Talk:John Bosco

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	John Bosco is part of the WikiProject Saints, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Saints on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to saints as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to saints. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

	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.)

Contents 1 Don 2 How did Don Bosco start his work? 3 LGBT Edits 3.1 Reworked Version 3.2 Sources for this section 3.3 Refutation of the sources 3.4 Commentaries 4 There is no consensus 5 Article needs complete NPOVing and rewrite 6 Page Protection 6.1 Request for page protection 6.2 Removing the Page Protection 6.3 Protection 7 NPOV 8 A New User's Opinion 8.1 Sources 8.2 Content 8.3 Statistics 8.4 Summary 8.5 Commentaries 9 Survey 10 New Proposal - Raw text 10.1 Prayer 10.2 Awful article 10.3 What is the point of protecting this page? 11 Infobox 12 Name change request 13 Cleaning up the new version 13.1 The Beano 13.2 cleanup English, NPOV language, copyediting 13.3 Awful article 13.4 A proposal 14 Requested move 14.1 Survey 14.2 Discussion 15 Canonization 16 Novena To St John Bosco 17 Official title as a Catholic saint 18 Prayer 19 Homosexuality

[edit] Don

'Don' being Italian for 'Mister' is not correct: it is true that in Southern Italy people of station are often called 'don', following an ancient tradition that I guess was introduced by Spaniards, but in this case - and more generally, nation-wide 'don' is the usual honorific for a priest. --Tridentinus 08:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC).

Orginally, Don started as the initials D.O.N. which in Spanish stood for "De Origen Noble", meaning "Of Noble Origin". In time it came to become simply a sign or respect. It is considered an honor to be called a Don and is the reason why all members of the Spanish nobility also use "Don" in their offical names. -—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Csucre (talk • contribs).

I can't speak about Spanish... but I have in front of me the highly authoritative Devoto-Oli dictionary of Italian, confirming that don (at least as we Italians use it) is the truncated form of 'donno', coming from Latin 'dominus'. 'Don' is explained as 'honorific tributed to many of the regular clergy and secular ecclesiastics; among laics, reserved once to only princes and high nobility of Spain and Portugal, it later extended, also in Italy, to any man of station, not tecessarily noble, especially in the South where, today, it mostly denotes respect, reverence'. In fact, I still stand by my original edit of the noun explanation, and as a native speaker of Italian (and we're discussing an Italian here) consider the current explanation in the article totally wrong: it is not for elders only, nor for all elders, but instead is what all regular priests (by regular I mean, not bishops, cardinals and so forth) regardless of age. In fact, if no one opposes, I'd like to return to my formulation - unless, of course, someone else can come out with a precise yet more elegant one. --Tridentinus 17:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How did Don Bosco start his work?

How did Don Bosco start his work? (question asked by User:84.67.217.153, moving from article page).

• there are a number of hisitories, but most simply - he saw a need and moved to take care of it.evrik 19:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LGBT Edits

It has been postulated that Don Bosco was driven by homosexual urges, in particular directed towards the boys he cared for, but never consummated. Saint Joseph Cafasso, his confessor, said of him: "Se non fosse che lavora per la gloria di Dio, direi che è un uomo pericoloso, più per quel che non lascia trasparire, che per quel che ci dà a conoscere di sé. Don Bosco, insomma, è un enigma" (If it were not for his work for the glory of God, I would say that he is a dangerous man, more for what he does not allow to be seen than for what he lets us know about himself. Don Bosco, thus, is an enigma.)

His educational principle was that the educator must love the boy, must make the boy feel that he is loved, and by means of this pedagogical love guide him in the proper direction (towards Christian values). The ideal virtue that Don Bosco preached was that of chastity, which has given reason to his biographers to further suspect that it was a result of his sublimation of the sexual impulse. In his relations with the boys he felt compelled (or, some have claimed, "obsessed") to be close to them in order to protect them from falling prey to homosexual or masturbatory temptations.

While he had very tender feelings towards his boys, he had an absolute horror of the female touch. It is told of him that once at the barbershop, realizing it was the barber's wife who was soaping him, he ran out into the street covered with suds. His last written words were "I giovanetti sono la delizia di Gesù e Maria" (The youths are the delight of Jesus and Mary).

The Catholic hierarchy, while distancing itself from the more pederastic nuances of Don Bosco's teachings, has not accepted the homosexual explanation for his motivations. Giacomo Dacquino, professor at the Università Pontificia Salesiana di Torino denonced as "unscientific" homosexual or pederastic interpretations of Don Bosco's work. [1]

[edit] Reworked Version

Thank you. Here is a reworked version:

==Analysis of his character and motivations==

It has been postulated that Don Bosco was driven by homosexual urges, in particular directed towards the boys he cared for, but never consummated. Saint Joseph Cafasso, his confessor, said of him: "Se non fosse che lavora per la gloria di Dio, direi che è un uomo pericoloso, più per quel che non lascia trasparire, che per quel che ci dà a conoscere di sé. Don Bosco, insomma, è un enigma" (If it were not for his work for the glory of God, I would say that he is a dangerous man, more for what he does not allow to be seen than for what he lets us know about himself. Don Bosco, thus, is an enigma.)

His educational principle was that the educator must love the boy, must make the boy feel that he is loved, and by means of this pedagogical love guide him in the proper direction (towards Christian values). The ideal virtue that Don Bosco preached was that of chastity, which has given reason to his biographers to further suspect that it was a result of his sublimation of the sexual impulse. In his relations with the boys he felt compelled (or, some have claimed, "obsessed") to be close to them in order to protect them from falling prey to homosexual or masturbatory temptations.

While he had very tender feelings towards his boys, he had an absolute horror of the female touch. It is told of him that once at the barbershop, realizing it was the barber's wife who was soaping him, he ran out into the street covered with suds. His last written words were "I giovanetti sono la delizia di Gesù e Maria" (The youths are the delight of Jesus and Mary).

The Catholic hierarchy, while distancing itself from the more pederastic nuances of Don Bosco's teachings, has not accepted the homosexual explanation for his motivations. Giacomo Dacquino, professor at the Università Pontificia Salesiana di Torino denonced as "unscientific" homosexual or pederastic interpretations of Don Bosco's work. [2]

However, in a comment made shortly before his death, Don Bosco himself seems to be aware that his actions may be seen in a homoerotic light [referring to himself in the third person]: "Ti manifesto adesso un timore (...), temo che qualcuno dei nostri abbia ad interpretar male l'affezione che don Bosco ha avuto per i giovani, e che dal mio modo di confessarli vicino vicino, si lasci trasportare da troppa sensualità verso di loro, e pretenda poi giustificarsi col dire che don Bosco faceva lo stesso, sia quando loro parlava in segreto, sia quando li confessava. So che qualcuno si lascia guadagnare dal cuore, e ne temo pericoli e danni spirituali." (I will reveal to you now a fear . . . I fear that one of ours may come to misinterpret the affection that Don Bosco had for the young, and from the way that I received their confession - really, really close - and may let himself get carried away with too much sensuality towards them, and then pretend to justify himself by saying that Don Bosco did the same, be it when he spoke to them in secret, be it when he received their confession. I know that one can be conquered by way of the heart, and I fear dangers, and spiritual damage.) This comment has led historian Giovanni Dall'orto to suggest that Don Bosco himself felt he had gotten a bit closer to his protegees that perhaps he should have.

