Talk:Charles Webster Leadbeater

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Charles Webster Leadbeater article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class.

Contents 1 Defrocked 2 Accused of pederasty 2.1 RFC Response 3 Removed a citation 4 Unusual claim

[edit] Defrocked

I have read a lot of Leadbeater and never read that he was "defrocked" for pederasty. Rather, I believe that he had left the church some time before this charge of having "immoral relations" with boys came about. The link provided seems to be a cheap-shot and not a reliable source. I'll remove this shortly, and hopefully can find something more useful. Discuss. Wjhonson 10:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the section out of the article. Any such accusations should come from a book reference and the details must be right. Web references are not considered reputable sources for such information. See WP:RS. -999 (Talk) 15:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accused of pederasty

Leadbeater was accused of pederasty look at the definition of this word) in 1906 and was defrocked as a result.[1]. One such accusation came from Hubert van Hook of Chicago (not correct person), who as an 11 year old was proclaimed by Leadbeater as future World Teacher but at twenty four denounced his mentor for improper relations (where is the factual proof?????????)[2]. Nonetheless, he was never charged or brought to court (which attests to his innocence), though there is a body of evidence that suggests he had sexual relations with students in the United States, India and Australia. Peter Michel, in his biography of Charles W. Leadbeater, writes that these accusations are suspect as they came from what can be considered as his enemies: Alexander Fullerton, Herbert Burrows, G.R.S. Mead, Hubert van Hook, Katherine Tingley and Hilda Martyn. It has been speculated that an incriminating letter to a young boy attributed to Leadbeater, advising the youth on masturbation methods and signed "Thousand kisses darling", was a forgery by Fullerton.

It is true however that (before 1906), he recommended the practice of masturbation as a prophylactic in certain cases to young boys. But these were ideas that Charles Leadbeater already had before he joined the Theosophical Society and still was a member of the Church.

I'm not necessarily believing that he was defrocked, but the remainder of the section is accurate. Wjhonson 01:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you're correct, so you should be able to come up with a citation to a reputable source. Web references are not permitted. -999 (Talk) 02:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It is bad form to delete and try to force your *view* of correct editing on others. You are wrong. Web citations for one, are certainly permitted, half of wikipedia is web citations. Secondly every single biog of the man states it. The Encyclopaedia Brittanica states it. Wjhonson 04:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It is my right to do so per WP:V:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.

2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.

3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

Please familiarize yourself more thoroughly with current Wikipedia policies, WP:V and WP:RS, which no longer allows web-only references, particularly for information which is damaging to the subjects reputation. Normally, I would just place a citation tag, but this sort of information should not be in the article until it can be backed up with citations from reputatble biographies, not web articles. -999 (Talk) 15:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not backed up with web articles. You are deliberately failing to understand. It is mentioned in every, single, biography on or about the man period. Every one. There is not, one, single, comprehensive biography of the movement in this time period, which fails to mention it. Your lack of even the most superficial research, is not my failing. Wjhonson 18:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

And your citations to WP:RS do not state that web pages are unreliable sources. Please cite a more specific and exact mention which exactly state this view. Wjhonson 18:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand all right. You claim it is backed up by biographies, but you who possess them and who added the information, refuse to provide citations to those biographies per WP:V. Removing information until it is properly cited. A passing remark in a book review and an unverifiable website claim without even an author is not sufficient. Use the biographies. -999 (Talk) 23:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is the discussion of the use of online sources. While the first might be reputable, you are refering to a passing remark in an otherwise unrelated book review. I don;t think that is adequate, since not all the information you convey in the paragraph is included. The second web reference is completely unacceptable: it is not on a site like the New York Times or any other reputable site with fact checking. Per policy, such a page my not be used as a citation. It also does not include the informaion related in your paragraph. Please provide a source or sources which verifies ALL of the information in your paragraph. Unverifiable information, such as "some have speculated" without a specific subject, is prohibited per WP:WEASEL - please read it. -999 (Talk) 23:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't act smug. You have consistently refused to read ANY of the cited biographies in this article. And yet you try to hold yourself up as some editor extraordinaire which you are not. I have *yet* to see this claim backed-up with which you started, that web sources are not credible at all. Now you've backed off that I see. Interesting yes? Furthermore, your use of *policy* is completely at odds with what wiki policy truly is on the use of sources. I suggest you cite the *specific* and *exact* phrase that provides your backup or back-off. Wjhonson 00:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have to read the biographies. I quote The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. Also, you have just violated WP:3RR and may now be blocked for 24 hours. You can prevent this by self-reverting. -999 (Talk) 00:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There are many reliable sources. My definition of reliable isn't yours. But it is wikipedias. Which you consistently misquote. Wjhonson 00:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

