that we shouldn't include the quote on the basis that you find it "too verbose"?! It seems perfectly succinct and clear to me, and Nat Gertler has already addressed the point on verifiability. While it being third person is neither here nor there. We really do need to come up with more robust arguments if we are to remove it completely. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it might also help to set down the quote in its original form - namely Italian. The source for this is Giacomo Dacquino, Psicologia di don Bosco, Sei, Torino 1988, page 128:

"Ti manifesto adesso un timore (...), temo che qualcuno dei nostri abbia ad interpretar male l'affezione che don Bosco ha avuto per i giovani, e che dal mio modo di confessarli vicino vicino, si lasci trasportare da troppa sensualità verso di loro, e pretenda poi giustificarsi col dire che don Bosco faceva lo stesso, sia quando loro parlava in segreto, sia quando li confessava. So che qualcuno si lascia guadagnare dal cuore, e ne temo pericoli e danni spirituali" Contaldo80 (talk) 09:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The quote is of dubious sourcing and notability. It is unclear why it should be included at all, except that it was part of a POV pushing effort. It is not NPOV because it is included to imply something which is not found in reliable biographies. Mamalujo (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it reasonable to paraphrase it and put it in another section. It certainly does not merit a section all to itself, particularly considering how obscure it is. That is WP:UNDUE. Considerng it is being challenged by mltiple editors, it should be placed on the Talk page until consensus is reached. LionelT (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

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."

Please note: the section removed has a Maintenance template indicating the section is under dispute. The tags and section should not be removed until the dispute is settled. ----moreno oso (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)E

I reviewed WP:UNDUE: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." This quote is extremely obscure and I understand absent from practically all of Bosco's bios. I'm changing my opinion: this material is not acceptable at all, not even paraphrased. LionelT (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Please review the whole talkpage. You will see that has been tried before too and that the dispute continues on. This matter has been taken to the appropriate boards. No resolution has been given. ----moreno oso (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not the statement of a viewpoint, this is the statement of a fact that Bosco said this. A fact that is not known by many is not the same as a stance that is held by few. This section is not being used to imply anything. It is being used to state concerns over Bosco influence, by Bosco himself. It would be hard to argue the viewpoint of Bosco is not relevant in an article on Bosco. (It seems appropriate include the untranslated version as a footnote.) I haven't seen any relevant argument made about why this source should be considered "obscure" - not that references need be not obscure. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Plus, considering many of the recent "fluff" type edits, this is just about the only seriously sourced statement in the whole article. ----moreno oso (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:ROC: Regarding content, "Factors that have influenced subject's form, role, history, public perception, or other noteworthy traits. The effects of these factors on the subject should be plainly apparent." Because of the obscurity of this quote, I think we can all agree this quote had no influence on Bosco's role, history nor public perception. Did his musings on his legacy "influence" his legacy? No. here. LionelT (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I have trouble seeing how Bosco's opinion of his own impact would have no influence on him, and he is the subject at hand. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should find a source which can speak to this. LionelT (talk) 03:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

We have already have it in the article. The quote has been verified and reliably sourced. If you have reviewed the talkpage, consensus was to move it from a Controversy section to where it is now. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Criticism_and_praise allows reliably sourced criticism sections to exist. This bio takes that form as applied to a dead person. It is as per NatGertler's observation unrealistic not to include Bosco's own quote about his perspective and his own spectulation as to how history might judge. As long as the NPOV is maintained, which it now thanks to NatGertler's rewrite, policy is being met. ----moreno oso (talk) 04:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the context of this quote? As someone who is not very firmiliar with Saint Bosco's work and after the translation from a foreign language it is hard to discern what the author is talking about. - Schrandit (talk) 05:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The quote is significant because it highlights the opposition to Bosco and his work. This helps us to understand what he was doing and how he achieved it. The article is extremely thin on any of the context that shows opposition - it does not refer to the questioning by police officers of the new Italian state (unhappy at Bosco's ultramontanism), nor does it relate the incident of when Bosco was allegedly shot by Waldensians unhappy about Catholic influence, nor does it cover the break in correspondence between Bosco and the pope. This is the context. This particular quote seems to me to demonstrate that Bosco was aware that his close attachment to children and youths could be miscontrued - and this should not be a surprise that he was thinking this even in the 19th century. It does not necessarily mean that he was doing anything wrong. We need to be clear, however, that this is a biographical entry and not a hagiographical entry, and thus resist the temptation purely to approach everything from a pious reading. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I do think it interesting that Bosco mused over how history would judge him. I also find that it is not derogatory. However my concern is does this quote have any impact on Bosco's "role, history, public perception" per WP:ROC. Just because he said it doesn't mean it improves the article by inclusion. Moreover, I hazzard a guess that every BLP in here has mused about their legacy... LionelT (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If it's a standalone quote then I agree it doesn't quite work. That's why I think the best solution is to integrate into the rest of the article so that it sits better in the context about general opposition to Bosco and his work. It's one more thing that made his life that bit harder.Contaldo80 (talk) 10:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. Any good article on Wikipedia that has a controversy like this one, treats it in a separate section. Just look at recent introduction of material to his article - The first dream subsection. If a dream merits a section like that then his musing or thought definitely deserves its own section. This is no BLP. This is a dead person. While Wikipedia strives to get it correct, the quote is sourced, comes from the subject and is given treatment just like other major events in his life. Concessions were made to have it appear the way it is in a neutral section header. Almost any other person or article would have controversy as part of its header. No, to "burying" within the body of the article within other text. It deserves a stand alone section. ----moreno oso (talk) 10:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Refactoring of comments

