Talk:Anselm of Canterbury/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

General Issues on this Article & 'Dilecto Dilectori'

I was invited to post my comments on this article by a number of Wikipedia users, who have general concerns about the Scholarly Accuracy and Methodoloy of Editing this article since its inception. I have breifly reviewed the history and think it is about time there be a proposal about proceedure. Karl Bunker has done a lot of editing recently. I think that most of it is good. I would ask that he add back to the article the citations to major works about Anselm, even if they are old, because, nevertheless they are important historical contributions to Anselmian research. But more importantly, there must be some consensus of how to edit this article. Every deletion certainly is not vandalism, and every addition is certainly not not vandalism. The rule should be historical accuracy. To detriment this accuracy is either an error, when there is no malice, or vandalism if there is malice. To improse this accuracy is what we all want, whether that requires removing or adding text or correcting text.

But as regards the Dilecto Dilectori controversy between Karl Bunker and an anonymous editor, I would point out that there are solid reasons why this section should be moved to an article on the Gay Movement's Historical Arguments or the Gay Movement Revisionist Strategies.

You can see my arguments with links to support this at

http://www.franciscan-archive.org/misc/slurr.html

I will not post a correction to the Anselm Article until there is some concensus. Because I am convinced the Section on Dilecto Dilectori is not appropriate in its present format, nor the Dobbins link, to the historical Anselm of Canterbury. Br Alexis Bugnolo 18:34, 5 February 2006 (EDST)

Br. Bugnolo -- I'm happy to discuss this with you, and I have carefully read your linked arguments. When the deletion-edits you mention took place, there was no attempt at discussion, much less an attempt at consensus, on the deleter's part, and so the edits were treated as vandalism.

As you've noted, I've done a fair amount of editing on this article, although most of this has been in the nature of cleaning up, reformatting and clarifying other people's writing. In particular, I am not the original author of the 'Dilecto Dilectori' section. I'm very fond of this article, and therefor I tend to keep an eye on it and its discussion page.

Regarding the 'Dilecto Dilectori' passage: One problem that you and I may have in discussing this is that, unfortunately, we have some markedly different values on one pertinent issue. To me (and I'm sure, to many people reading this article) the phrase "charges of homosexuality" is a meaningless and anachronistic phrase; one cannot be "charged" with something that carries no connotations of wrongdoing. I realize that this isn't your view, and that you consider homosexuality to be a "slur." I won't argue with you there, but I'm afraid that this viewpoint is causing you to misread this section of the article. With that in mind, allow me to go over the content of the section:

* It mentions that there has been a debate about Anselm's sexual orientation.

* It sites one author as being among the "some secular historians" who "take Anselm's homosexuality as a matter of course". It never states that it is a widely accepted that Anselm was a homosexual; it merely states that the issue has been raised by some.

* It makes no claim, and makes no mention of any author making the claim, that Anselm engaged in homosexual sex. It specifically refers to "the passionate expressions of attachment in his poems" as happening "within the constraints of monastic celibacy."

* It states twice, using different phrasing, that it is a mistake for "stereotypes of modern sexuality [to be] anachronistically projected upon the past."

This last point is the reason why I am particularly fond of this section of the article. It makes a point, with wonderful conciseness and clarity, that I feel is far too often overlooked: That certain types of "passionate expressions of attachment" by historical figures "have no modern parallels."

It is a fact that there has been some debate about Anselm's sexuality, and the article reports this fact. What I earnestly beg you to try to do is to see the reality of what else this section of the article does: After it makes mention of the debate, it then resoundingly, unequivocally, dismisses it as irrelevant. I can't think of anything I've read recently that so neatly quashes the attitude of twittery, gossipy finger-pointing that often accompanies speculation about the sexual orientation of a historical figure. I feel that this section of the article does a service Saint Anselm, and to the study of history as well.

KarlBunker 01:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the "References" section, I invite you to put back any of those 19th century references that you think are appropriate. Adding modern reference works would be even better. KarlBunker 03:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

O.K. I will add them all back. As for the anonymous, he contacted me, pointing out that he did his edits without familiarizing himself with Wikipedia etiquette, and did not intend vandalism.

As an Anthropologist, I find the claim that the expression of affection in Anselms poems has no modern parallels, extremely uniformed. If it means what it seems to mean, then it means that no men today, write letters to other men with similar expressions. I am sure that I do not have to give examples, to show that my conclusion on this point is valid. Suffice it to say, that if there is any homosexual today who writes letters to his male lover, using similar terms OR if there is any father who writes letters to an errant son, using similar terms of affection, then this claim would be false. I find the precise terminology used in this claim, unintelligible, and not worthy of a scholarly remark.

As a college graduate, I do not think an article by an undergraduate, presumably in Art History(Dobbins) has any merit in a Encyclopedia article on a Scholastic Theologian, regardless of anyone's interest to support or rebut its conclusions, as that rather belongs in a blog, or personal web page, not an Encyclopedia article. As to the link on Dobbins, it belongs in an article on Historical Revisionism. Readers of the Anselms article undoubtedly want to learn about the historic Anselm, not about what some modern movement thinks about his sexuality. I would point out that Dobbins does not cite, as far as I can discover any reputable historian or scholar to support his assertions. It is only an undergraduate puff piece that suited his fancy or that of his proff.

The citation I made to Fr. Adrian Bulter's Live of the Saints, about the letters of St. Anselm, is a very important one, for Fr. Butler's work was a summary of the articles of the Bollandists on the lives of Saints. The Bollandists are a group of Jesuit scholars who for the past 400 years have investigated every historical fact or claim about each saint and published 10,000's pages of research in a work called the Acta Sanctorum.

As for the Cantor citation, another Wikipedia user is going to buy the book today, and hopefully will post his thoughts on the citation shortly.

As for your explanation that the 'Dilecto Dilectori' section debunks the claim: I must admit that the context and text does not convey that to me. I think if that was your intention, it was too subtle a one to be recognized as such by most readers of the article.--Br Alexis Bugnolo 11:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Br. Bugnolo --

First, I was not saying that the 'Dilecto Dilectori' section "debunked" the notion that Anselm was homosexual. I said that it dismisses the assertion as irrelevant.

I'm puzzled by your objection to the Dobbins article. I don't see what "assertions" it makes that you think should be better supported, nor do I understand why you would argue against a reference to this article. I can only conclude that your expectations have lead you to misread Dobbins' article. At no point does Dobbins assert that Anselm was a homosexual. At no point does he even state that Anselm was "probably" homosexual. Basically, he says only two things:

*That a contemporary reader might see some of Anselm's poetry as being expressions of homoerotic passion.

*That to do this is a misguided and anachronistic projection of modern attitudes into a time and culture where they don't apply.

To quote from Dobbins' article: "we cannot assume, no matter how sexual the language may seem to modern readers, that the intended recipient of the poem would also read a sexual meaning into the text." In short, Dobbins is on your side.

I agree that "passionate expressions of attachment" by historical figures "have no modern parallels" may be worded with too much finality. However, I see the statement as being about the feelings expressed, rather than about the words used to express them. Taken this way, it's a statement that can't be proven or disproven. In any case, the purpose of the statement is the same as the purpose of Dobbins' article: to warn against simplistically applying modern sexual attitudes to one's reading of Anselm's "passionate" writings. As such, the "no modern parallels" phrase is, like the Dobbins article, something that reflects opinions you yourself have expressed in this issue. KarlBunker 15:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Dobbins is subtle, but in no way neutral on the matter: he says, "On the other hand, some of his poetry sounds downright erotic, no matter what Neoplatonic interpretation one applies", and again "Anselm, prior of Bec and later Archbishop of Canterbury, was one of the most influential proponents of the ideal of monastic love in the England of his day. This was truly a synthesis of the sexual with Platonic", and again, "he celebrated his love for his fellow monks in poem after poem" (It certainly is not a celebration of love, because he in no way praises love, only expresses the sadness of absence and the joy of presence of his brother monk).

For these reasons, I believe the only correct textual interpretation of Dobbins article is to favor these poems as sexual, not merely expressions of fraternal or paternal affection. Infact I see no treatment of the latter two as possibilities, despite the wording of his conclusion. If he pooh poohs moderns for their preconceptions, he would have done better not to impose the same kind of his own. In short, even if you hold that his article does not favor this allegation, it is nevertheless not an article worth quoting in a Encyclopedia, it is amateurish and inconsistent.

