Talk:Leonard Neale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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]
Catholicism Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Improper deletion

The section below was deleted by one editor who is of the opinion that this section does not belong here. The section does not claim that it is true, it is sourced and it should not have been removed from Father Leonard Neale's article as he is the one named in "the story." If this editor wanted to add to the article by adding that others refute the story and include sources that would be proper. But to delete sourced information without any discussion here is just not cricket! Dwain (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conversion of Washington

A story that has come down through the years is that in the early morning hours of December 14, 1799 Father Neale was called to Mount Vernon from St. Mary’s Mission, across the Piscataway River, to give former President George Washington last rites.[1] Although Washington was an Episcopalian, he had for years shown an interest in Roman Catholicism and is said to have had a death bed conversion to that faith, being baptized by Father Neale. Although some Protestants and Freemasons have argued against this story, there is further evidence in the inventory of Washington's effects, which included a picture of the Blessed Virgin Mary and one of St. John.[2] [3]

[edit] Sources

  1. ^ The Denver Register, February 24, 1957
  2. ^ Washington's Inventory
  3. ^ The Denver Register, May 11, 1952

[edit] Why this shouldn't be in the article

User:Dwain removed the following explanation from his talk page:

have been all over the claim that Fr. Neale was called to Washington's deathbed, and as far as anyone can tell the only authority is an article from the Archdiocese of Denver's newsletter. I have yet to find the full text of this article, nor any evidence of its sources. You are welcome to produce either, or some other more reliable source, but given the existence of two eyewitness testimonies to the contrary, the story should not appear in the article, at least in any form that relates as anything other than a legend. Mangoe (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing has changed. I looked at the inventory, and it indeed does list pictures of the Virgin Mary and St. John. Whether these prove anything is questionable. As far the Denver Register, I don't think that anyone has actually see it. It is not available on-line, as best I can determine; certainly nobody has linked to it. What we have are excerpts taken from blogs and forums, not from legitimate references. It's not at all clear that the Register ever published such articles.

We should not put Wikipedia in the position of validating such a tenuously supported story. Mangoe (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Further investigation has shown that the DR articles probably don't exist. I'm giving this five more days and then I'm removing the material entirely if substantiation isn't produced. Mangoe (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I have to commend Mangoe on his research into this ... he has checked the DeMoines Public Library, and (I believe) has even contacted the Archdiocese. It does indeed turn out that the DeMoines register article in question never actually existed. Since "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources", we must have exceptionally reliable sources to include the claim that Washington converted to Catholicism at his deathbed. The DR, and by extension any source that cites the DR, can not qualify. Blueboar (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
No, all that needs to be proven is that the story exists since the claim has not been made that it is true in this entry. Dwain (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Dwain, See WP:V One of our core policies on Wikipedia. These are not negotiable. Blueboar (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