Despite his own opinion that Don Bosco never gave free rein to his alleged desires for the boys around him, Dall'orto reports that many years after having published his research on the topic, h was approached by a resident of Torino who explained his own distaste - and that of his family - for the Church by the fact that his grandfather had been a pupil of Don Bosco and had been sexually molested by him. From that, he claimed, came his hate of an institution which had dared to make a child molester into a saint.

[edit] Sources for this section

1. Paul Pennings, "Don Bosco breathes his last. The scenario of Catholic social clubs in the Fifties and Sixties". In Among men, among women, Amsterdam 1983, pp. 166-175 & 598-599.
2. Stephan Sanders,A phenomenon's bankrupcy; Don Bosco and the question of coeducation. Ibidem, pp. 159-165 e 602-603.
3. Giovanni Dall'orto, in Who's who in gay and lesbian history, (ed. Robert Aldrich e Garry Wotherspoon), vol. 1; and [3]

Haiduc 01:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Haiduc - I have once again looked at the three references you have provided. Not only are they self-referential (to each other), but the original sources are not available on the web. I even went to the University of Pennsylvania library this morning to see what information they had. Before this information gets added to the article, you have to do a better job of documenting this. In fact, I would go as far as to say that you are using the online sources found using a google search to document this article. I would revert the article again, but I don't want to get banned for 3rr. evrik 18:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Even Dall'Orto alone is sufficient for this. Also, the sources are not "self-referential" as if they were each pointing to the next in an closed loop. Dall'Orto does make use of the first two, something that does not reduce the importance of the data in any way. However, I will go through Pennings and Sanders in detail on my next trip to the library. Haiduc 19:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    • This may be good for the Italian edition of wikipedia, but without English sources that we can all read, there is not enough eveidence to support your claims.63.164.145.33 21:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      • If we only allow English-language sources, we'll never overcome systemic bias. Be reasonable here. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Reasonable? Let's leave the text out until we all agree that it is accurate and fair. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.164.145.33 (talk • contribs).

• We certainly can use non-English sources. Wales has clearly stated this is an encyclopedia about everything. It is not about everything written in English (that would just make for the world's worst encyclopedia). So of course we must use non-English sources. The person who brings the source to the article can easily make a simple translation of the source so we can understand it, SqueakBox 14:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refutation of the sources

I sat down last night and went through the 'supporting documents' provided by Haiduc. What I found only strengthens my opposition to the insertion of the text about pedophilia and pederasty. Let me start with the neutrality of this whole effort to insert the language.

Not NPOV

First, the language was not NPOV, and I don't think that if you look at Haiduc's record of editing you would judge that he is a neutral person who is trying to bring light to a subject. I suppose that he is an advocate who is trying to put forth his point of view – and it is not neutral. If you contrast his sources with the ones used to develop the article in the first place there is a marked difference, the Catholic Encyclopedia versus a collection of advocate websites.

Potential plagarism

Plagiarism crosses language boundaries, and the first couple of versions of what Haiduc wrote bordered on plagiarism of text from these two sites:

1. http://www.culturagay.it/cg/biografia.php?id=14
2. http://www.giovannidallorto.com/biografie/bosco/bosco.html

Unreliable Sources The final proposed text is still speculative and should not be included because:

1. The Pennings and Sanders articles cited are not actually part of the text, but are citations used in the dallorto and culturagay websites (and in fact those two websites appear to be identical).
2. Giovanni Dall'Orto's website is not the origin of the story. It is translated from an English book, Who's Who in Contemporary Gay and Lesbian History : From World War II to the Present Day by Robert Adrich, and in any case it is probably not objective. If you doubt this, take look at this picture, from this website.

In summary:

1. Not NPOV
2. Advocacy piece
3. questionable sources
4. Speculation but no definitive English source provided.

If something that accuses a saint of being a pederast and a pedophile, it should not be included unless it has unimpeachable sources and documentation.

• Did anyone notice that haiduc listed this page on the LGBT Notice Board under action items?63.164.145.33 18:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commentaries

• Further to the above: I am surprised that the material has been removed without specific reasons. Any claim of npov must obviously be supported by reasoning, otherwise anybody could say anything. Haiduc 01:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I removed the text because it wasn't NPOV. I suggest you start a page on homosexuality in the church if you want to discuss the issue.evrik 16:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with the removal of the above text because it is too thin on actual evidence to make a case. It's just hearsay and supposition really - Dall'orto even supports his claim by handwriting analysis for god's sake. To put a big block of detailed text like this in the article gives this speculation more weight than it deserves. Perhaps just one sentence may be justified but not this. --Spondoolicks 10:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• • It is not our role to sit in judgement on the published work of bona fide historians and decide whom to include and whom to exclude. If the evidence had been too thin to make a case then presumably three separate historians would not have written on it, or if they had, no one would have published it. Obviously this material has repeatedly withstood peer review. I am not averse to reducing the material somewhat, but it is clear that we owe our readers something more than an adulatory orthodox piece on a man who seems to have been quite a bit more complex. Haiduc 12:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • Yes, it is a bit hagiographic at the moment (unsurprisingly), and it needs tidying up as well. As to accepting the work of scholars I would say we should not just blindly put in anything. There are some scholarly articles which establish a solid narrative, based on pulling together strong facts and evidence, which has a high probability of being true. Sometimes however, the truth is harder to pin down and there are plenty of perfectly good articles presenting a theory on what might be true, of course giving as much back up to the theory as possible based on the available evidence. This second type should be used with caution when it comes to encyclopedias - this is not the best place for speculation.

I would accept the following:

"Perhaps inevitably given his work with boys and young men, Bosco has been the subject of speculation about whether or not he had homosexual paedophile tendencies. Those who put forward this theory, such as Giovanni Dall'orto, point to his tenderness towards boys, in contrast to the harshness of most schools of the time, and interpret a number of statements by Bosco and others in support of this theory. (link to Dall'orto article)

In a comment made shortly before his death, Don Bosco himself seems to be aware that his actions may be seen in a homoerotic light [referring to himself in the third person]: "I will reveal to you now a fear . . . I fear that one of ours may come to misinterpret the affection that Don Bosco had for the young, and from the way that I received their confession - really, really close - and may let himself get carried away with too much sensuality towards them, and then pretend to justify himself by saying that Don Bosco did the same, be it when he spoke to them in secret, be it when he received their confession. I know that one can be conquered by way of the heart, and I fear dangers, and spiritual damage."

This still seems a bit longer than it should be but at least it seems more NPOV. The speculative nature of this means it should not be given too much emphasis in the article in comparison with the known facts of his life and works. What do you reckon? --Spondoolicks 16:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that is an eminently reasonable proposal. I will only suggest a couple of minor edits (see below) and I would also like to preserve the comment by Cafasso, quite possibly elsewhere in the article, because it adds depth to his character - though not necessarily related to this issue. On a separate note, is it appropriate to use an iconic image for the box or should we rather use one of the more secular pictures - this is beginning to look like a piece of out an ecclesiastical publication.