In short, to cite it in the Anselm article, when Anselm is by far one of the most influential of thinkers in the history of western Europe, makes this wikipedia article seem similary amateurish and unprofessional. Silence is the best treatment for articles such as Dobbins in an Encyclopedia.--Br Alexis Bugnolo 17:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no requirement that Dobbins be neutral, as his article is a sited source, not an encyclopedia article. However, when he makes the statement that some of Anselm's poems "sound downright erotic," he is being neutral, inasmuch as stating the obvious is neutral. The quoted passages in the his article bear this out. Note he does not say they are erotic; only that they sound that way to modern ears.

In your second paragraph you state that the only correct interpretation of Dobbins' article is the one you choose to impose on it. I submit that an interpretation of a text that ignores the conclusion of that text is not a valid interpretation. You are having difficulty seeing past the fact that Dobbins mentions the fact of speculation around Anselm's sexuality, mentions the sources of that speculation in Anselm's writings, and that he doesn't flatly and rigidly deny any possibility that Anselm had feelings of a homosexual nature. Because you find these things offensive, you are focussing on them rather than on the conclusions that Dobbins draws. He is defending a point of view you basically agree with, but he isn't using language that you approve of while he does it. He acknowledges certain obvious realities and incorporates them into his argument; you would prefer that he deny those realities. I would point out that arguments that deny obvious realities are generally rather unconvincing arguments.

You are doing a similar thing with the 'Dilecto Dilectori' section of the Wikipedia article: It mentions an idea that you find offensive, and this blinds you to the simple fact that the idea is very briefly mentioned and then essentially dismissed as irrelevant.

I'm sure it would be preferable to you for there to be no mention of any speculation around Anselm's sexuality. However, that speculation exists; Anselm's own writings invite it. Short of censoring that fact out of this article, articles like Dobbins' are the best "defense" that you can hope for. KarlBunker 18:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand what KarlBunker is saying. He admits that the Dobbins article permits at least two interpretations. In that case, it should not be cited at all as a source on Anselm of Canterbury. An interpretation of what Dobbins is trying to say is original research into work by another scholar. Robert McClenon 12:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr. McClenon -- I don't say that the Dobbins article permits at least two interpretations. Neither do I "make" an interpretation of it. I've said all along that the meaning of the article is clear, and I've synopsized it several times over above and below. (unsigned post by

KarlBunker)

This talk page is becoming difficult to follow, largely because of failure to follow Wikipedia talk page guidelines. KarlBunker: Please remember to sign your posts. Also please indent your posts more than the ones to which you are replying. Robert McClenon 15:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Karl, your argument is circular: first you say I am imposing an interpretation and then that Dobbins is the best defense I can hope for. It is Dobbins, an undergraduate in 2001, who raises the issue in an undergraduate paper, to rebut, as you say, what a homosexual activist said back in 1908. O.K. What does that have to do with a Wikipedia article in 2006? And why does a passing remark of Nicholas Cantor have to do with an encyclopedia article? It is rather Wetman who raised the issue, a self proclaimed intellectual non-conformist. If you are not Wetman, then I see no purpose to your insistence that what he added, that is, this entire section 'dilecto dilectori' and the Dobbins citation, be retained. I believe I have shown that objectively speaking, NPOV, there is no scholarly basis for the charge in the first place. As to what an uninformed reader, reading a English translation of Latin or of a French translation of the Latin, thinks about Anselm's sexuality, what does that have to do with an encylopedia article? Should he not first read a biography about Anselm, and if a scholar at least consider what has already been addressed by the Bollandists in the Acta Sanctorum. You know, as a Catholic, Anselm is probably better known among cathlolic scholars than elsewhere.

You are entitled to your personal preferences, but does every reader of an article on one of the most important thinkers of Western Civilization have to be imposed upon by them? You are trying to relevatize my argument, when in fact it is you who hold the relativist position, that homosexuality is not as the vast majority of humany considers it a moral deviation and a slur against the good name of any man. I scarcely can see how it would be honest, charitable, or friendly if someone posted a Wikipedia article about yourself, and dismissed similarly unbased accusations against you. That sort of this is obvious for what it is, a journalistic game (just as Wetman admits Wikipedia is a game to himself) rather than a service of truth and the honor due the good name of any man.

Finally, this man, Anselm, is one of the greatest saints and doctors in the Catholic Church; the inclusion of any unsubstantiated or unscholarly charge against him, even to dismiss it, profoundly offends the religious sensibilities of Catholics: for as St. Paul says, "of such things let them not even be heard among you". Since the charge is, as you admit, based on modern preconceptions not historical realities, then at least for the respect anyone should have for the religiuos sensibilities of others, would agree that it ought to be omitted? --Br Alexis Bugnolo 22:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Question About Dobbins

I have a question about the Dobbins article that is related to whether it is deserving of mention. Is it the only similar modern article making the homosexuality argument, in which case it should be excluded as simply an isolated paper? Or is it an example of a school of modern scholarship that takes a similar view? In the latter case, as much as I disagree, I would think that a one-sentence or two-sentence mention of this POV is in order. Does Dobbins refer to other reputable modern scholars for confirmation? Robert McClenon 19:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Dobbins does not "make the homosexuality argument." That is, he does not say Anselm was or probably was homosexual. He notes that readers of some of Anselm's poems will inevitably speculate on that question, and goes on from there. Some excerpts of Anselm poems are included in the Dobbins article. Other authors, as mentioned in the WK article, have mentioned or engaged in the speculation. KarlBunker 19:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

What is the WK article? Robert McClenon 20:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry; I meant the Wikipedia article (Anselm of Canterbury). KarlBunker 20:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Correction, Karl says other authors mentioned in the Anselm article: there is only 1 other author mentioned, Cantor. --Br Alexis Bugnolo 22:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I just read the Dobbins paper. I see no reason to mention it. It hardly supports any particular argument about Anselm's sexuality, but only that there has been such speculation. I fail to see the point to saying that Dobbins does not answer a question. The real question is whether the question needs to be mentioned at all. Cantor is a highly regarded source, but he is only one scholar. Have any other respected scholars discussed Anselm's sexuality, and in what context? As Anselm scholarship, as medieval scholarship in general, or as modern gender studies scholarship? Robert McClenon 23:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

As Br. Bugnolo notes, only one other author besides Dobbins is mentioned in the Wikipedia article. Here are a few others. This is a partial list, compiled through a 1-hour google search, and is exclusively authors and scholars who have voiced the opinion that Anselm was gay. The list of authors who have merely discussed the possibility is, of course, much longer. Since Dobbins is a member of this longer list, I am hoping it will be possible to find an article that makes the same point that his does, but written by someone with more scholarly qualifications.

Dr. John Balnaves, in his doctoral thesis, Australian National University

Rictor Norton, author of 4 books and several articles on history

Dr. Paul Halsall, Medieval historian, Brooklyn University

John Boswell, historian, author of many books, including "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality"

Dr. Brian McGuire, author of "Love, Friendship and Sex in the 11th Century: The Experience of Anselm" . Although he took no stand on the issue of Anselm's homosexuality in the book just named, more recently he has argued that it is "appropriate" to see Anselm as homosexual. (McGuire, Brian P., "Monastic Friendship and Toleration in Twelfth Century Cistercian Life")

Just so no one is confused by my giving this list: The Wikipedia article does not claim that Anselm was a homosexual, and I'm not arguing that it should. This list serves as a small indication that a debate on the issue exists. KarlBunker 00:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Karl, the work by McGuire is not a book; it was an article in a journal. You can see that from his homepage, linked from the argument I prosed in my intial post on this discussion board above. Now, that you have looked into the literature, you need to do what any graduate student should do, check out the footnotes in all of thes articles. I submit, that you will find that they all tract back to Carpenter, one way or another, and represent only a study of the modern Homosexual Revisionism Movement, and have nothing to do with historical studies per se.

But since you have not read the litterature, you should admit that you and Wetman have no ground yet to include this 'Dilecto dilectori' section and the Dobbins link in the Anselm article, as you yourself admit to be unfamiliar with the matter, you can scarcely impose your preliminary interest upon all those using the Wikipedia article on Anselm.

I, therefore, formally request, that this discussion regarding the inclusion of the Dilecto Dilectori section and the Dobbins link move from the phase regarding the determination of the burden of proof for its existence to the burden of proof for its presence; and that until that latter has been proven, these elements be removed from the Anselm Article.

--Br Alexis Bugnolo 00:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Br. Bugnolo -- My sense is that this debate is winding down. You're no longer answering my arguments with counter-arguments, but instead are falling back on non-arguments such as telling me that homosexuality is a moral deviation. Also, we're both getting impatient and I suspect are close to resorting to insults. :-)

I propose the following: At the least, I think the section could validly be edited to remove the phrase that "some secular historians take Anselm's homosexuality as a matter of course." Furthermore, as I note above, it should be possible to find a citable source that makes the point that Dobbins makes (that modern stereotype about sexuality shouldn't be indiscriminately projected onto the past--a point which I believe you agree with), but written by someone with more scholarly credentials.