There are several modern sources for the story of Washington's supposed conversion by Leonard Neale. I never claimed in this article that the story was positively true, but since the tradition does exist and Neale is a central figure in this story it is worthy of note. Dwain (talk) 03:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The problems only grow worse. Have you actually seen this article from the NCR? What issue of "Information Magazine" was this published in? And Fr. Feeney? Care to give a page number on that? These are not acceptable references as they stand. Mangoe (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no problem. The story exists. You are wanting to censor information because you don't like it. I added multiple sources for each bit of information. It appears that you contacted one of the archivists I was in touch with previously so you must have known that "The Denver Register" was actually The National Catholic Register. If so you deliberately did not correct the sourcing so that instead you could say that the Denver Register did not exist. And I'd appreciate you not throwing threats my way again on my talk page! Your "claimed" original reason for continually deleting the information on this story has been answered. Dwain (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Essentially this is all repetition of the same rumor... no matter what the source. As I stated above, Wikipedia policy states clearly that: "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources"... to repeat this rumor in Wikipedia we need very reliable sources. The ones provided so far do not meet this standard. For this reason, I have removed the paragraphs in question. If exceptionally solid sources can be found, we can always add the material back. However, given that this is controversial, before we do add it back I suggest that these sources be presented here on the talk page and fully examined and discussed. This seems to have "edit war" written all over it. Blueboar (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
It is not an exceptional claim. An exceptional claim is one that is reported as a fact, this is a traditional story that has plenty of sources for inclusion under Leonard Neale's entry, since he is the one named in this story. Dwain (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
See, that's the problem: we don't actually see that your citations are your real source for the story; we aren't even convinced that the sources you cite exist. Take a look at WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. I question Fr. Feeney as a source anyway, but in any case if he wrote of such a thing, you should be able to produce a page number. Mangoe (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I have copies of The National Catholic Register articles as well as a book written in 1860. I also have information from the other sources which aren't even necessary but that I supplied because I know the content of these sources. There can be no problems about relaying this information in the article because of the way the information is written. It is simply reporting a traditional story that mentions Father Neale. Dwain (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The claim that Washington is said to have converted on his deathbed is a very "exceptional claim"... thus we need exceptional, ie very reliable, sources to include it. Unfortunately, in this situation we can not simply take your word for it that these sources exist and are reliable. We have already discovered that one source was bogus... the Denver Catholic Register never published this story... this discovery calls into question all of the sources that repeat the claim. Thus, we need full publication information (Author, publisher, date of publication, page info, ISBN Numbers, etc.) so we can check them out. You say you have a book written in 1860? OK, what is the title? Who wrote it? Who published it? On what page can we find the information? Blueboar (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Try to keep up with the conversation will you? There was no "bogus" source as you claim. A mistake was made The Register that was from Denver was in fact The National Catholic Register which was available to every state. I have those articles, they were real and not "bogus". And I love your not wanting an edit war as you started one by removing sourced information. Dwain (talk)
Dwain, you are now in violation of WP:3rr for your repeated reverts. If you continue you will be blocked from further editing. Please do not edit war. I explained why I removed this material. I did so in good faith and based upon Wikipedia Policy (specifically WP:V). I requested that the sources be discussed before returning the information. You were the one edit warred by returning it before discussion was completed and consenus was reached.
As to your contention that there was a simply a "mistake"... The National Catholic Register is the national edition of the Denver Catholic Register. In other words, they are essentially the same paper, under different banners. I find it highly unlikely that an article such as this would have appeared in the national edition and not the local one. However, until we have checked this out, I will assume good faith and accept that you have a copy of it in front of you... and that it does indeed contain the article. It still does not qualify. The National Catholic Register is not an "exceptional source" for this sort of claim. Where did the NCR get its information? Does the claim originate with the NCR, or is the NCR simply repeating an older claim. Does it present any evidence to back up the claim? Blueboar (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
If you have a copy, could you provide the text for individuals here? Or perhaps a scan? --Haemo (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The Mother of God by Leonard Feeney was printed by the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The pages where Feeney speaks of Washington's conversion and call for a Jesuit priest are pages 122 and 123. As far as printing the text of the NCR articles here, it would be a copyright violation. However, I have found that it is reprinted on several websites that can be easily googled. Dwain (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
So the Feeney book is essentially self published (the slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary are the Feeneyites). Not a reliable source in that case. Would you please provide a link to one of the websites that reprints the NCR article? Blueboar (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I've tried to verify some of the new sources supplied, and I am continuing to have problems. The "Doran Hurley" "cite" lacks dates, and as far as I can tell it's simply there on the strength of being mentioned in the "Denver Register"/NCR article. I also tried to look up the Feeney work, and I can find no evidence that it exists. Amazon does show a number of books by Feeney (most long OOP), but I can find no trace of this one. Again, surely if it has been consulted, some bibliographic information should be forthcoming. Mangoe (talk) 00:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I am removing the citation to "Information Magazine" and to "Mother of God"... feel free to return them if you can give us proper publication information with dates and page refs. etc. Without this information they are unreliable. I will leave the ref to NCR for now... until we have more difinitive information on that one way or the other. Blueboar (talk) 02:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] National Catholic Register

