Talk:Paulinus of Nola

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Paulinus of Nola is part of the WikiProject Saints, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Saints on the 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, you can edit the article attached to this page, or 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.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article may need an appropriate infobox template.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

[edit] Reverting

The Source text is actual text Paulinus wrote (in translation). There is no point other then POV for reverting it. If you have another cited source that claims the text is different then let's see it, otherwise it must stand even though you don't like it. Wjhonson 03:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The reasons why this text is not acceptable have already been explained to you, by several editors, at: Talk:List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people. You are persistently violating Wikipedia guidelines, in several articles. Please cease. 205.188.117.13 16:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This is part of a poem that Paulinus wrote. Explain why this is not appropriate for an article on Paulinus. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Rictor Norton, since he added nothing to it. This is a quote from Paulinus letter. Wjhonson 16:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And if you want anyone to believe you're not a puppet, then SIGN IN, so we can all see who you are. Wjhonson 16:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is a copy of the text that an anonymous editor keeps deleting from the article

In an anthology of gay love letters, Rictor Norton has edited a letter by Paulinus to Ausonius, that is there dated "abt 385". Ausonius had recently retired to Bordeaux and he urges Paulinus to come to him. Paulinus' reply in part was:

• I will hold you, intermingled in my very sinews.
• I will see you in my heart and with a loving spirit embrace you;
• You will be with me everywhere

Wjhonson 17:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The Administrator Bearcat and several others already covered the main issues in the other discussion. There is no need to keep rehashing essentially the same points. 205.188.117.13 21:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion by anon who refuses to sign in, is no discussion. Wjhonson 19:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Several people, including an Admin (Bearcat), have covered the issues pertaining to this. 205.188.117.13 20:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not true. I am citing the words of Paulinus, nothing more. Nothing whatsoever in any discussion covered not being able to cite what Paulinus said. Wjhonson 20:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

As covered before, this is one author's claim that this is a "gay love letter", although the context is ambiguous. This is therefore POV. Since this has been covered ad nauseam already by several editors, it's time to finally drop the subject. I can ask the others to help revert if necessary.205.188.117.13 20:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant. They are Paulinus' words and there is no reason why they should not be here, except your WP:POV Wjhonson 20:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It is one translation of a document which one author claims to be an authentic letter by Paulinus, which that author additionally claims to be a love letter - and therefore POV on all three counts. No context is provided to prove the claims made about the letter. Several editors, including an Admin, have already discussed this issue with you many times, so please finally allow the matter to rest. 205.188.117.13 09:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

That is incorrect. This anthology was collected from various source. This letter has been published several times in essentially the same text. Wjhonson 17:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the same is true of a great many other claims found in other GLBT books which likewise recycle the same information from one book to the next - and yet no evidence is provided to establish that the claim is true. If credibility could be established by sheer force of repetition, then the recycled information passed from one blogger to the next would also count as valid source material. 205.188.117.13 22:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

As you well know anon, truth is irrelevant. Wikiepdia is about WP:V not truth. That Paulius wrote a "gay love letter" is verifiable even if you disagree or don't like it. Your opinion is irrelevant. You need to cite a source which addresses the issue head-on instead of this constant battling over what is essentially your uncitable and unverifiable opinion. I have cited my sources, you disdain the system we have here by refusing to cite any source for your opinion. Wjhonson 22:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it is claimed to be a "gay love letter" (a POV assertion) based solely upon a purely subjective interpretation of language which several other editors here - most of them gay activists themselves - have said is ambiguous rather than self-evident. But the bottom line is that this is a POV claim, a point which has been made by several editors over the last week or so. Please stop beating a dead horse. 205.188.117.13 22:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