"Perhaps inevitably given his work with boys and young men, Bosco has been the subject of speculation about whether or not he had sublimated pederastic tendencies. Those who put forward this theory, such as Giovanni Dall'orto, point to his tenderness towards boys, in contrast to the harshness of most schools of the time, and interpret a number of statements by Bosco and others in support of this theory. (link to Dall'orto article)

In a comment made shortly before his death, Don Bosco himself seems to be aware that his actions may be seen in a homoerotic light [referring to himself in the third person]: "I will reveal to you now a fear . . . I fear that one of ours may come to misinterpret the affection that Don Bosco had for the young, and from the way that I received their confession - really, really close - and may let himself get carried away with too much sensuality towards them, and then pretend to justify himself by saying that Don Bosco did the same, be it when he spoke to them in secret, be it when he received their confession. I know that one can be conquered by way of the heart, and I fear dangers, and spiritual harm." Haiduc 22:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• An alternate suggestion. What about creating a page on this subject related to this page Homosexuality and Christianity? evrik 23:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It is against Wikipedia rules to break out contentious topics and remove them to separate, purpose-made articles. I will post the version elaborated here, it seems to address a number of concerns. Haiduc 23:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, I don't agree to the text. It is not NPOV and it advances a specific agenda. Take it elsewhere, but it doesn't belong on this page. evrik 23:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

If you don't agree to the text you have several options:

• Discuss on this page how it is POV. Cited quotations of authors who present their own opinion are not POV if they clearly present the statement as being a publiched scholar's opinion. If the opinions are not stated in an NPOV way, how can they be restated fairly?
• Counter claims with citations discounting the opinions, or present an opposing view. In this case, the original text you do not agree to would remain, and you would be adding additional text to balance the opinion.
• Show how the cited work is the result of such bad sholarship and/or such an extreme fringe view that it deseves little or no mention in the article. To do this, you have to show that the author(s) are not part of any recognized peer review, they publish POV material written for political purposes, etc...

It is NOT enough to just say "It is not NPOV and it advances a specific agenda". The question is, can the opinions be framed in such a way that their sources are clear, and are balanced by contrasting opinions. Someone could remove the entire article by saying it is POV because it presents the opinion of the Catholic Church that Bosco was a Saint. Certainly the Church has their own specific agenda as well. Without the opinions and agenda of the Catholic Church, this article wouldn't have much reason to exist. -- Samuel Wantman 01:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep
• Keep out - the language is being placed by a homosexual activist who has a point to prove. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.164.145.85 (talk • contribs).

• I've got a question. You can present speculation with references which would represent a certain point and include it in an article AS speculation and not fact. But what if there was no way to counter that claim? Wouldn't it be difficult to find a scholar who specfically counters this claim? Every controversial topic has had counter arguments by other scholars. It just seems like Bosco's tendencies is a minute thing to research, IMHO and that these references were dug up from obscurity. Nevertheless though they are presented. Case in point no one ever set forth the possibility that Pres. Lincoln was gay until last year. I'm just curious what to make of speculations that have no counter-claims. Every controversial suggestion always has a counter arguments. I am concerned though that the main argument comes from an Italian text. I whole heartedly disagree that by not including this as a reference we are practicing "systemic bias" as per Eskog said. It has nothing to do with "systemic bias". When referencing sources on an English wikipedia, the community has to be able to verify and read the cited sources themselves. Who knows? What Giovanni Dall'Orto is saying maybe heavily biased or he maybe correct in his assumptions but because the majority of the users on this English wiki can't read it we are left in the dark about making a proper decision or consensus. I for one am very curious to read his work.

--† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 07:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• • I am sorry, I do not see how you can in good faith defend limiting the scope of a domain of knowledge in this publication to what has been accomplished by English-speaking scholars and published in English. That would lead to a general parochialism and lack of utility of Wikipedia that would make it more of a laughing stock than an authentic encyclopaedia. I am sure that this kind of statement (analogically speaking, of course)can and will only come from a (monolingual?) speaker of English. The fact that non-English sources are to you resident in the domain of obscurity is a personal issue, and should not be imposed on the rest of us. Please make use of the research tools at your disposal and extract from that obscurity such materials as are of interest to you. Haiduc 12:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • How in the world is requesting something in English a personal issue? I am not a monolingual speaker of English and am offended by your tone. How is wanting to read something in an English wikipedia in English a supposition to impose any personal issues of mine into the article at hand? If I am wrong, I apologize but I just find it strange that you can cite a text that many of the Wiki users cannot read and extract information for themselves. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 20:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• • • • My apologies if my tone struck the wrong note. May I suggest that you run the text through a couple of translation engines? They have worked quite well for me in the past, and I can help clear up any ambiguities. Haiduc 21:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • I apologize for my outburst. Forgive my embarassment. I will look into it using translations engines. I am just trying to seek a consensus that will please both sides. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 01:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Evrik asked me to look at the page as a favor. I would agree that the sourcing is poor and that the the changes should not be included until more thorough scholarship is presented.South Philly 23:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] There is no consensus

There is no consensus. I did a quick summation, please feel free to change your 'vote' if I got it wrong.

• Support the insertion of the language

1. Haiduc
2. ESkog
3. Jtdirl

• Oppose the insertion of the poorly sourced, plagiaristic NPOV language

1. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.164.145.33 (talk • contribs).
2. Safesler
3. Evrik
4. Pkazz
5. OpposeSouth Philly 23:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
6. --Nino Gonzales 15:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral

1. SqueakBox
2. † Ðy§ep§ion †
3. Spondoolicks - But if Evrik's concerns about the validity of the source aren't justified then I think the article might be better with the text than without. Looking at this monster of a debate after nearly a week away from Wikipedia I wish I'd never proposed that compromise text now. I miss those golden days when Evrik was obviously right and Haiduc was obviously wrong. --Spondoolicks 10:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
4. bonzi - I think that Spondoolicks's proposed compromise text is a very good suggestion (but I think it should be trimmed further). (FWIW, I think that sublimed sexual urges of all kinds were driving force behind many celibate priest's work. There's nothing inherently bad about that, except for the priest's peace of mind.) Also, something should really be done about that hagiographical tone inherited from CE, as much as the guy might deserve it. --bonzi 15:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Samuel Wantman – Consensus is not a vote. Neither is NPOV. I believe in presenting all sides of this issue as long as they are well cited an balanced. The discussion is continuing in the right direction. -- Samuel Wantman 10:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The supporting documents on the pederasty don't justify including the text.evrik 21:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article needs complete NPOVing and rewrite

This article is in need of severe pruning and NPOVing. Articles on religious topics are prone to two extremes — either extremely devotional and hagiographic or extremely hostile and abusive. Neither is acceptable under NPOV. This article is in the former category. In part that is because of its Catholic Encyclopaedia origins. Older sourcebooks, whether the CE, Brittanica or elsewhere, tended to use flowerly, highly POV language with less nuance than is applied today. Many articles have used the Catholic Encyclopaedia. I've used it in a couple. It is extremely good, but some of its articles do fall into the trap of reading like Catholic propaganda pieces, or prolonged press releases. Since Vatican II even the Church has moved away from hagiographic Catholicism with the abandonment of the concept of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