I'll give this some more thought and do some more reading over the next few days and then post an edit. It may even be that the result of my thoughts might be to agree that the section isn't important enough to warrant inclusion. (Of course if that happens, it's entirely possible some other person will see fit to put the section back.) If you still don't agree with whatever changes I make, you can apparently put in a request for arbitration.

It's been a pleasure debating this with you; thanks. KarlBunker 01:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not time for a request for arbitration. Those are not used to resolve content disputes. They are used to resolve user conduct disputes. I did not see any user conduct problem, but two editors with different points of view (POVs) who treated each other with respect. It has indeed been a pleasure in this content dispute with two Wikipedians who actually treat each other with cvility and respect and believe in the non-negotiable and absolute principle of a neutral point of view. If you want other opinions, which is never a bad idea, you can post a content-oriented request for comment. Thank you for also being civil. Civility is also an absolute, non-negotiable rule in Wikipedia that is often ignored. Robert McClenon 01:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

What Cantor actually wrote

This dispute could have been avoided with a little honesty. Here's what Cantor actually wrote in In the Wake of the Plague ISBN 0684857359

The last front-rank philosopher and theologian who had been Archbishop of Canterbury was St. Anslem in the east years of the twelfth century. He did poorly as archbishop, getting into needless quarrels with kings, exasperating the pope, and turning the monks into an ingroup of young gays.

I would disagree that the quarrels with kings were needless. Quarrels between archbishops and kings are one of the predominant themes of medieval history, and are the root of the whole Western concept of church and state (which has no exact equivalent as a historical theme in any non-Western civilization). Relations between Archbishops of Canterbury and Kings of England are a much more important element in English history than is the sexuality of Archbishops of Canterbury. (For that matter, the sexuality of Kings of England is more of an element in English history than is the sexuality of Archbishops of Canterbury.) Robert McClenon 15:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

In another book, writing about another saint, Archbishop Thomas Becket, Cantor wrote:

If he could have had a dose of Lithium each morning, there might have been no Canterbury martyr. (Cantor, Inventing the Middle Ages, p. 366)

I've read many books by Professor Norman Cantor, and he is a serious historian for the most part, but ITWOTP is a popular and not a scholarly history and there are no footnotes to back up the assertion made here. It is too casual to be cited in the Wikipedia article.

Cantor mentions St. Anslem in his criticism of the scholarship of Professor Richard Southern of Oxford University where, in 1953, Cantor became Southern's student and each thought himself to be the greatest living expert on the subject of St. Anslem. The way I read pages 343 through 370 of Inventing the Middle Ages ISBN 0688123023, is that Cantor abandoned objectivity generally about this period and especially so with respect to St. Anslem making him a special target of his contempt.

If there is a serious and non-speculative historical claim to St. Anslem being homosexual, it can be in the article. But Cantor's biased and flippant "ingroup of young gays" comment appears to me to be a slap back at his rival medievalists for admiring St. Anslem rather than scholarship. patsw 05:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. AnnH ^(talk) 10:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not too familiar with Wikipedia proceedures. If, you Karl, believe I am not answering your objections, I believe I am; it seems rather you believe that you have somesort of squatter's right to hold me bound to burden of proof on my part, rather than to be held bound to it on yours. I cited many substantian reasons why an encyclopedia article ought not have this section or Dobbin's citation, as anyone who is willing to read the discussion above, begun by me, at full length. You have admitted not being read in the matter, and a are a defender of Wetman, even though both of your are anonymous, and claim no expertise in Latin or History, or Medieval Studies. Can we move to remove this section, by means of putting it to a vote during the next week? and just how do we do that? --Br Alexis Bugnolo 12:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It appears that we have a consensus that the homosexuality reference is non-encyclopedic. It also appears that Cantor has a dislike for Archbishops of Canterbury. The murder of Thomas Becket could also have been avoided if the knights had recognized that the Pax Dei was in force in the cathedral. Robert McClenon 12:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

"Dilecto dilectori" debate, Part III

Hm, let's see -- in no particular order:

I have no squatter's right, and Wikipedia isn't a democracy. The purpose of a debate like this one is to (hopefully) arrive at a consensus, as an alternative to people getting into an "edit war" (two or more people going back and forth, endlessly removing and replacing an edit).

I think we all agree on that. Robert McClenon 16:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No consensus has been reached here yet, though personally I haven't given up hope.

I disagree. I think that we have a consensus to leave it out. At the same time, continued civil discussion on talk pages is useful. Robert McClenon 16:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

When an edit war occurs, Wikipedia administrators sometimes step in and freeze a page for a while, presumably hoping that some or all of the editors will loose interest in the meantime. There may be other steps that administrators can take, though I was mistaken in thinking that a "request for arbitration" was one of them.

The real purpose of protecting a page is to give the editors time to cool off and discuss their ideas and try to reach a consensus. You were not mistaken about a "request for arbitration". However, that is not a way of resolving content disputes, but is the last resort for dealing with user conduct issues, and is largely a procedure for banning disruptive editors. There are two less drastic procedures for addressing content disputes, which are a "request for comments" and a "request for mediation".

I agree that the passage from Cantor's book is absurdly flip. That doesn't negate this debate however. It remains a fact that there has been a lot of discussion, on the part of respected scholars and laypeople, about Anselm's sexuality.

The discussion by respected scholars may or may not be encyclopedic. The discussion by non-scholars is not. Robert McClenon 16:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you support that notion? I would say it depends on how widely his sexuality is discussed by non-scholars. You can't claim that a person "belongs" exclusively to scholars. For example, one sees Anselm's name on lists of "gay saints"; if that non-scholarly estimation was widespread, then the article would be remiss not to address it. KarlBunker 16:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Recording non-scholarly estimation is not a task for encyclopedia editors. We're not a discussion board. patsw 15:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a "burden of proof" on me to demonstrate how widespread and meaningful that debate is. I'll work on that. If I find that it really doesn't amount to much, I'll drop my objection to removing this section.

That is reasonable. Robert McClenon 16:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what it means to call me "anonymous", and I'm not clear on how that would invalidate my opinions.

I don't think that he was calling you "anonymous". If he was, he was mistaken. That is a precise Wikipedia term for an editor who is identified only by IP address and not by username. He may have been asking you what your scholarly credentials were, but scholarly credentials are not required to edit Wikipedia, only to be a source in Wikipedia. Robert McClenon 16:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Please don't connect me with Wetman. I am defending 134 words of his writing in this article based solely on the content of that writing; I know nothing else about him.

Who is Wetman? Robert McClenon 16:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The original poster of the disputed elements. You can view his page under the username "Wetman" --Br Alexis Bugnolo 16:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

KarlBunker 15:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Dilecto Dilectori Debate and Sources

I think that we can agree that Cantor's remark is flippant. I also see no need to cite Dobbins, both since he was an undergraduate, and since he was only offering his own opinion on what appears to have been an existing debate. That is, both of the proposed sources should be dropped. I would suggest that anyone who thinks that the question of Anselm's sexuality is relevant should suggest at least one relevant scholarly source who was being serious about the subject. Robert McClenon 16:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedic Relevance

I have another question. What is Anselm today remembered for? Is it for his poetry, or his philosophical writings? I think that he is remembered primarily for his philosophical writings, and is secondarily of interest in terms of his disputes with kings. If his poetry is not considered important today, then I am not sure whether any inferences as to his sexuality from his poetry are important either. Robert McClenon 16:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Robert, I concurr on all the points you have made in all the above sections of discussion; Karl, can I go ahead an removed the Dilecto Dilectori section and the Dobbins reference/link, until such time as you demonstrate its validity to be present and in what way it could be better set forth? --Br Alexis Bugnolo 16:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm researching this now, and will report back. If you want to delete the section in the meantime, I won't undo the edit until (and unless) I have more evidence to support my case.KarlBunker 16:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I greatly admire your professional approach and attitude to this Karl. I am deleting the section and link now. And look forward to any proposal you are willing to make, here on the dicussion board.--Br Alexis Bugnolo 19:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

"Dilecto dilectori" debate, Part IV

The reality of the debate

The current leading biography of Anselm appears to be: "St. Anselm : A Portrait in a Landscape", by Richard W. Southern. Southern devotes 9 pages to the issue of Anselm's sexual orientation, plus mentioning it in his preface. (He concludes that Anselm was not homosexual.)