Well, I have been to the New York Public Library. They have editions of the NCR on file from the 1960s on, but not from the 1950s... neither do any of the other libraries and accademic institutions the NYPL has partnered with. This raises issues of verifiability. If it turns out that it is impossible to verify something after a reasonable search at one of the largest public libraries in the US, is it still verifiable? I am not sure of the answer to that (I have asked at WP:V). Blueboar (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can contact the archivist Karyl Klein at the Denver Catholic Register who can be reached at archives@archden.org. Karyl e-mailed me the two articles from The National Catholic Register. Here is a link to the page where I found the archivist: http://www.archden.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=section&id=11&Itemid=421 Dwain (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Please note that JASpencer requested a quote of the relevant text back in April... it has not yet been provided (it is the end of May). I will give it another few weeks... but if it is not provided, I am going to raise this issue again with an eye to deleting under WP:FRINGE. Blueboar (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested Quote

I guess he wanted a quote concerning the wailing of Washington's slaves, so here it is.

"These were not Catholic Negroes; it is part of the tradition that weeping and wailing occurred in the quarters that Massa Washington had been snared by the Scarlet Woman of Rome, whom they had been taught to fear and hate." Dwain (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

So the quote does not mention Neale? Blueboar (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious that the above quote, the quote that was asked for, does not have Neale's name in it. The article, which I will not reprint here because it is copyrighted material, does. JA Spencer asked for the, "quote on Washington" after the sentence about "wailing." The article is clear on which person (Leonard Neale) was said to have been called out. Dwain (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Exceptional Claims

I have tried to give the entire "Neale may have converted Washington" legend the benefit of the doubt... but I just can not do so. I keep coming back to the Exceptional claims require exceptional sources section of WP:V... which reads:

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:
  • surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
  • reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
  • claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons, and especially when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them.
Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require exceptionally high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included.

I think this legend definietely qualifies as an exceptional claim ... which means that we need "exceptionally high-quality reliable sources" to include it. The Catholic Register just does not pass muster as a high-quality source, especially when it contradicts so many truly high-quality biographies of Washington. Therefore, I am going to cut the paragraph again. Blueboar (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Blueboar, but we've already been through this. The story exists it has existed for over a century. I have never claimed that Washington converted only that the story exists and that Leonard Neale was mentioned in it. Your assertions don't hold water because it is not an exceptional claim because it doesn't claim that it is true. Please quit trying to tamper with this article. I am going to replace what you wrongly removed. You are not the boss around here only an editor like myself whose argument fails because your assertion fails. Others have said that the source is good. You don't agree... Oh well. Dwain (talk) 00:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
What "others" have said the source is good? The claim fails both the first and third criteria listed above... It does not matter whether you say the claim is true or hedge it with caveats ... the claim itself is an exceptional claim that is not backed by high quality sources. According to Wikipedia Policy: if such sources are not available the material should not be included. You can file an RfC if you want a second opinion... but unless a strong consensus tells me I am misinterpreting the policy, I will stand by my view. I don't claim to be the boss around here... but neither are you. In this case we go with what Wikipedia Policy tells us to do. Blueboar (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I have met all your challenges Blueboar and you always come up with another reason to delete the well sourced information. I'm sorry you seem to feel so threatened that this story has come down through the decades. I left in the added section that says it is not mentioned in a biography on Washington. The existence of the story is a fact and you can't get around that by quoting rules that wouldn't apply in this circumstance. An exceptional claim would be to insist that this story were the truth and that everything else is wrong. Since that is not being claimed and since the story has been around for awhile and several sources state this, that is proof the the story does indeed exist and that it is not just something made up by a blogger a year ago. I have been trying to work with you on this only you don't want to compromise. You're interpretation is faulty I and I believe you know it only you just don't like to lose. This story mentioned here is pertinent information in this article concerning Bishop Neale. I haven't tried to insert it in the George Washington article. Your reaction to the existance of this story is somewhat surprising since I have never tried to make the story more than what it has been handed down as. I will find the name of the Wikipedian who said that the register was a proper source. Again the claim does not fall under being exceptional because the sources have proven that this story has been around for awhile. Take care. Dwain (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't feel threatened by the story in the slightest... but I do object to including it. I just don't think legend and folklore that is directly contradicted by sound historical scholarship belongs in a biographical essay on a historical figure. We don't include the legend about Washington and the cherry tree in the George Washington article (even though it has been repeated thousands of times since Parson Weams first told it) ... we don't include it because reliable historical scholarship has demonstrated that it is myth and folklore. Not every myth and factoid about an historical figure deserves to be included. And when a myth or legend is contradicted by sound historical scholarship, it should especially be omitted. That is Wikipedia Policy, not something I made up because I don't like what it says.
Your argument that it isn't exceptional because it has been around a long time does not hold water... in fact, I would say the opposite is true. The story has been around long enough that if it were not exceptional, it would have been picked up and repeated by high-quality historical sources. The fact that it has not been repeated by high-quality historical sources tells me that it was soundly rejected. We should reject it too.
You say that you find the legend pertinent information on Bishop Neale. I disagree. It isn't what makes him notable. If it were, sound scholarship would have commented on it. The story would be repeated in other biographies of Bishop Neale.
No, the story is indeed an exceptional claim... and not one that is backed by high-quality reliable sources. It should be removed. Blueboar (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "I would judge it a reliable source."