This article, in its current form, needs fundamental professional writing to remove its overwhelming hagiographic tone. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this critique, and I would add that the use of an iconic picture in the box at the top of the page is another example of this syndrome, and a problem to be corrected. There are many very nice pictures of the man without that odd halo around his head, please. Haiduc 20:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. If you want to include the text you're going to have to get better sources. evrik 20:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You still haven't explained what a "better source" might look like. Sources were demanded, and then sources were provided. It is my suspicion that you would find fault with any source that suggested pederastic tendencies in this article's subject, as you would instantly conclude it to be a biased source and thus unworthy of inclusion. The paragraphs as currently written are not even a statement that anything bad happened, just that reputable scholars have found reason to discuss the possibility. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page Protection

[edit] Request for page protection

The single biggest refence work is in Italian. Without better documentation, this addition is not substantial enough to justify including. Most of the text come from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Calling a saint a pederast requires more proof. It is not |NPOV. I am asking that the page be locked until something gets worked out. evrik 03:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• What is surprising about an Italian historian investigating an Italian priest?! The fact that the text came from the Catholic Encyclopedia is a troubling revelation, in that we have every reason to believe that to not be an unbiased source. As far as a saint being a pederast, first of all that is not necessarily what Dall'Orto is saying, and, secondly, even if he was a pederast, why should that disqualify him from being a saint?! I must also point out that you have engaged in three reverts of the page within a very short period, and that your last edit was deceptively labeled. It was not minor, and the gist of it was a revert, not a request for protection. Please do not try to obfuscate you actions here. Haiduc 03:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, I was changing the page because there was no consensus. One person does half-heartedly saying it's okay and other disputing the NPOV status is not enough. Ummm... rather than descend into an edit war, I went ahead and asked for the page to be protected. I still don't think you have enough substantial printed reference material to justify your claims. evrik 04:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    • What would you consider "substantial" enough to support these claims? The cites look pretty solid to me, and from what Babelfish can tell me about the Dall'Orto bio (not a ton) it appears to cite numerous other sources. I don't think it's unfair to include the fact that this speculation exists in the scholarly world, because it does seem to exist. (ESkog)^(Talk) 13:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Evrik, There is no need for page protection when people are discussing things and the converstion is civil. Here is the disputed section:

==Analysis of his character and motivations==

Perhaps inevitably given his work with boys and young men, Bosco has been the subject of speculation about whether or not he had sublimated pederastic tendencies. Those who put forward this theory, such as Giovanni Dall'Orto, point to his tenderness towards boys, in contrast to the harshness of most schools of the time, and interpret a number of statements by Bosco and others in support of this theory.

In a comment made shortly before his death, Don Bosco himself seems to be aware that his actions may be seen in a homoerotic light [referring to himself in the third person]: "I will reveal to you now a fear . . . I fear that one of ours may come to misinterpret the affection that Don Bosco had for the young, and from the way that I received their confession - really, really close - and may let himself get carried away with too much sensuality towards them, and then pretend to justify himself by saying that Don Bosco did the same, be it when he spoke to them in secret, be it when he received their confession. I know that one can be conquered by way of the heart, and I fear dangers, and spiritual harm." Biography by Dall'Orto

It looks like all the information in these two paragraphs comes from the citation which is in Italian. Are you questioning whether the translation fairly represents the original, whether Dall'Orto is a reputable scholar, or whether the claims are unbalanced or out of context? Often, an effective way to handle this kind of NPOV dispute is not to remove the text, but to counter the claim with another citation that challenges the first opinion. It seems that the citation does not claim anything that Don Bosco himself did not imply. It says, "Bosco has been the subject of speculation about whether or not he had sublimated pederastic tendencies", which I am assuming is the most problematic sentence. If Dall'Orto is a good citation, and Dall'Orto speculates about pederastic tendencies, then this would be an NPOV sentence. Resolving this requires everyone to talk specifically about the text and the citations. -- Samuel Wantman 07:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• The document provided is too flimsy to justify demeaning the name of a saint, of Catholics and Christians. To accuse someone of pedophilia, especially a historical figure, a saint, of pedophilia requires a higher burden of proof. This is an effort by the homosexual lobby to rewrite history. Those who advocate adding the text are promoting anti-catholic hate speech. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.164.145.85 (talk • contribs).
  • Ask yourself: in your mind, could any reasonable amount of evidence meet this "higher burden" you propose? I suspect the answer is no. A neutral point of view is different from a sympathetic point of view, and we should be reporting on all available scholarship about this man. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    • The presumption of "hate" and of "demeaning" are purely in your view, since none is intended. I have absolutely no animosity towards the man, regardless of what use he has been put to posthumously by his co-religionists, and I do not feel that exploring his secret passions and desires in any way besmirches him. I would like to think that I have treated the subject, and the man, in a compassionate manner. Suppressing this line of thought, on the other hand, is not a compassionate act and only serves to delude those towards whom we have the responsibility to be honest. Haiduc 18:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• It sounds a lot like you dislike this saint. How sad that is. I agree, it out to be locked until a concensus can be gathered.

Safesler 04:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing the Page Protection

• The request was removed from the protection page. It's last incarnation is here.

I'm going to think some more about a suitable compromise.evrik 17:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• I am working on a secular version of the article here to be posted under the name of John Bosco. I suggest breaking out the religious material and making a second article Saint John Bosco which, obviously, need have no academic speculation about his erotic impulses, nor historical material much beyond his visions and the circumstances of his canonization. Haiduc 19:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Surely we can't have two different articles about the same man. --Spondoolicks 09:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually what makes more sense is an article on Giovanni Bosco with a link to Saint John Bosco. I have been looking at other language versions of this article on Wikipedia and his canonization is not universally reflected in the title. Haiduc 12:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Rather than a secular version, why don't you add it to Homosexuality_in_the_Roman_Catholic_priesthood, or create a page Homosexuality_in_the_Roman_Catholic_church? evrik 19:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • If the sources are as bad as you say, this material has no place on Wikipedia. If they are acceptable, the information would certainly be relevant to this page, no? (ESkog)^(Talk) 11:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

It's been nearly 2 months under protection - to me, this is such a long time as to be disruptive to the whole idea of Wikipedia. It looks like some good discussion has taken place here - I'll unprotect soon unless someone can think of a reason why you all can't play civilly. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Freezing the page cooled off the argument. I think that the text proposed by JM Rasor can be used. No one has objected to it, and then the page can be unprotected. -- evrik 13:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Who edited and inputed the initial NPOV comments?? Pkazz 19:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• That is what we are trying to determine. Haiduc 19:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about your qustion. If you're talking about the comments at the heart of the current discussion, it would be this edit] at 22:09, 21 February 2006 by Haiduc. The article was poorly written from the beginning - is that what you're referring to?evrik 20:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A New User's Opinion

In my view, the extension of the article proposed by Haiduc should not be included. It does not present sufficient evidence. I’ll look at the sources he uses, especially the key one: an article by Giovanni Dall’Orto on the Italian website Cultura Gay. Haiduc’s extension links to that one.

[edit] Sources

Three sources are cited by Haiduc in support of including the material on the homosexuality of Don Bosco:

1. Paul Pennings, "Don Bosco breathes his last. The scenario of Catholic social clubs in the Fifties and Sixties". In Among men, among women, Amsterdam 1983, pp. 166-175 & 598-599.