"[...] he expressed a warmth of affection which recent scholars have not hesitated to call homosexual."

Two of the current editions of "Butler's Lives of the Saints" mention the debate. The volume for April in the 12-volume edition has an entry on Anselm of about 3900 words. Approximately 560 words are spent discussing Anselm's letters and the oddly (to modern eyes) passionate language used in them. (The modern editor concludes Anselm was not homosexual.) From the 4-volume edition of Butler's:

"[...] which express friendship and love for his monks in emotional terms that prefigure the later medieval tradition of courtly love (and which have led to questions about his suppressed homosexuality), [...]"

From the 12-volume edition of Butler's:

"Their extremely emotional language can be embarrassing for the modern reader and has even led to suggestions that Anselm was a repressed homosexual [...]."

Among the scholars who have voiced an opinion that Anselm was homosexual:

John Balnaves, Ph.D., Australian National University, in his doctoral thesis
Rictor Norton, author of 4 books on history
Paul Halsall, Ph.D., Medieval historian, Brooklyn University
John Boswell, Ph.D., historian, Yale University, author of many books, including "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century"
Brian McGuire, Ph.D., a leading expert on Anselm, in "Monastic Friendship and Toleration in Twelfth Century Cistercian Life"
Norman F. Cantor, Ph.D., medieval historian, in "In the Wake of the Plague"

On a non-scholarly level, Anselm is included in many online lists of "gay saints", "gay people in history," "notable gay figures in Christianity," etc.

My proposed revision of the section:

Having established that the debate is considered valid by Anselm scholars, here is my proposed rewrite of the "dilecto dilectori'" section:

Many of Anselm's epistolary poems contained passionate expressions of attachment and affection, and were typically addressed dilecto dilectori, "beloved lover". These letters were written to monks, male relatives, and others. This has led to some debate among academics about Anselm’s sexuality. There is wide agreement that Anselm was personally committed to the monastic ideal of celibacy, but some (Brian P. McGuire, John Boswell, others) have characterized his passionate writings as expressions of a homosexual orientation. Others (Richard W. Southern, Paul Burns, others) describe them as representing a "wholly spiritual" affection, "nourished by an incorporeal ideal." (Southern).

About this revision:

It's shorter.
It doesn't cite Norman Cantor's book, which was flippant about Anselm.
It presents the issue as two-sided, with authorities on both sides cited. The previous version used Dobbins' article as a source to justify dismissing the issue as simply irrelevant, given that it's anachronistic to project modern stereotypes about sexuality onto a historical environment with a very different culture. This was too subtle and ambiguous for some people's taste, so an old-fashioned "these experts versus those experts" approach has been substituted.
It doesn't cite or link to the Dobbins article, as Dobbins was criticized for lacking scholarly credentials. (Of course, Cantor is up to his ears in scholarly credentials, and he wrote about the subject like 12 year old boy.)

Reasons for including the section

It accurately and even-handedly describes a real debate among Anselm scholars.
It discusses an issue that will be a point of curiosity to anyone who reads certain excerpts of Anselm's writings, or who sees Anselm's name listed as a "gay saint", etc.

Useful links

Butler's Lives of the Saints, April, on Amazon ("Search inside" available): [1]

Southern's biography of Anselm, on Amazon ("Search inside" available): [2]

A useful Google search: [3]

The Dobbins article: [4]

Brian Patrick McGuire's home page: [5]

KarlBunker 16:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"Dilecto dilectori" debate, Part IV: Comments on Karl Bunker's Proposal

--I would like a footnote or reference to the English translation of "dilecto dilectori", which you cite in the proposal. Otherwise, it is best to omit it, since it is, as I have noted before, capable of various translations: to use the one you did, prejudices the debate. The English phrase "to my beloved lover" in an epistolary context of 2 persons in a romantic relationship, in Latin, when address to a male, would be "amato amatori" not "dilecto dilectori", because the latter Latin word for love (dilectio, diligere) is not romantic love nor passionate love, but that which is free and rational, as may be among friends or associates or parent and child or teacher and student, etc., though "amare" is used of children to parents. It is not surprising, then, that these authors are all English speakers. --Br Alexis Bugnolo 17:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Perhaps the text could give two translations? I think it would be a mistake to remove the "beloved" translation, since that translation is widely quoted (quotes that at least sometimes trace back to John Boswell).KarlBunker 18:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

--It seems that all the authors you cite are English speaking, and not catholics. Here is a link to a life of St. Anselm, in French, online: Adolphe-André Porée, Saint Anselme à l'abbaye du Bec : 1060-1092, Bernay : imprimerie Vve. Alfred Lefèvre, 1880 (page images viewable[6] at Gallica), which I took from the French Wikipedia Article on St. Anselm. Though it is in French, nevertheless, it is apparently the only serious scholarly biography on the Web. For those who read French, it would be an invaluable source for the pre-Carpenter consensus on Anselm's Letters outside of the English Speaking world.--Br Alexis Bugnolo 17:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect that Wikipedia has any policy against using a non-English reference/link on the English Wikipedia. KarlBunker 18:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

--There has been a recent conference at Aosta on Anselm, at a least some scholars who attended have written papers on Anselm's letters at some time, such as Paul Gilbert Paul Gilbert, of the Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome; --Br Alexis Bugnolo 17:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

--The letters of St. Anselm have recently been published in an English translation by Cistercian Press --Br Alexis Bugnolo 17:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

-- Pope Pius X wrote an entire encyclical on St. Anselm, and mentions his letters therein.--Br Alexis Bugnolo 17:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

--I think that it is textully incorrect to call these "poems", as they are part of letters, and seeing them as poems, is not a NPOV, unless you can cite authors who uphold that view. --Br Alexis Bugnolo 18:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll remove "poems". KarlBunker 18:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

--I would point out that Chapter 64 of St. Benedict's Rule, vv 11 & 15 on the duties of an Abbot, obliges him to "diligere" his fellow monks, and see that they in turn "amare" him. As Abbot, Anselm would be both obliged to do this, and likely to use the same terminology in doing it. --Br Alexis Bugnolo 18:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

-- The Reference to Boswell seems NOT to be a NPOV reference: since he died of aids was singular for proposing that everyone is polymorphous in their sexuality, and that only custom, religion etc., make hetereosexuality the norm. Seeing that he was not a psychologist nor an anthopologist nor a nerologist nor a philsopher, it seems that his opinion on this matter is debatably NOT scholarly, but rather personally motivated. If Boswel is quoted in the Anselm Article, why not quote every Roman Catholic who thought well of the Saint on religious grounds? But if that is done, the article would no longer be NPOV, but based on personal motivations. --Br Alexis Bugnolo 20:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

There's no requirement that cited sources be neutral. If there were, then wouldn't be much of any sources for anything in any article. I totally agree that Boswell was probably not neutral. I don't think Southern is either, nor Butler and his contemporary editors. KarlBunker 20:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Butler's Lives of the Saints is certainly based on solid scholarship; but even we Catholics do not consider it a work of scholarship, rather a work for popular use or reading. If Boswell is to be quoted, might as well quote every other homosexual activist. That is my point. He's a scholar who obviously and publically was writing to defend his own personal preferences, and sought to make grand generalizations to defend them. I do not think that most scholars would view his work as worthy of mention in an encyclopedia, even if they felt compelled as scholars to consider what he had to say privately. It is just that Boswel, by being an activist, has put under a cloud of Non NPOV all his work and all his conclusions. If the Article is on Anselm, the historical man, then if Boswel is to be mentioned, it better come right out and identify him as a homosexual activist and all his other quirky theories. BUT the article IS about the historical Anselm. Therefore, the Boswel thesis is better put on his own page, or in an article about Homosexual Revisionism, since his theories move and live and has their being in that realm. --Br Alexis Bugnolo 22:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't add much to what I've already said, and what I've already said reflects Wikipedia policy. Boswell is an often-quoted, often-cited, recognized authority on this subject. He was a full professor at Yale and his book was widely praised when it came out. If you think his politics or his sexuality should disqualify him as a citable authority, take that up with the Wikipedia administrators.