Not sure why but someone refactored a comment. Not a good idea as it changes what was said or meant. If you need to add a comment, that is one thing. If you to modify your comment, you should do it in a way that it is apparent you modified it. Comments from other editors should not be factored, moved, deleted or otherwised modified unless they do not improve the article. ----moreno oso (talk) 07:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Material was removed without consensus

Well, sorry I am late... too busy! Now I return and I find many things... this article is a real objective of particular interests:

1. Someone removed the elaborated context (in Spanish it is a featured article and so far, nobody has thought that the historical context is out of context.) It just comes from someone with a very ignorant position over Don Bosco:

• He was the most near priest to the very noticeable figure of Pope Pious IX...!!! How can an encyclopedic article about Don Bosco can not mention it???
• He was grown in a very poor farm family that was poor because the region was sacked by the troops of Napoleon... Show me any encyclopedic article about Don Bosco where it is not mention??? I have several books of it and ALL the sources mention it and just some editors here think that it is not important...!!!
• He was the most important priest in the Piedmont region during the Unification of Italy!!! He was not just a simple priest going around, but a man who is very noticeable during that time... in TURIN, that was the most important city for the Unification of Italy with Rome...!!! How is possible to talk about Don Bosco without mentioning it??? Please, tell me... It is like writing a biography of George Washington without mentioning his historical background...!!!

I was following a methodical process in the biography of Don Bosco. But it seems that there are some guys around making intervention to reduce the importance of Don Bosco in history... At the same time, so much importance is giving to that sentence of his concerns over.... Then, talking about the role of Don Bosco during the Unification of Italy is bias, according to some observers here, while putting emphasis to a single source sentence MUST BE PUT HERE, even if there is only one source to mention it, without any historical source to prove it and a sentence that can mean too many things... Is it not real a bias?

For me I can read this as the intention of some real bias individuals to attack the reputation of Don Bosco, a character that has too many sources to demonstrate how important he was in the 19th century, how important he was for the 20th century and how important he is in this century. It is also possible that some guys, happy with the Catholic Church scandals, try to put doubts everywhere to what is Catholic and Don Bosco is a very strong Catholic symbol. Do not forget than this discussion started when I find an editor saying in the article that Don Bosco was suspect of pedophilia and homosexuality (see history) and even such text was defended very well when it was removed. Such conclusion is a matter of a legal procedure in any tribunal for attempt of defamation of a death person, and he has too many legal representatives to be ready to defend the memory of a very honorable man. It would be a good Seigenthaler incident-like but with a death person.

Who says that an encyclopedia can put whatever unofficial comes, preconceptions and bias, occurrences and antipathies? If you do not like Don Bosco, the Salesians, the Catholic Church, God, Jesus, Christianity, Muslims, Buddhist... why you come to read Wikipedia? Why you want Wikipedia to say what you think? By doing so, you make weak Wikipedia and other projects will get its place with a more reliable case.

I will put back the POV until there is a consensus over this article and I ask:

1. Any editor that is suspicious of bias in favor or against Don Bosco, please refrain to edit again (I include myself and I remain as an observer and critic.)
2. A very accurate editor (s), with good knowledge over the life of Don Bosco, should done this biography.