And whether or not *you personally* think it is, isn't or is a ham sandwich is completely irrelevant. Can you understand that? Your opinion is WP:OR and inadmissable just like the opinions of the other editors. The only thing that is admissible in a situation where there is souce conflict is.... another... source. Do you have one? Or not? Wjhonson 23:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Some of the other editors already explained to you why the above is wrong, by explaining the requirements. Since you're just taking this argument in circles, there's no sense rehashing the entire thing over and over again. 205.188.117.13 23:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Undent. Can you please point out, for others listening exactly which editor stated that their own unfounded opinion overrides Wikipolicy on WP:RS and WP:V ? Thanks. Wjhonson 23:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You know that wasn't their argument. Rather than repeat the whole thing for you, I will ask you to go read the debate yourself. 205.188.117.13 23:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I did read it, and anyone reading this, will know that you revert based on your opinion, not on any source. Never in any prior discussion was any source brought up to revert Rictor Norton's quoted extract here. That was not once ever mentioned. This is just your overly zealous edit-warring which has no place. Again to make this clear, truth is not [[WP:V] and truth is not WP:RS. Whether you personally believe something quoted is true or not is irrelevant. The only thing relevant is whether other WP:RS believe it. So far you have failed to produce any citation to any source that invalidates what Ricter has published. Wjhonson 23:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

As others have already pointed out many times, Wikipedia does not work that way: you cannot include a dubious POV source, without any balancing information, and then challenge others to produce a source refuting it: that's the opposite of the proper procedure.

This has been pointed out ad nauseam. End of discussion. 205.188.117.13 23:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

One, that others have pointed this out many times is false statemnt. Two that wikipedia works from WP:RS and WS:V are true statements. Rictor Norton in a PhD in Literature with many publications to his name. Your unbased claim that his book is POV is WP:OR. Your unbased claim that reverting WP:RS quotations is proper procedure is WP:POINT. End of discussion? Wjhonson 23:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Surely you know better than to make the above statements. I'm merely going to refer you to the Admin Bearcat's previous comments on this and ask you to reply to those if you really wish to keep bickering over this. 205.188.117.13 00:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Undent. I know quite well what I'm saying. Your unsourced and uncited opinions are WP:OR same as anyone else who claims priority over published, secondary WP:RS. And please, refer us all to what Bearcat said, And I will keep referring to policy. Your continued removal of this material in no way accords with the standard procedure in cases like this. Wjhonson 00:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If you didn't read Bearcat's comments on this several days ago, then go and look at them in Talk:List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people. I'm not going to keep repeating the same things here only to have them ignored once again - this has gone far enough. 152.163.100.73 08:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It is better to add content than to delete cited information within an article. Wjhonson has added cited content. It is inappropriate to remove it with out very good cause. In this instance it appears the WJhonson has at least one, and perhaps several, sources which say the letter would be appropriate in the article. If the anon editor (who really ought to get an editor identity) is so damn sure the letter does not apply, then he (or she) should find a source of published information which says something about it not being a gay love letter and put that in the article. Or any other, previously published information which says something about the subject. But removing a quotation and its reference from an article because it represents a single point of view is not in keeping with WP:CITE or its parent, WP:V. Terryeo 10:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I must agree with Terryeo. I can certainly understand why someone would object to the inclusion of a statement that Paulinus might have been Gay.... but the standard for Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. It is clearly verifiable that Rictor Norton interprets Paulinus's letter as gay love letters, and thus it meets the standards for WP:RS and WP:V. It can be noted in the article (with proper citations of course) that others disagree. After all, inclusion of Norton's theory does not mean that his theory is true... only that he says it. Blueboar 12:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

So far, as far as I can tell, we have exactly one source who includes the text of a letter with ambiguous phrasing in a book of gay letters being used to attempt to define the character of the subject. If the letter were more explicit, I would support the inclusion of the text of the letter and of the contention of homosexuality. It is not that explicit, though. Also, the simple fact that someone in our era tries to define a person as gay on the basis of such an ambiguous letter from the subject, with no other sources evidently being cited, is generally challenged as shoddy research or expressing a point of view by academics today. It can also be claimed that, just as reasonably, as St. Paul also used such "muscular" phrasing, though generally in different circumstances, Paulinus could have been simply copying his semi-namesake. If there were another source calling into question Paulinus' orientation, then I can see how it could be included. However, the inclusion of a letter in a collection which, so far as I can see, does not provide outside justification for its inclusion, and simply relies on the ambiguous text itself, is not sufficient. Badbilltucker 13:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opening

Can someone please rewrite the opening per the MoS. From reading the first sentence, I have no idea who Paulinus of Nola is. Please look at any other wikipedia article if you are not sure how an opening should look. Thanks.--Andrew c 20:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)