2. Stephan Sanders, A phenomenon's bankrupcy[sic in Haiduc’s and Dall’Orto’s citations]; Don Bosco and the question of coeducation. Ibidem, pp. 159-165 e 602-603.

3. Giovanni Dall'orto, in Who's who in gay and lesbian history, (ed. Robert Aldrich e Garry Wotherspoon), vol. 1; and 3.

The two citations of Among men, among women are taken verbatim from Giovanni Dall’Orto’s bio of Don Bosco on the site Cultura Gay (http://www.culturagay.it/cg/biografia.php?id=14#2a). That is based on the last-cited work of these three.

It appears that the best place to begin would be Dall’Orto’s article. It is certainly the most accessible. Before that, I’ll look at other sources.

I found a fuller citation for Among men, among women in the University of Amsterdam online catalog (http://visscher.ic.uva.nl:8080): Among men, among women : sociological and historical recognition of homosocial arrangements / [eds.: Mattias Duyves et al.; transl. by Felix Barner et al.]

Unfortunately, I could find no list of contributions, nor any reference to the conference contributions of Pennings and Sanders. As Dall’Orto cites them, they could fit in this work of 611 pages.

That library has works by both Pennings (1960-) and Sanders (1961-). It lists 6 titles by Pennings on sociological research, none matching the “Don Bosco breathes his last: the scenario of Catholic social clubs in the Fifties and Sixties” article. Five of the works are in Dutch, one in English. Stephanus Clement Sanders (1961-) accounts for 8 titles, all in Dutch. They are travelogues, novels and essays, one on lesbians. None matches the cited article “A phenomenon’s bankruptcy: Don Bosco and the question of coeducation”.

Google searches for these titles by these authors yield nothing.

Dall’Orto’s article originally appeared as the contribution in Haiduc’s third citation. For Dall’Orto’s comments on his several contributions on Italian figures in Who’s Who in Gay and Lesbian History, see Gay.It (http://www.gay.it/channels/view.php?ID=10845). See Fisica / Mente for a version with more pictures (http://www.fisicamente.net/index-809.htm). Dall’Orto is an activist and writer for gay causes in Italy. See his bio (#2 of 20) on Cultura Gay http://www.culturagay.it/cg/autore.php?id=2.

A source oft cited by Dall’Orto is Guido Ceronetti, Albergo d’Italia (Hotel Italy) (Torino, Einaudi 1985). The link to that from Dall’Orto’s article on Cultura Gay is broken. A Google search for “Ceronetti Albergo d’Italia” hits several German-language travelogues with the same title. Einaudi’s web site knows about the book. Search for it (http://www.einaudi.it/einaudi/ita/catalogo/catalogo.jsp) by ISBN = 8806589741; it’s “fuori listino”, out of stock. Bookfinder (http://www.bookfinder.com/dir/i/Albergo_Italia/8806589741/) can’t find anybody selling it. The section in question, “Elementi per una anti-agiografia” (pp. 122-133), Dall’Orto reports as being based on pre-1983 articles by Ceronetti in the Turinese daily La Stampa. That paper’s web site has archive researches only for the last 30 days.

See a short bio on Ceronetti at Italia Libri (http://www.italialibri.net/autori/ceronettig.html).

Dall’Orto cites attempts by the Catholic Church to suppress the Don Bosco gay story in Sergio Quinzio, Domande sulla Santità (Questions of Holiness) Edizioni Gruppo Abele, Torino 1986), pp. 31-39. Short bio for Quinzio is at Filosofico (http://www.filosofico.net/quinzio.htm). Domande is listed among his works on that bio, but Bookfinder (http://www.bookfinder.com/) can’t find it. Google can: it’s out of print, unavailable at Libreria Universitaria (http://www.libreriauniversitaria.it/goto/author_Quinzio+Sergio/shelf_BIT/Quinzio_Sergio.html) ISBN = 8876700595. Full title: Domande sulla Santità: Don Bosco, Cafasso, Cottolengo.

Dall’Orto does not give a direct reference for Moretti’s analysis of Don Bosco’s handwriting, but quotes it from Ceronetti. See a quick bio of Moretti at Istituto Grafologico "Girolamo Moretti" (Girolamo Moretti Institute of Handwriting Analysis) (http://www.grafologia.it/girolamo_moretti.htm). Giuseppe Cosco (http://cosco-giuseppe.tripod.com/grafologia/santi.htm) quotes and comments on the same passage, reaching a different conclusion. It’s from G. Moretti, I santi dalla loro scrittura (The Saints From Their Writing) (Ediz. Paoline, Roma 1975). According to Cosco, Moretti presents all those saints’ handwriting as a window into their struggles against their impulses. He has a similar analysis by Moretti of St. Veronica Giuliani (17th c). Dall’Orto, instead, presents Moretti’s analysis as being made on an anonymous subject.

[edit] Content

Here is a summary of Dall’Orto’s article.

The homosexuality of Don Bosco is a long discussed “secret”; he’s like a stock character in a morality play (“di Pulcinella”). The Church has tried to suppress it. None of the sources cited (with the exception of an accusation reported in note 4, which Dall’Orto characterizes as dubious) has ever called into question Don Bosco’s chastity. It’s all about his suppressed homosexual or pederastic tendencies.

Then follows a section on the Church’s hypocritical stance toward homosexuals.

Then comes evidence from Don Bosco’s handwriting that he had a thoroughly bad character, with homosexual tendencies, as analyzed by Fr Girolamo Moretti. Dall’Orto also brings forward as evidence the assertion of St Joseph Cafasso, Bosco’s spiritual director until 1860, that he was “an enigma”, a dangerously secretive person if not known to be working for the glory of God.

Dall’Orto then tries to show that Don Bosco not only had homosexual tendencies, but was also a pedophile. He cites Ceronetti’s work where it contrasts the famous photo of Don Bosco hearing Paolo Albera’s confession, with his fear to be touched by women.

In spite of all this, Dall’Orto gives Don Bosco credit for doing useful work for the young boys in his care. His priestly title and garb were barriers to giving in to his impulses, as can be seen by his always signing himself Father John Bosco. These factors allowed Don Bosco to be close to youth, yet not fall into temptation. The article continues at length about the dangers of such a repression.

It ends with a defense of Don Bosco against pedophilic tendencies by Giacomo Dacquino, a psychology professor at the Salesian University in Rome. Dacquino is cited with two arguments: (1) one cannot deduce pedophilic tendencies from sublimated love and tenderness toward youth, and (2) Don Bosco consistently opposed homosexual acts. Dall’Orto discounts second Dacquino’s defense, saying that Don Bosco’s opposition does not prove he wasn’t a pedophile. Then Dall’Orto makes his own argument from a fact recalled by Dacquino: Don Bosco was worried some of his own Salesians might look at his own visible tenderness to youth, and use that to justify their own excessive sensuality toward them. For Dall’Orto, this is an admission “that he went too far”, and that such a defense of heterosexuality is an admission that makes any further accusation superfluous.

[edit] Statistics

Dall’Orto’s article is 3754 words long. It is entitled “Biografia di Don Giovanni Bosco”. Only 399 of those words are in paragraphs directly dealing with Don Bosco’s life; the rest are analysis and opinion. Dall’Orto is careful to label his analyses and opinions as such.