As for being "neutral", if all the experts on this issue were "neutral" (whatever that would mean), then there wouldn't be any debate, would there?KarlBunker 23:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

-- That leaves only McGuire for the Homosexual thesis. I think it would be called for, to have his 2 works, previously cited, examined before citing him a the major scholarly source for this theory. --Br Alexis Bugnolo 20:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

See above. KarlBunker 20:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Where? Do you mean your mention, or his home page. His homepage says he only raised the question. How do you cite that? Is he for or against, or does he say it is a modern imposition? --Br Alexis Bugnolo 22:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I just meant see my comment up one paragraph.KarlBunker 23:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

-- Olsen, Glenn, "St. Anselm and Homosexuality", Anselm Studies, 1988, is cited on the web as against the thesis that Anselm was a homosexual.--Br Alexis Bugnolo 22:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you like to use Olsen's name in place of Paul Burns' (an editor of Butler)? That's fine with me. KarlBunker 23:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be much better, because it is more in keeping with scholarly article, and he is a professional historian writing directly on the question; indeed he has written a rebutal to Boswel's Book on Sexuality in the Middleages --Br Alexis Bugnolo 00:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

--Marian Horvat, Ph.D. Medieval History, Univ. Kansas, demonstrates at length that Boswell was unscientific in his 1980 "ground breaking" work; and demonstrates his many errors of scholarship.

Debate Part V: Counter Proposal

Rather, than what you have proposed, Karl, I believe it would be more appropriate to characterize the state of the litterature on this point, more explicitly, thus:

Brian P. McGuire was one of the first academics to raise the question ("Love, friendship and sex in the eleventh century: The experience of Anselm", Studia Theologica 28, Oslo, 1974, 111-152). However, the most famous scholar in the English speaking world to make this claim is John Boswell (Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980); his work is generally considered very controversial. Paul Halsall, a historian of the Gay Movement, says of Boswell's Book, "Nevertheless, at this stage virtually all of Boswell's specific conclusions have been called into question." And James Brundage, has said that "the mainstream reaction was that he raised some interesting questions, but hadn't proved his case."

E. Christensen, (English Historical Review 96:October 1981), pp. 852-54) faulted Boswell for his specific claim against Anselm. And more recently Geln Olsen has examined the claim in detail and rebutted it ("St. Anselm and Homosexuality," Anselm Studies, II: Proceedings of the Fifth International Saint Anselm Conference: St. Anselm and St. Augustine-Episcopi ad saecula, ed. Joseph C. Schnaubelt, Thomas A. Losoncy, Frederick Van Fleteren, and Jill A. Frederick (White Plains, N.Y. 1988), pp. 93-141.), and published on Anselm's views of sodomy ("St. Anselm, Sodomy, and the Council of Westminster of 1102," Rocky Mountain Medieval and Renaissance Association Annual Meeting, Boise, March 1986). See also Olsen's "The Gay Middle Ages: A Response to Professor Boswell," Communio 8 (1981), 119-38, for more on the Boswel thesis.

Arguably the most famous medieval historial in the English speaking world R. W. Southern has also refuted the claim, saying that Anselm's expressions of affection were "wholly spiritual" affection, "nourished by an incorporeal ideal." (St. Anselm: A Portrait in a Landscape by R.W. Southern (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1990: chapter 7).--Br Alexis Bugnolo 00:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Br. Bugnolo, but for obvious reasons, that would not be acceptable to anyone who came to this article expecting to see something approaching a balanced and unbiased view. It is the job of an encyclopedia to present both sides in any valid debate; not to defend one side over the other. I know it doesn't look this way to you, but this is a valid debate at this point in time; neither side has anything like an overwhelming weight of evidence or scholarly support.

I Some time ago it was suggested that the burden of proof was on me to demonstrate that there was a real debate on this issue. I have done this, among other ways, by quoting Butler's Lives of the Saints -- not exactly a radical revisionist text. Butler's may have predictably rejected the "other side" of the debate, but it accepted the existence of that debate with equanimity. I am asking no more from you than that you do the same.

Unless you have some new point to raise, I would say that our debate is finished. I thank you for your patience and input. KarlBunker 01:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What then?

Karl Bunker said that the debate is finished. What is he saying is the conclusion? Robert McClenon 03:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll wait a bit to see if there are any further comments from anyone. If there are no substantive objections, I'll add the revised "Dilecto dilectori" section I proposed above, with some modifications per Br. Bugnolo's comments. KarlBunker 11:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Karl, I definitely do not think my proposal was one sided. Even Paul Halsall says that Carpenter and Boswell were gay activists, and homosexuals. They were then from a NPOV members of the gay community, and to say as much is NPOV. To deny that is not NPOV. As for the existence of this debate, if you read the sources you and I have cited you can see that THERE IS NO LONGER any scholarly debate on the matter. Boswell was shown to be wrong by Olsen. The citations since then are either citing these, advancing possibilities, or mentioning the matter in passing. There has been no scholarly defense of Boswell's claim since 1980, more than 26 years ago.--Br Alexis Bugnolo 12:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Karl, you say that Southern in your opinion is not NPOV. He and Olsen and McGuire are the only professional historians, holding faculty positions, which have published papers on this matter. (Balnaves, is a scholar whose specialty is not Anselm; nor to my knowledge has he published anything on Anselm specifically). And McGure alone has raised the question. The fact that no scholar, that we have cited so far, has taken up McGuire's comments in his later book on Monastic Friendship, must be addressed. Is this becasue it is just another passing, unsubstantiated claim? Also, Olsen's paper on Anselm and Sodomy at the court of the English King needs to be looked into. The debate is clearly not over. In fact the more that these sources supporting the claim are examined, the more their substantiality seems to vanish.--Br Alexis Bugnolo 12:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Br. Bugnolo, if you want to write an exhaustive critical review of all the literature on this topic, that's fine. The only thing that is appropriate for this Wikipedia article is to briefly mention the fact that there is a debate. That fact has been established, so for the purposes of this article, we're done.

Please rest assured that if you post any further comments to this discussion, I will read them carefully. If I don't respond it's because I don't feel that you've raised any new points, and I don't think there's anything to be gained by bouncing the same tennis ball back and forth endlessly. KarlBunker 12:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way Karl; but if you don't want to debate the merits of the issue, you don't have to. --Br Alexis Bugnolo 14:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The Academic Principles

I think a professional way of coming to a resolution of this issue is to recognize a fundamental academic principle. If this is not a principle, correct me: I know it from my own father, Dr. Dimitri S. Bugnolo, a one time faculty member at Columbia University: Dept. of Electrical Engineering. The principle is this: that nothing written by someone who does not hold a Ph.D. in the field in which he is writing, is to be considered something worthy of scholarly or academic value. Thus if a neurologist writes on geology, or an antopologist on physics, or a philologist on chemistry, what is said, whatever merit it has, ought not to be considered in a scholarly, academic setting. Another corrolary to this principle is that unless what be said be proven, it is not considered to be established or worthy of consideration. Proven, means at least that it is advocated in a scholarly forum.

Now an Encyclopedia article is supposed to be a scholarly academic exposition of facts. And an article about a historical figure pertains to history; therefore, by the Academic Principle, the article should only cite HISTORIANS, who hold Ph.D's in history. Since they know the principles by which their science operates, and how to argue historical arguments about historical questions with historical facts and historical methods, an objective observer can be assured that what Historians say about such a matter will be reliable, scholarly, and well founded.

Now Boswell has a Ph. D. in what? Philology? And the others, what do they have Ph.D's in? Southern and Olsen agree that the claim is unfounded. They have Ph.D's in History. What is McGuire's Ph.D. in ? History: if so, then let him be cited as raising the issue. But Boswell does not, and he ought not be cited. Nor the others who are not Ph.D's. Nor the others who only made passing, unproven remarks, have added anything worth consideration.