Baccyak4H said, "If one could actually track down the NCR cite (1957? ouch...), I would judge it a reliable source."

Not only did I track down the article, but I also told how I got it, who I contacted and how people could get a copy of the article themselves.

I have further tracked down another good source which I was listing as you were erasing the text. I have added it back. This is no longer a single sourced item. Dwain (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Source for Washington Conversion Story

I have some information I think will help. I have two volumes that prove the tradition was around longer then just the 50s. The first volume comes from 1931 and written by Edward I Divett on page 369. It mentions the story that "Father Neale of Port Tobacco was summoned to Mt. Vernon." And continues by saying that it was infered "that the Father of his Country was baptized a Catholic." This was printed under "History of the Province" in volume 60 of the Woodstock Letters.

The second and much more important volume is from The Woodstock Letters volume 22. George Washington's first cousin thrice removed stated that her grandmother was a contemporary of George Washington and his first cousin and that this information had come down in the family. It states that "Fr. Neale... baptized Washington on his death-bed." This can be found on page 498. This is a most interesting and pursuasive source since it proves that this tradition goes back to less then 100 years after Washington's death, since the volume was printed in 1893, and it shows that the tradition came down within Washington's own family! Hope this helps. I will attempt to add this. W. Heckmann PS The Woodstock letters is a 98 volume set of books printed from 1872 to 1969. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.127.123 (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thank you very much for this information! It sounds really interesting. I'll check this out. Thanks again. Dwain (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible compromise

Dwain... Someone (unsigned) has suggested a compromise in reply to your querry at the WP:FRINGE/Noticeboard... one that I could live with. Essentially it pare's down the paragraph at issue to one short sentence. Take a look and let me know what you think? Blueboar (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine how about: "According to Jesuit, slave[1] and family[2] tradition Neale baptized Washington on his deathbed,[3][4] however, eyewitness accounts make no mention of such an event.[5][6]" Dwain (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Works for me... We can tweek it if slightly if needed. Blueboar (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
OK... I have replaced the text as per above. I think we may have settled this. The only minor issue remaining is to see if we can track down the full publication info on the Woodstock letters (who was the editor/publisher, where and when was it published ... stuff like that). Blueboar (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Okie dokie.Dwain (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I think we also need a quotation in the reference. Mangoe (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we should just leave it with "Jesuit and slave tradition" for now... we can add "family" back in once we have the full citation and quote for the Woodstock Letters. Any objection to this? Blueboar (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, just noticd this now. Sure. Dwain (talk) 21:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)