[edit] Summary

Summarizing the scant evidence brought forward by Dall’Orto:

1. Studies by Pennings, Sanders, Quinzio, Ceronetti, and Moretti cited in his article. Nothing specific is brought forward except from Ceronetti; all the other studies are cited to support the general thesis that Don Bosco was gay.

2. Cafasso’s “enigma”, “dangerous man” observations, citing Ceronetti.

3. The Albera confession photo, and Don Bosco’s fear of feminine contact, citing Ceronetti.

Summarizing the interpretation of the evidence:

1. Don Bosco used his priesthood as a means to repress his own sexuality.

2. He did useful work in spite of such repression.

3. The Church is the hypocritical and implacable enemy of homosexuals.

Jmrasor

[edit] Commentaries

• The analysis by Jmrasor will not be easy to refute, in many ways it is very thorough. As I mentioned before, I will attempt to locate the texts by Pennings and Sanders before returning to the topic of Bosco's erotic impulses. I would like to make one point however: I found Jmrasors' characterization of Dall'Orto a bit misleading. Calling someone an "activist" is rife with pitfalls, since the term has been stained with connotations of extremism lately. I think it would be fairer to quote Mr. Dall'Orto himself.

In his own bio he indicates that he is a journalist, writer and historian, an editor for an Italian publishing house, and is on the editorial board of the American scholarly publication "Journal of Homosexuality." As for the rest of Jmrasor's critique, that will have to wait for more sources.

• • A separate issue is the problematic, adulatory tone of the article, which gives it an unprofessional quality. I am working on the overhaul (minus the homoerotic discussion) mentioned above, and I hope to post it when the article is unlocked. Haiduc 04:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Let us know when it is done. I think if we can come to consensus on any version We can recommend that the page be unlocked.evrik 16:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• I accept the observation by Haiduc about Dall'Orto characterized as "activist". Good NPOV adjustment.

I also think Haiduc's approach is the best at this point: reduce the hagiographic tone, leave off the homoerotic discussion. Jmrasor

That sounds like a reasonable compromise to me, especially in light of Jmrasor's extensive review/argument. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

I just did a survey of Wikipedia articles on Don Bosco in other languages, with respect to homosexuality.

The Italian article is at http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Giovanni_Bosco. The article makes no mention of his possible homosexuality; there is no discussion.

The Spanish (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Juan_Bosco) makes no mention in either the article or the discussion.

The Dutch (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Bosco), French (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Bosco) and German (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Bosco) are like the Italian: no mention in the article, no discussion started.

All of these seem to have a less hagiographic tone than ours, some only slightly so.

Nobody has started a Portuguese article or discussion on Don Bosco.

Perhaps the most complete is the Italian.Jmrasor

• Anyone willing (and knowledgeable enough in the other languages) to work in some of the more neutral phrasing from these other pedias? (ESkog)^(Talk) 04:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm going to take a shot at it, using the other pedia as suggested by ESkog. It'll take awhile; anyone else is of course free to take a shot as well. Jmrasor

[edit] New Proposal - Raw text

I have some text in my sandbox [[4]] for an article. See if I'm on the right track with this. Jmrasor

• I could live with this version ... evrik 16:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Wikification complete. Jmrasor 05:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • If that was the agreed text, I would agrre to nominate for unprotection. evrik 19:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prayer

Is including a prayer here NPOV? Do you think a Islamic or Buddhist reader could consider it a serious encyclopedic material? I decisively vote for its deletion. Let me know. Attilios 21:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• A prayer has no place whatsoever on this page. The page is OTT glorification as it is (even the Catholic Truth Society would think twice at producing such hagiography these days, let alone an neutral encyclopaedia). Including a prayer is so far from encyclopaediac the mind boggles. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Personally, I could care less about the prayer. Did you read JMRasors proposed draft? It doesn't include the pryaers. Perhaps you'd like to comment on the draft? evrik 14:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• I don’t give a sod whether he was a bugger or not, but the utterly unencyclopedic prayer needs to be be removed without delay. Ian Spackman 17:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Can we all agree to replace the current page with rasor's proposed language? evrik 17:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• There seems currently to be a grotesque programme designed to make people sanctified by the Catholic Church seem to be merely the abject stooges of people with no taste in the visual or linguistic arts. These people carry on this campaign by targetting such saints with very bad art and idiotic prayers. I believe (as a Protestant atheist, if that matters to you) that this has the effect of seeming to relegate interesting (not always laudable) historical figures such as Bernardino of Siena into the objects of the (not very) complicated desires of adolescent North American girls. I don’t find that appropriate. Discuss. But while the discussion goes on let us get rid of these irrelevant prayers: Wikipedia is not a prayerbook. —Ian Spackman 18:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

How can you be a Protestant and an atheist at the same time?--Hailey 18:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Think of it as being by god’s will and therefore very easily. (HE or SHE does the difficult bit if there is one.) Ian Spackman 18:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awful article

This article is a disater! It NEEDS to be rewritten as soon as possible. Please pledge for it being unprotected. Attilios 10:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Did you read JMRasors proposed draft? evrik 19:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is the point of protecting this page?

I’ve certainly come across some pretty awful disputed pages, where the content tends to get buried under “Yes he is”, “No he isn’t” arguments. Berlusconi comes to mind. But at least there is a debate there, and if the participants are intelligent enough to cite good sources you can usually go off-site and make your mind up free from the shrillness of the immediate noise.

Freezing a page strikes me as very odd, though. What does it say? That the current version is so wonderfully good that it cannot be allowed to be corrupted by all of those mindless vandals out there? (Us, that is to say.) I am puzzled. I have no views on Don Bosco, by the way: I know nothing about him really. But I wouldn’t at all mind being enlightened: I’m just not going to bother to read a page that has been put under such a rigid regime of censorship. It seems like vandalism from above if you see what I mean! (By above I mean admins, not deities…) —Ian Spackman 20:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• The page was frozen because of an edit war. There is a proposed revision, but no one has ever agreed to it. Have you read the proposed text? Do you agree that it is better? -- evrik 21:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• No I have not read the proposed text, nor much of the current one. Currently I am interested in reading neither: I shall wait for the free version to appear. What I am suggesting is that there are worse things than edit wars—stupid as they are. What I am seeing is a censorship which privileges the text as it happened to stand when someone decided that enough was enough. I can understand—if not entirely approve—of that person’s decision to censor. But the equitable thing to have done would have been to blank the page before protecting it. I expect I’m wrong: but that’s what I am getting. Cheers —Ian Spackman 21:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• But I almost forgot: I did make a formal request to make a minor edit to the page—to remove the prayer which I consider unencyclopedic—and I have yet to have a response to that request. Do you know how long these things take? Ian Spackman 21:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