According to these two Academic principles, what is the state of the issue? I submit that is the way it should be addressed in the Anselm Article. --Br Alexis Bugnolo 14:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

1) We are lacking a reputable link determining whether Boswell had a doctorate from Harvard in Philology. The Wikipedia article on him says he was a philologist. But we need something more definite. --Br Alexis Bugnolo 16:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

2) I am emailing different Scholars who participated in this debate, to find out more; before coming to any conclusions. --Br Alexis Bugnolo 16:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I received this reply from Dr. Olsen, today, by email, regarding my question as to whether any scholar has defended Boswel since Olsen and Southern's rebutal:

"Not really, though there is an undistinguished piece in the book that just came out, The Boswell Thesis." (Dr. Glen Olsen)

This is important, because if no one has come to his defense, then no one thinks that those who rebutted him, were wrong in their criticisms of his work.--Br Alexis Bugnolo 23:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

3) I think it would be well to sum up what was not NPOV or factually erroneous, or not cited, based on the totality of the dicussion on this page, with Wetman's original contribution (bold face):

Since Anselm was in the habit of addressing his epistolary poems to his dilecto dilectori, "beloved lover", there have been long running arguments among academics about Anslem’s sexuality. Though he had an intense emotional relationship with his mentor Lanfranc and then with a succession of his own pupils, the passionate expressions of attachment in his poems, within the constraints of monastic celibacy and contrasted with divine love, have no modern parallels [1]. Some secular historians such as Norman F. Cantor (In the Wake of the Plague 2001, p. 111) however, take Anselm's gayness as a matter of course. The issue is clouded on the one hand by Anselm's status as a saint and Doctor of the Church and on the other hand by modern stereotypes of modern sexuality anachronistically projected upon the past (Dobbins).--Br Alexis Bugnolo 20:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

4) These are the sections of Karl's proposal that I think need more consideration (bold face):

Many of Anselm's epistolary poems contained passionate expressions of attachment and affection, and were typically addressed dilecto dilectori, "beloved lover". These letters were written to monks, male relatives, and others. This has led to some debate among academics about Anselm’s sexuality. There is wide agreement that Anselm was personally committed to the monastic ideal of celibacy, but some (Brian P. McGuire, John Boswell, others) have characterized his passionate writings as expressions of a homosexual orientation. Others (Richard W. Southern, Paul Burns, others) describe them as representing a "wholly spiritual" affection, "nourished by an incorporeal ideal." (Southern).--Br Alexis Bugnolo 20:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

5) I think my own proposal needed reworking; here it is again:

Since the publication of Edward Carpenter's IOLÄUS: An Anthology of Friendship (1908), members of the homosexual community have sought to characterize Anselm as a homosexual on account of certain expressions (e.g. "dilecto dilectori") of affection contained in certain letters he wrote to monks and relatives. Though Dr. Brian P. McGuire was one of the first academics to raise the question, it was Dr. E. Christensen and Dr. Geln Olsen who have examined the claim in detail and rebutted it at length. Most recently the famous medieval historian, Dr. R. W. Southern has also refuted the claim, in his biography "St. Anselm: A Portrait in a Landscape" (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1990: chapter 7).--Br Alexis Bugnolo 20:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with that text, provided that the expression dilecto dilectori is explicitly included (so that a reader with a knowledge of Latin can look it up himself). Robert McClenon 20:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

That is still not an attempt at describing a debate; it is an openly biased attempt to support one side of a debate. Can you imagine Southern, Olsen, et al being described as "members of the homophobic Catholic community"? Anyway, the "dilecto dilectori" section is back. My summary comment about the length of this debate being "excruciating" doesn't describe my experience and isn't intended as a dig at you Br. Bugnolo; I was just thinking of the experience of someone coming upon the whole debate for the first time. KarlBunker 23:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Karl, it is not biased at all; it is factual. Nor is anyone described as belonging to a community to which they personally and publically have self-identified themselves. Your reinsertion of your version of the Dilecto Dilectori section on your own initiative, goes contrary to the whole tenor of this discussion as being a reasonable, mutual effort. I am removing for that reason, and have posted a note on your talk page. Let's not have to call in ad Administrator on this.--Br Alexis Bugnolo 23:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

As I just posted on your talk page Br. Bugnolo, we have given this discussion our best shot. I'm not willing to continue ad infinitum as you restate your arguments endlessly. I invite you to get whatever administrator arbitration on this that you can. KarlBunker 23:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I am still giving it my best shot, Karl; the question is whether you still want to. Indeed, it seems from your comments posted after your re-insertion of our version, that you are taking the position that "Karl can do anything he wants, regardless of the fact that he has never personally claimed to have any expertise in medieval history, theology, philosophy or latin, and if you don't like that, tuff; just try to keep me from having my way!". I hope that is not your attitude. But I have contacted the Board of Directors, and they have called for someone to intervene, shortly --Br Alexis Bugnolo 14:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Philology

If Boswell has a Ph.D. in philology or in Classical Languages and Literature, then I would submit that he may be a qualified source on what the meaning of the phrase dilecto dilectori was in eleventh- and twelfth-century Church Latin. Robert McClenon 20:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

I call for arbitration, since KarlBunker is refusing to accept consensus and insists that the section not characterize the authors claiming Anselm was gay, as homosexuals, even though they do this themselves, personally and in their community. He has posted his own section, and reposted it afer I removed it, asking him to wait for arbitration. I will take the moral high ground on this, and wait for arbitration rather than re-removing it--Br Alexis Bugnolo 23:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

I don't think you want arbitration. It is my opinion that KarlBunker is pushing a POV on the inclusion of unsourced statements. However, he is doing it politely. I have not seen any personal attacks or 3RR violations. Arbitration is not used to resolve content disputes. It is used to deal with or punish user conduct. What you probably want is mediation. I suggest that you go to either WP:RFM or WP:TINMC. The latter, WP:TINMC, is usually quicker. Robert McClenon 14:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you please show me where I include, or suggest the inclusion of, an un-sourced statement? KarlBunker 15:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Karl, its a question of POV statements, whether sourced or not. Theoretically one could source any sort of statement from the Inquirer, but that does not belong in a Wiki Article on an historical figure. Its all about the 2 Academic principles. Here is how your proposal violates these:

Many of Anselm's letters contained passionate expressions of attachment and affection, and were typically addressed dilecto dilectori, sometimes translated as "beloved lover". These letters were written to monks, male relatives, and others. This has led to some debate among academics about Anselm’s sexuality. There is wide agreement that Anselm was personally committed to the monastic ideal of celibacy, but some (Brian P. McGuire, John Boswell, others) have characterized his passionate writings as expressions of a homosexual orientation. Others (Richard Southern, Glenn Olsen, others) describe them as representing a "wholly spiritual" affection, "nourished by an incorporeal ideal." (Southern).

Do you reject the 2 Academic principles, or not? an answer would help the rest of us undestand where you are comming from. Also since you state that Catholic scholars in this debate are "homophobic", please do us the courtesy of identifying youself with some community, homosexual or not, catholic or not, etc., so that we can understand better your POV.--Br Alexis Bugnolo 16:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, used the wrong term. The Board of Directors has already referred it to Mediation. It was Karl who suggested Arbitration. I was misled.--Br Alexis Bugnolo 14:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I just read the Mediation page, and it seems that since they do not enforce anything, and that Karl is making is pretty clear that he will not allow any but his own version without be forced, that Mediation won't resolve this. He was right, I guess.--Br Alexis Bugnolo 14:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

What Board of Directors has referred it to Mediation? I was not aware that this content dispute was getting the attention of the Board of Trustees. Robert McClenon 15:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It is true that Mediation is voluntary. Everything in Wikipedia short of blocks and bans is voluntary. I think that KarlBunker is not being unreasonable, just having a strong opinion. I suggest that either mediation or a content Request for Comments be used to try to reason with him. Robert McClenon 15:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Your bias is showing, Robert. :-) KarlBunker 15:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Which bias? I have several. Is it the bias in favor of civil resolution of content disputes? Robert McClenon 15:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:3o

A third opinion was requested as to the appropriateness of mentioning theories regarding the subjects sexuality. If such theories have been published and are held by a not-insubstantial number of adherents (as appears to be the case here), our Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV) requires that the theories be mentioned, along with any rebuttal from those who believe the theories are not accurate. A formulation in which wikipedia calls one side of the dispute "members of the homosexual community" is not appropriate, while a formulation in which the OTHER side of the dispute calls the first side of the dispute members of the homosexual community would be appropriate, if it is cited. I find the current section, [7] to be appropriate and NPOV.