All my quotes of policy have been cut and paste. Please note that you have been reported for violating WP:3RR. Also, I appreciate your additions - citations with page numbers would have been sufficient - but there is still unsupported information in the article and no, your web references are not allowed by WP policy. -999 (Talk) 00:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No sir. You have failed to quote the *exact* phrase from policy. You post to huge pages which do not state at all that web apges are not allowed. You try to beat people with your *policy* which isn't policy at all. Quote the exact policy and point to the exact location and I'll read it. Wiki policy does allow web pages as sources. Wjhonson 17:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC Response

It is the responsibility of the editor that believes a fact or quote belongs in the article to produce reliable sources that verify that fact or quote. This is established at Wikipedia:Verifiability. It is too strong to say that Web references are banned, but they are subject to critical evaluation, and are more likely to fail that critical evaluation than print sources.

The Hubert van Hook accusation has [3] offered as a reference. This is not a reliable source. "The first question to ask yourself is, "What are the credentials and expertise of the people taking responsibility for a website?" Anyone can post anything on the web." There is no evidence visible that this page was published by someone with the requisite credentials and expertise. Working through the site to the maintainers autobiography, the maintainers expertise is in computer programming, not historical research. They are thus not a reliable source for historical research. Since this is not a reliable source, the accusation needs to come out until one is found and cited. Additionally, it is a personal website, as a single person claims authorship/responsibility for the site. WP:RS also states "Personal websites and blogs should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website. The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or even insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. It is impossible to know which is the case. Visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post, and should be treated accordingly." This is an independent reason that this citation does not meet the required standard.

The book review [4] is a very weak source, and does not support the first sentence as it is currently written. It contains nothing about the date of defrocking. It is, at best, a dubious source. Book reviews are not fact checked the way scholarly papers and encyclopedias are. It is unclear from the text of the review if the statement about Leadbeater comes from the book under discussion (which the review later describes as "riddled with elementary historical errors that give rise to the suspicion that it cannot have been adequately proofread"), or to the reviewer (I think the second is more likely). The reviewer displays a bias against "Catholics" that are not Roman Catholics throughout the review, and this appears to be a throwaway line that is part of a general attack on non-Roman Catholics, rather than core material. Thus, at best, this is a line by the reviewer that fails this test (from WP:RS "Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report?").

A Google Book search for "Leadbeater" and "defrocked" returned exactly one hit [5], which when closely read does not say that Leadbeater was defrocked, it says that the person who ordained Leadbeater was ordained by someone who was themselves defrocked. A Google scholar search for those two words returns no hits. I found no reliable sources on a Google Web seatch for "Leadbeater" and "defrocked" excluding "Wikipedia". My guess is that much of this paragraph can be backed up with reliable sources, but since it doesn't have reliable sources cited yet, it doesn't belong in the article yet. GRBerry 17:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed a citation

I just removed a citation that was being used. It was to an e-mail list. This cant be used. I also removed the proceeding statement, because if i left it in, it wouldnt make sense. Zos 00:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This "email list entry" was from the author of the main biography on Leadbeater. You can find it on Amazon to convince yourself. I've added back the book citation. Wjhonson 22:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unusual claim

Anon editor added this which I've removed to this talk page "No source can be found of it though.As of 2006 Priests of the LCCI hired detectives to search records abroad.These so called sources and bodies of evidence do not exsist.It appears to be a simple smear campaine centered around political control of the organization and the fact C.W.Leadbeater disagreed with some of Blavatsky's points in published work correcting it with a more Christian translation.This and helping establish the Old Catholic/ Liberal Catholic Church, Theosophical purists have never forgivin Leadbeater to this day."

I would suggest such an unusual claim requires a source before we can put it on the page, so I reverted it. Please find and add the source for this paragraph, thank you. Wjhonson 03:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)