As there seems to be a consensus to remove the prayer, and its inclusion was blatently contrary to NPOV, I've removed it. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. So the article is not frozen - it is simply the personal fief of an editor with sufficient power to decide for himself which edits to allow. OK. Until it becomes amply clear to everyone here that Bosco is not a saint to be protected but a historical personage to be documented from many different points of view, we will continue to have problems here. How many months have you now kept this page under lockdown??? Haiduc 23:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yet more paranoia. A locked version is a stable version to stop edit wars. If there is a consensus to make a change while a page is stable that change can be and is regularly made by whichever admin is passing. There was a consensus to remove that prayer — how it was ever allowed to be added in beats me. Prayers are never added in to articles. They fundamentally breach NPOV rules. As there was a consensus I implemented it. With paranoia like yours, is it no wonder this page is the source of edit wars and ends up locked? If you want it unlocked, request it. The protected template tells you how. In the meantime stop whinging and try to work with people. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have been away from this for too long to be able to sense who has what investment in it, so if my accusation was off the mark I apologize. But locking a version by tossing it into an oubliette is certainly not proper - and presuming to call the locked version "stable" is false on its face - if it had been stable there would have been no desire to lock it. As it was, there was no "edit war" here, simply a progressive evolution of the article in a direction which made some people uncomfortable, for religious reasons apparently, judging by the comments made at the time. The lock was inappropriate when it was applied, and is eggregiously inappropriate now, months after the fact. Request unlock??? Why should I have to request normality. Maybe you should go request permission to keep the article locked up indefinitely, that seems more appropriate in an open forum, don't you think? Paranoia?! If I had been paranoid I would have been obsessing about this nonsense. The only paranoia here is the mentality of lèse majesté which has to run and seek protection, instead of setting fear aside and engaging in free intellectual debate. Haiduc 23:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Where there are constant edit wars and reversion wars, as was the case here, it is normal to lock it by imposing protection (full protection if it involves full users, semiprotected if it being targeted for vandalism and edit wars by IPs and new a/cs created to fight about the article). A stable version is locked and then people are asked to calm down. Any user can request unprotection. Sometimes the lock may only be for an hour or two, or a day or two. Sometimes things get left locked due to an oversight. I am not getting involved in this. All I did was notice that whatever about other lack of agreements, one thing there was agreement on was that that prayer should not be there, as indeed it should never have been left there to start off with. As there was a consensus there I deleted it. If you feel that the article has been protected too long, and it does seem to have been locked a long time, simply ask an admin to remove the protection or request unprotection through the template. That is standard procedure.

Protecting articles is standard on WP. Bitter reversion battles where articles are reverted constantly, minute by minute or hour by hour, can undermine the credibility of the entire project. Hundreds of thousands of articles have been locked over the years, and at any one time, given the various natures of protection hundreds may be protected in some form. If you want to discuss a version prior to unlocking, use a draft version at say Saint John Bosco/draft to produce a mockup of an alternative version which people can comment on. People need to remember three things

1. Wikipedia is not a religious encyclopaedia but a secular one, so articles on religious topics cannot take the form of standard hagiographies. (This article was a particularly awful example of one.)
2. Wikipedia cannot take sides in debates, so the article must neither be unduly respectful nor unduly disrespectful of religion and religious figures. Some articles, such as Mother Teresa of Calcutta in the past was turned into a virtual hatchet job from users trying too settle old scores against Catholicism.
3. Prayers, etc are a complete no-no because they can seem like proslytising. Prayers could only be used if describing the perspective of religious people on someone, not in the form that was here "to pray to Saint John Bosco, say . . . ". That is an absolute breach of NPOV and must be deleted on sight. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you, I am in agreement with all the points you have made here. Haiduc 01:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• I agree and am okay with the proposed drafts. --evrik 14:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

I have added the novena back in to bring it in line with the Infobox Guidelines. --evrik 19:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name change request

As you will see if you examine the other language versions, it is not at all mandatory to use his religious title as title of this article. As a matter of fact I would suggest that it skews the discussion unnecessarily. I don't know about you, but I am documenting the life of a man, not a religious construct. Nor is the articles on, say, Jonas Salk titled "Doctor Jonas Salk." Let's keep things secular here. Haiduc 13:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not particularly interested in this person, and he's on my watchlist only by accident. However, in general we should not put titles such as "Saint" in article names. I have not done so for the one or two articles on saints that I've begun myself. Note that on List of saints the title isn't used either. (It would be highly redundant there, but that hasn't kept some enthusiasts from putting them in, or failing to pipe so that it doesn't appear.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This page could be moved to John Bosco, but since the page already exists, the edit history would remain here. --evrik 14:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There are also an annoying number of double redirects that would have to be fixed. I wonder if there's a bot for that?

By the way, please use indents (:) and not bullets(*) to set off your comments. It's standard and a lot cleaner. There was also no reason to change the level of the header, as Haiduc clearly intended it as a subtopic of the "Cleanup" discussion. TCC (talk) (contribs) 17:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Please show me where it says that either bullets or colons are the standard. Colons tend to blur paragraphs together. --evrik 18:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"Standard" means "That's what 99.9% of the people do around here." You can try to change it singlehandedly, I suppose, but you're not likely to be successful, and in the meantime you'll just be using a method that's only partly compatible. I have no idea what you mean by "blur paragraphs together". You separate paragraphs the normal way. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the point in renaming the article. The name is of no consequence. The issue is the writing of the article. Don't get sidetracked into a pointless debate about names. The important issue is content. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You have a point, although there's been no disagreement expressed on the name change as such. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning up the new version

[edit] The Beano

Who the heck wrote "He zipped through the lower grades and eventually graduated with honors in 1835". Zipped??? We are supposed to be writing an encyclopaedia here, not the Beano. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cleanup English, NPOV language, copyediting

Irrespective of issues over content, this article is in severe need of copy editing. Much of its English is sub-encyclopaedic, to put it mildly. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• It could use some work. Should we ask for peer review? evrik 04:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. To give just some examples of the appalling quality of the writing.

• If there are two sons, there are referred to as the elder and younger, never oldest and youngest.
• "His mother was for it, but Antonio, now head of the family, was opposed." His mother was "for it"!!! — That is so far from encyclopaedic standards it beggars belief.
• "teach them Catholic catechism (something like Sunday school)" Something like Sunday School!!!
• "He would do this by becoming a priest they could approach easily, not like the cold, standoffish clergy he had known" Cold, standoffish clergy!!! That is pure tabloidese, not encyclopaedic.
• "He zipped through the lower grades and eventually graduated with honors in 1835" He zipped'!!! Who the hell wrote that?
• "Don Bosco and his Oratory wandered around town for a few years, getting kicked out of several places in succession" getting kicked out!!!
• "thought him a loose cannon and a wheeler-dealer" Wheeler-dealer. That is so far from encyclopaedic standard the mind boggles.

They are just a few examples of the tabloid-standard language. Quite separately, the content fails to offer and detailed critique of Bosco, his role in Italian Catholicism, the context in which he lived. It does not touch of the criticisms made of his ministry. Overall it makes him sound like one of The Muppets, not as someone the Roman Catholic Church thought worthy of canonisation. In terms of content, tone, layout and language it is an extremely weak article that offers the reader no insight and contributes little to an understanding of the man. As it stands this article is barely pass grade, chronically below even the minimum standard required for an encyclopaedia article. It does him, the reader and Wikipedia no service whatsoever.