The first side of the dispute calls themselves homosexuals. The second side of this discussion thinks that it is NPOV to identitfy the first side of the dispute as homosexuals (see refences on Paul Halsall's pages, cited above). --Br Alexis Bugnolo 16:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

A statement such as "This section is subject to arbitration" is not appropriate on the article page, and should be replaced with the POV-sect tag, if dispute remains. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Hipocrite that the reference to arbitration was mistaken, and that the NPOV tag does appear to be in order, because there does appear to be a dispute as to what is NPOV. Robert McClenon 17:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The section being added is not written in accordance with the NPOV policy - specifically, it is duplacitive of the earlier work, it contains the POV phrase "members of the homosexual community," and it characterizes one side of the debate as wrong and one side of the debate as right. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Where does it do the latter. As to the former, Paul Hasall says that it is homosexulas who have raised the issue;and his saying that is cited. As for the double versions, Karl Bunker likes his his way, where it is. You'd have to talk to him about it.--Br Alexis Bugnolo 17:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not NPOV to put Paul Hasall's words into Wikipedia's mouth. Quote Paul Hasall saying it, and that will be fine. The sections are redundant - having both of them there is not encyclopedic. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Its a moot point at Karl has erased the entire section, on his own initiative.--Br Alexis Bugnolo 17:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sources requested

There seems to be an insidious edit war going on this page. I remind everybody of NPOV policy and citing sources guide. Users ignoring those policies may be blocked or referred to the arbitration committee. David.Monniaux 16:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I have seen too many nasty edit wars. There is an edit war here, but it is not nasty, because both sides are being civil. I do not think that anyone has done anything warranting a block. Thank you for restating policy, but everyone here is being stubborn in a civil way. This is a content dispute. Robert McClenon 17:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

At the same time, there is also a misunderstanding by some participants of how dispute resolution handles content disputes. Arbitration is not used to resolve content disputes, but to punish editors who ignore policy. Robert McClenon 17:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I have only been editing at Wikipedia 1 week, and am not sure I am following policy. Please, everyone, let me know what I am doing wrong: I have added a Contemporary Issues section, and heavily sourced it. Is this appropriate?--Br Alexis Bugnolo 17:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The requirements are as follows:

we report facts, not the opinions of editors;
opinions of reputable people, parties, etc. can be reported, but they should be properly attributed to these people or parties;
facts must be verifiable; one should provide sources;
the more controversial the alleged fact, the better the sources needed; thus, if you make highly controversial claims, better have some iron-clad and reputable source.

Thus, don't say: "Mr Pickwick was an homosexual.". Say: "According to Reputable Author, Mr Pickwick was homosexual; however, Some other author disputes this." David.Monniaux 17:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, if I understand you correctly, then the section would look better like:

==Contemporary Issues==

According to Dr. Paul Hasall, since the publication of Edward Carpenter's IOLÄUS: An Anthology of Friendship (1908), members of the homosexual community have sought to characterize Anselm as a homosexual on account of certain expressions (e.g. "dilecto dilectori") of affection contained in certain letters he wrote to monks and relatives. Though Dr. Brian P. McGuire (Studia Theologia:1974) was one of the first academics to raise the question, it was Dr. E. Christensen (English Historical Review 96:October 1981, pp. 852-54)and Dr. Geln Olsen (St. Anselm and Homosexuality", Anselm Studies, 1988) who have examined the claim in detail and rebutted it at length. Most recently the famous medieval historian, Dr. R. W. Southern has also refuted the claim, in his biography "St. Anselm: A Portrait in a Landscape" (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1990: chapter 7).

I am putting this section here, since Karl won't allow it on the main page.--Br Alexis Bugnolo 17:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by Karl won't allow it on the main page? I didn't think that KarlBunker owned the main page. Are you saying that he claims ownership of it? I don't think that he has claimed that. Robert McClenon 18:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, every time I put it there, he erased it; that means he won't allow it on the page, or do you think I should try again?--Br Alexis Bugnolo 21:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That citation does not support that statement. Hasall appears to refer only to one individual, not multiple members. He does not use the loaded phrase "homosexual community." He is not discussing Anselm directly, rather the conduct of Carpenter - your generalization from his statement about Carpenter to others' motives is novel, and thus a violation of WP:NOR. You give extra prominence to Christensen and Olsen - others "raised the question" but they "examined it in detail" and "rebutted it at length." Southern should not be described as "famous," as that is a subjective. I do not see the substantial difference between the current version and your version, except for the NPOV and NOR failures in your version. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

How many gay websites need to be cited to support the statement "homosexual community"? Or, if a Wiki article says, "George Bush, whom the citizens of the U.S.A. consider the president of the U.S.A., said '...etc.", would I have to cite a good number of blogs, newspaper articles, interviews of American citizens, to support it?. Let's not confuse a POV with a fact.--Br Alexis Bugnolo 21:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Or, again, seing that Carpenter was a "homosexual" "activist" (Hasall's words not mine), saying that since his book was published, the like [e.g. Boswell] have sought to make this ascription of sexuality to Anselm, where is the POV in the first sentence?--Br Alexis Bugnolo 21:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Or, again, if you don't like the fact that McGuire did raise the question [Just examine the literature on Paul Halsall's page, and on McGuire's own webpage], and that Christensen and Olsen did in fact examine it in detail, and rebutted it at length [the length of a paper suitable to be published in a scholarly journal, not just a passing mention as in Cantor's book], and did refute it ["refute": to speak against so as to argue against], because no scholarly article since has taken up the claim and argued against Christensen and Olsen; then if ,you don't like these facts; I would suggest that a Wikipedia article or any Encylcopedia article is not going to suit your feelings, because they are supposed to be about facts, for readers interested in facts, not feelings.--Br Alexis Bugnolo 21:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There may be an issue indeed if Wikipedia ascribes an opinion to "members of the homosexual community". First of all, this tends to presupposes that there's some kind of "homosexual community" with some kind of homogeneity of opinion. Second, this makes it sound that these people's opinions are solely modeled by their sexual tastes.

While of course there may possibly be some truth to the above claims, asserting these as undisputed facts is not compatible with our policy of neutral point of view. What should be done, however, is to find some reputable source making these claims. I gather from what User:Hipocrite says that your sources did not in fact make the claims you pretend they made; if so, please do not distort their opinions. David.Monniaux 19:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

What "sources" would those be. If you read what Hipocrite did write, he is only arguing about the Iolaus source, which says:

"Edward Carpenter's Ioläus is an attempt to provide a historical context for male friendship. One should not be misled, however. Carpenter, one of the earliest English homosexual activists, is writing about homosexual relationships and trying to provide a historical grounding for them. As such his work is of interest not only for its references, but also as evidence of the strategies of the early gay movement. (paul hasall's words, not mine)--Br Alexis Bugnolo 21:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Significance

The assumption running throughout this discussion is that St. Anselm's sexuality has significance and relevance to this biographical article.

It would be significant in the case of article on an activist promoting or opposing rights for homosexual persons, but can it be explained how referencing would be significant? (Apart from the question of whether it could be determined by a consensus of editors here.) patsw 19:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It's considered significant enough to warrant discussion in current editions of Butler's Lives of the Saints, and in the leading modern biography of Anselm. I don't think it's significant enough to warrant much discussion in this article, which is why I've tried to keep that section of the article brief. KarlBunker 19:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not significant, except for those websites on Gay studies, or written for the "gay community", or for those like Karl Bunker, who thinks that the catholic scholars in this "debate" (his word not mine) are "homophobic" (his word not mine). It is so starkly obvious that what is going on here, by the insistence of having this section in the Anselm page is all about Gay Revisionism, and not historical fact [BTW, what contemporary of Anselm says he was a gay, a homosexual, or a sodomite]. The discussion is anachronistic, and belongs an a page of Gay issues, not the historical Anselm.--Br Alexis Bugnolo 21:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Veritas, quid est illa?

It seems that this debate will never terminate, because there are 2 different notions of truth, going on here. The one, that truth is the adequation of the mind to reality, and the political one, that truth is the adequation of mind to an agenda. I would personally like to understand better the POV of every one participaing here, since it seems that there are so many opinions and actions being taken by persons who don't identify if they have Collge Degrees, and what they are in, or if they can read latin (since the debate at is core is about latin terminology, used in Anselm's letters, as understood in the English speaking world). If the confusion of POV with a fact prevails, and NPOV with an agenda, then WikiPedia is in danger of becoming a blog.--Br Alexis Bugnolo 21:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't entirely understand the request that everyone state what their POV is. That sounds counterproductive, just like the use of userboxes to state POVs. What should be more important is that all Wikipedians should be trying to work toward truth via NPOV. Robert McClenon 08:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Contemporary Issues

This is a discussion for the addition of a section to the Anselm Page bearing this title--Br Alexis Bugnolo 22:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Since the publication of Edward Carpenter's IOLÄUS: An Anthology of Friendship (1908), homosexuals and others (cf. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11) have sought to characterize Anselm as a homosexual on account of certain expressions (e.g. "dilecto dilectori") of affection contained in certain letters he wrote to monks and relatives. Though Dr. Brian P. McGuire (Studia Theologia:1974) was one of the first medieval historians to raise the question in a scholarly manner (Dr. Paul Hasell says that he concluded negatively), it was Dr. E. Christensen (English Historical Review 96:October 1981, pp. 852-54) and Dr. Geln Olsen (St. Anselm and Homosexuality", Anselm Studies, 1988) who, having specifically considered the claim, rebutted it in scholary journals. Most recently the medieval historian, Dr. R. W. Southern has also rebutted the claim, in his biography "St. Anselm: A Portrait in a Landscape" (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1990: chapter 7).