Thank you for your attention, --Albeiror24 - English - Español - Italiano - ខ្មែរ 15:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Your message seems to rely on some misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works.

• The claim that consensus wasn't reached does not match what actually happened. Consensus is not unanimity. Three editors weighed in on this, two believing that the whole section should be removed with reasons well-grounded in Wikipedia standards, and even the third (yourself) feeling that it could be shortened. And with the clear leaning toward removing the section, it was allowed to remain in their for weeks awaiting further comment before it was actually removed.

• The argument that it hasn't been edited out of the Spanish Wikipedia (whether or not it's true, I've not verified it) would be given editors of that article presume control over this article, which is no more valid than the converse.

• The argument that all the other Bosco bios include this information is quite simply not the practical way of using sources. What folks do when they have information that they want to include is not to claim they have sources, but to show they have sources by appropriate citation of them.

I suspect your call for those who don't have a side on Bosco to do the editing will not succeed, not in that such people may not edit, but that you will not recognize those people as such if their edits go against how you would choose to shape the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I suspect exactly the same. Then it proves that in most of the cases in our Wikipedia is not possible to follow a systematic, accurate, methodical and scientific process of elaboration. Any subject in a real encyclopedia has standards. If we have an entrance, it should have an integrity of elements. Omitting elements under considerations like it is too long is not rigor. At the case, it is not only because es.wikipedia keeps the historical context of the entrance by itself. It keeps it because it has its scientific ground and not under the idea of any editor. I respect your claim that my message could rely in some misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. Since I have been in Wikipedia, mainly in es and km, I have found several kind of understanding of how Wikipedia works. I start only from one principle: it must walk toward the ideal of being a real online encyclopedia with all the rigor the concept contents. --Albeiror24 - English - Español - Italiano - ខ្មែរ 02:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The edits you've been defending fly in the face of concern about rigors, science, and standards. The other editors are looking for verifiable information on the relevancy of your writings to the topic at hand. Your refusal to provide relevant, reliable sources means that you were expecting people to accept the inclusions on your sayso, which is not rigorous nor adhering to standards. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I have tons of books about Bosco just back me. What do you want to mean. I was working in the article and I did not refuse to provide information, that is not true and it is your assumption. Bosco is a very well sourced character. Your conclusion about my contributions are out of evidence. I am sorry but I cannot continue a discussion with so many imprecisions and assumptions. Thank you. --Albeiror24 - English - Español - Italiano - ខ្មែរ 14:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You can say that you have a pile of books to back up your claims, but we should not be accepting that on your sayso; if that were the policy, then someone else could come along claiming that he has thousands of books saying that Bosco was a singing purple dinosaur, and then where would we be? So Wikipedia has certain standards, including WP:Verifiability, and those standards call on editors to WP:CITE their sources. It was pointed out to you that the background material you had added was largely without citations, and that the one citation you put forth seemed unlikely to link that material to Bosco... and you did nothing to fix those concerns. As such, it should be unsurprising that the material was deleted. I heartily recommend you review those policies carefully rather than ranting about the lack of standards here, when much of the problem with your edits is their failure to live up to those standards. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Plus I'm highly sceptical of any claims that Bosco was an "important figure in the 19th, 20th, 21st century" (to paraphrase). He did some interesting things around the schooling of marginalised groups in Italy which may perhaps be seen as a precursor for later developments in education, but really no more than that. Let's get things in perspective. And his significance for Italian unification is minor and really only concerns his opposition to political moves to reduce the temporal powers of the papacy. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You can be skeptical Contaldo80, but there are thousands of scholars between two centuries to prove it thousand times if you want. When you study seriously the figure of Bosco, then you can write your own works and state how important Bosco was and is or not. I invite you to my library and we discuss over evidences, not just suppositions. Good nights from this part of the planet. Things to do... --Albeiror24 - English - Español - Italiano - ខ្មែរ 14:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I really doubt "thousands of scholars" have studied the life of John Bosco and written about him. As a historian I have studied 19th and 20th century Italian history and find that Bosco does not ever come up at all unless perhaps it's very specifically on local education. Nor have I any desire to write works on him, other than improve this wikipedia article. I think your personal enthusiasm for him is clouding your judgement on his significance in the broader scheme of things. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

How about we all step back, take a moment to cool off before something is written that fans this article into another dispute. I will remind all now to review WP:NPA. ----moreno oso (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)