Frankly the article needs to be totally dumped and a professional article written instead. If we asked for peer review, the readers brought in would only laugh (or cringe) when they saw it. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awful article

I think this article will never be encyclopedic until Catholic users will be stuck with the hagiographic version currently on line. --Attilios 18:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A proposal

Hmmm. My last post was intented to shackle a bit waters here, but it seems none was even a bit offended... but I'm sure if I'd changed something in the article a lot of people would rage. My proposal is: would you agree if I'd translated a new article from the Italian version, which looks fair good, and leave my work after opened to your copyedit and addition of everything you feel lacking? --Attilios 18:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Let me know.

• I like the content of the current version and am hoping that someone can givce it better style. --evrik 17:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Attilos, I like the idea. I would welcome a more encylopedic version of the page, which could have other things added to it later. Badbilltucker 15:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Since this has become a wish list, I would like a secular version of the present article, with whatever the Italian version can add to it. And it goes without saying that the article is about Giovanni Bosco, not some saint. Haiduc 02:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Haiduc, you're hardly neutral in all this. South Philly 00:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• I have been working on the Portuguese article about John Bosco. The names “João Bosco” and “Dom Bosco” are very usual in Portuguese, so the title is now “João Bosco (santo)”. I think that the title “Saint John Bosco” is partial, because saint applies only for Catholic Church and not for Wikipedia or its readers. The Italian article did not tell anything about Bosco’s political activity in the "Risorgimento" – the political unification of Italy - his friendship with Cavour, his relationship with Pope Pio IX and Pope Leo XIII, his controversies with bishop Gastaldi in Torino. There is nothing about the nationalist meaning of his beatification near the “Concordata” about the Vatican, celebrated by Mussolini and Pio XI, in 1929. Mussolini studied at a Salesian school (and yes, he was a bad student). I put a Berslusconi quote in the article to show how Italian politicians use Bosco’s popularity, even these days. I think that these political facts should be in an article about Bosco.Thank you all, your discussion here helps me a lot. I apologize in advance for my pt.English.--Tarso ✉ 17:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• I think this article is unfairly maligned. The style could be improved somewhat but it is not the atrocious article that some have claimed. As to some of the proposed additions such as the fact that Mussolini attended a Salesian school, etc., it doesn't seem they belong here. For example, there are many thousands of prominent individuals the world over who have attended Salesian schools. Mussolini would be very peripheral to this subject and such references would cast a false light - and as such would not be NPOV. References to the Berlesconi quote - to show how Italian politicians use Bosco would also seem to be very peripheral, and parochial - considering that Bosco's influence is worldwide and Salesian institutions have been founded from Europe, to Southern Californi, to South American to Tehran. --Mamalujo 23:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Good point by Mamalugo on the Salesian schools. If someone were to create a list of people who have attended Salesian schools, I would have no objection whatsoever about having Mussolini mentioned, and there are probably several biographies already in wikipedia about such individuals. However, to single out Mussolini as the only or one of the few individuals to have come from a Salesian school definitely smacks up someone wishing to create a definitely not NPOV impression. Anyway, can anyone really associate a student at a school founded by a man long since dead with the founder? It makes no sense on the face of it. Badbilltucker 01:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• I agree that the Musolini factoid belongs on the Musolini page, not here. As for the naming of the article, how much longer must we have religious hagiography imposed on this secular project? Haiduc 01:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mamalujo. It's not that bad. --South Philly

• • Thanks for the name change. Haiduc 01:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Speaking of names - the guy's name was Giovanni, not John. While Church is in habit of 'name localization', an encyclopaedia should not do that. --bonzi 16:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Good point, thank you. I'll see to that right away. Haiduc 21:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• I like Attilios' offer - has anything come out of it yet? --bonzi 16:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canonization

I am changing the sentence "In recognition of his work with disadvantaged youths, he was canonized in 1944." The title of saint is not an award the Church issues for particular merit. See Saint for more info. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tpellman (talk • contribs).

• I think some reference to youth should be kept. --evrik 16:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Novena To St John Bosco

The ‘prayer’ section of the infobox currently reads:

Novena To St John Bosco - Practitioners begin this prayer on January 23 and end on the feast day of St. John Bosco, January 31. They are enjoined to remember the intentions of the Salesians of Don Bosco, and their work to help underprivileged youth in developing countries across the world.'

Attribution: Salesians of Don Bosco

This is decidedly interesting, but decidedly odd. Firstly, of course, it is not a prayer but rather a description of the manner in which the prayer is said. Secondly, if true, it must mean that Salesians the world over take the last month of January off work in order to do 24/7 praying, apparently without pausing for sleep, and then (saving annual miracles) a few more days or weeks recovering from their exertions. Thirdly there is no link to the text of this prayer which, one feels, must have made it into internet-friendly record books. I do hope that the copy as it stands is not nonsense—religious fanaticism is a great source of inspiration and amusement. But I think that something as sheerly bizarre as this should languish awhile on the talk page before being reinstated in all its wonderful strangeness in the encyclopedia proper. Please do sanity checks. (Moving it here for the meantime.) —Ian Spackman 14:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Official title as a Catholic saint

We describe him in the infobox as Holy Hierarch (whatever that means – perhaps there should be a link). But in the text we make a point of saying that he is ‘the only Saint with the title "Father and Teacher of Youth"’. This must be a matter of simple, verifiable fact. Anyone feeling interested enough to fix it? —Ian Spackman 20:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm okay with it as it is... Check out the wikiproject page for the definitions. --evrik 20:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You mean that you are ok with a nonsensical contradiction? —Ian Spackman 20:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prayer

Your insistence to insert the prayer here is making this encyclopedia ridiculous. This is neither Catholic Encyclopedia, nor Wikisource. A few poets here have their poems cited for entire, and especially in the infobox: it is clear that to be so stick towards a prayer has other reasons. --Attilios 15:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If I could decipher the last part of that I might respond. A sample Prayer illustrates what people who ask for St. John Bosco's help may be doing. I think it illustrates the entirety of a particulars saint's viewpoint. As for making wikipedia ridiculous, we are too late, it is already ridiculous when the loudest shouter wins. Please don't delete things based on your personal PoV. There are literary and historical reasons why a prayer SHOULD be included.Dominick ^(TALK) 16:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the infobox is the wrong place for prayers anyway. If a prayer can usefully be included then they can easily be in the main text which will give greater scope for explaining context. On the infobox talk page I've suggested that the section for prayers should be removed from the template for this reason. --Spondoolicks 17:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• There are better and shorter prayers that can be used. --evrik ^(talk) 17:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Even so, they will need contextualising and the main article text is the place for that. --Spondoolicks 17:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I remain of the opinino that yours is Catholic ad-spam. Anyway... --Attilios 18:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• always civil. I'll say a prayer for you. --evrik ^(talk) 19:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

How could it be ad-spam? We don't get a dime every prayer! Dominick ^(TALK) 20:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homosexuality

Those of you busy covering up research into the homosexual aspects of John Bosco's life and activities should know that I expect soon to receive materials presented at the "About Men, About Women" conferences in Amsterdam dealing with precisely these aspects, materials also cited by Giovanni Dall'Orto in his study. At that point we will have to have a separate section addressing these issues, as well as any coverup by the Catholic Church. Haiduc 18:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• get a copy for me and send it to me in the mail. --evrik ^(talk) 18:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)