I think that it is NPOV and more appropriate to cite this section as "Contemporary Issues" because it is clearly more than about one phrase "Dilecto dilectori", and clearly a contemporary issue, because there are no historical contemporaries which characterize Anselm as "gay", "homosexual" or a "sodomite".--Br Alexis Bugnolo 23:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"Homosexuals and others" could just as easily read "some scholars." I do not see a cite regarding McGuire's findings from Hasell. Again, you give undue weight to Olsen and Christensen. I would write the paragraph to read:

Since the publication of Edward Carpenter's IOLÄUS: An Anthology of Friendship (1908), some scholars have sought to characterize Anselm as a homosexual on account of certain expressions (e.g. "dilecto dilectori") of affection contained in certain letters he wrote to monks and relatives. Dr. Brian P. McGuire ( Studia Theologia:1974) was one of the first medieval historians to raise the question in a scholarly manner. Dr. E. Christensen (English Historical Review 96:October 1981, pp. 852-54), Dr. Geln Olsen (St. Anselm and Homosexuality", Anselm Studies, 1988) and Dr. R. W. Southern ("St. Anselm: A Portrait in a Landscape" (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1990: chapter 7)) all rebut the claim.

That is pretty much what I tried to post before KarlBunker started RV it out last night. I think though that it is still inaccurate, because McGuire did not just raise the issue, he concluded against it. Carpenter is not a scholar, and so perhaps his reference is not even necessary, except for the fact that Dr. Halsall identifies Carpenter as a homosexual activist, and that this characterization of the claim makers is confirmed in Dr. Boswell, who was also a homosexual as his as bios on the net mention. I think that it is NPOV to say a man is catholic, who professes Catholicism, and a gay who professes to be one. It does not weaken an argument, but strengthens the historical context of one, when you say that this side was, for example Catholic, and that Protestant, or this side comprised homosexuals, and the other heterosexuals. That Carpenter was an homosesula activist is cited on the [8] article about him.

So I propose the following section for CONTEMPORARY ISSUES, to be placed after Recognition, since Contemporay Issues is a form of recognition:

Since the publication of Edward Carpenter's IOLÄUS: An Anthology of Friendship (1908), homosexuals such as Dr. John Boswell and scholars of Gay History such as Dr. Paul Halsall (cf. 1 2 3), and others such as Dr. John Balnaves as well as Gay Websites (e.g. on Saints) have claimed that Anselm was a homosexual, on account of certain expressions contained in certain letters he wrote to monks and relatives. Though Dr. Brian P. McGuire (Studia Theologia:1974) was one of the first medieval historians to raise the question in a scholarly journal, other medieval historians such as Dr. E. Christensen (English Historical Review 96:October 1981, pp. 852-54), Dr. Geln Olsen (St. Anselm and Homosexuality", Anselm Studies, 1988) and Dr. R. W. Southern in his biography "St. Anselm: A Portrait in a Landscape" (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1990: chapter 7) have concluded against this thesis.--Br Alexis Bugnolo 22:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I invite all who visit this page, to give their input on this version of the proposal (Bold Faced above). I believe that it is more comprehensive, more accurate and more balanced, reflects better the historical context, and is sufficiently rich in citations to help any WP user to begin further research if he likes. Note, that citations of books follow the Academic Principles cited above.--Br Alexis Bugnolo 22:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Identifying people as gay is just designed to cast doubt on what they say. Why are you so insistant on it? Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Identifying me as someone who wants to cast doubt on what others say is just designd to cast doubt on what I say. Why are you so insistant on it? If you do not think it is shameful to be gay or identify yourself as a gay, why should you be ashamed that gays who said they were gays are said to be gays? You are not being consistent.--Br Alexis Bugnolo 02:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The statement "Gay people thing this, other people think this" is poor form. Hipocrite - «Talk» 02:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

A New Start?

This article has been protected due to the 3RR, but will be unprotected after there is some reasonable discussion of a balanced presentation of the dilecto dilectori question. Can we try to be work out a version that presents both views in an NPOV fashion. Robert McClenon 16:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

When user:Hipocrite gave his third opinion, he characterized the current version (mine) as follows: " I find the current section, [9] to be appropriate and NPOV." Other WK administrators have come here and made comments about user:Br Alexis Bugnolo's various proposed versions, but none chose to comment on or find fault with my version, which was on the article page at the time they made their comments. Br. Bugnolo seems to have departed the discussion, so unless you want to take up where he left off, Robert, it seems the issue is closed for now. KarlBunker 18:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the current version is NPOV. I would suggest that it could be fine-tuned to recognize that the majority of scholars accept the "spiritual" rather than the "chaste homosexual" interpretation. Robert McClenon 18:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

In the first place, unless there is an obvious and overwhelming majority of opinion on one side of a debate (as in "most biologists accept evolution"), I don't believe it's appropriate for Wikipedia to claim that either side has a "majority". Taking a poll of medieval scholars would seem to constitute "original research". In the second place, I don't accept Br. Bugnolo's finding that the "non-homosexual" side had the majority. In my own research, I found a clear majority the other way. His research was undoubtedly more extensive than mine, but (call me cynical) I can't discount the possibility that his findings were influenced by his opinions. In the third place, please note that the current version already gives disproportionate weight to the non-homosexual view. I did this deliberately in hopes of writing a version that Bugnolo might eventually accept. KarlBunker 19:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that taking such a poll for Wikipedia would be original research. If you are saying that there is no consensus as to Anselm's sexual orientation, then the current wording is reasonable. I have no POV on Anselm's sexual orientation, only on sexual orientations in general. Robert McClenon 20:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I will take this occasion to agree with Tony Sidaway that the phrase POV should not be taken as a criticism. Everyone has a POV, and achieving NPOV is difficult but necessary. The criticism of an article should be that it is biased, slanted, unbalanced, or one-sided. Let's try to keep the Anselm article unbiased. Robert McClenon 20:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The mention of Anslem's disputed sexuality is per se a concession to the significance of his sexuality - which is itself a point of view. I believe it is insignficant.

As I noted earlier, the debate is discussed in current editions of Butler's Lives of the Saints and in the leading current biography of Anselm. So the opinion that there's some significance to the debate can be called a "widely accepted" opinion.

The current wording of the article fails to suggest there among historians themselves there is a on-going debate that the discovery or interpretation is a campaign on the part of controversial advocacy historians to read into history homosexuality where generations of historians in the past and present have read friendship and companionship.

Yes, the current wording does avoid espousing the point of view that some historians are "controversial" and others are not.

For the sake of accuracy in identifying the POV's held by McGuire and Boswell, it should be noted that are/were advocates for a revision of long-held beliefs concerning what phrases such as dilecto dilectori. Namely they believe there were really code for homosexual sentiments as they appear in St. Anselm's writings. patsw 22:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's the job of this article to herd together all the scholars who hold a certain opinion and declare what they are advocates for. KarlBunker 22:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

As I have written before, the Wikipedia is not at all shy about throwing around the word controversial when there's a lack of consensus among people (even non-experts) on a matter of fact, "...but some..." conceals a rather obvious fact that it is a controversy.

By definition, to suggest that a Catholic Saint might have been a homosexual is "controversial." However, to use that word to characterize the scholars on one side of the issue (if that's what you're proposing) would suggest that their opinion is "controversial" in some way other than that obvious way. It isn't a "controversial" opinion in any way beyond that single, obvious way, so to use the word would be a POV attempt to invalidate the scholars on that side of the issue.

To my second point, Karl, you didn't indicate if you agree or disagree that McGuire and Boswell were advocates for a revision of long-held beliefs concerning what phrases such as dilecto dilectori mean.

Well, 1st, the "meaning" of that phrase isn't really an issue. No one is arguing that the Latin-English dictionary needs revising. The issue is the nature of Anselm's feelings. The (debatable) fact that these scholars are going against long standing opinion isn't enough to warrant calling them "controversial" (if that's what you're proposing). To do so would be equivalent to saying that any new thought is controversial.

Directing this to anyone -- does homosexual orientation applied to St. Anselm here refer to his alleged belief that homosexual intercourse between men was not immoral, or does it mean something else? patsw 02:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

From the context, it's clear that it refers solely to the nature of his feelings towards certain people. Whether or not he approved of homosexual sex is another question, and one that isn't addressed in this article. KarlBunker 03:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

So the page gets locked, and we're the only people talking. In fact, what's all the hubbub about? You don't consider the controversy to be a controversy at all. My position has always been we don't know Saint Anselm's mind, and therefore don't know if he fits into a 21st century category of "gay" with any certainty. patsw 03:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/s/Talk%7EAnselm_of_Canterbury_Archive_2_bea4.html"

Category: Talk archives