Talk:Salesians of Don Bosco

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Controversial obsession

The ocurrences of sexual abuses is not a controversy in the order. In fact, the order by itself has nothing to do with that. I agree the title is not accurate.WikiDCM 13:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please look at this page

If you are a supporter of Don Bosco, take a look at this page.

Can I take a look if I am not a supporter? Bakersville 20:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

  • If I told you no, would you listen? --evrik (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the point of this? "Supporters of Don Bosco" should not be encourage to read that as a challenge. It is presented as an "in your face" document, it is aggresive, and not central to Salesians as an order. Again, the attention is deviated to non relevant issues. WikiDCM 13:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Logo

I suppose there should be the logo of salesians shown in the article - but I'm not sure about the copyrights - though I suppose it even should be shared. Anyway, I don't also have time to put it here now, so I'm simply writing here and linking:

[edit] POV

I think that if any more potentially POV paragraphs are added, they should be first vetted here. --evrik (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  • The paragraph about sexual abuse is not POV. If you think it is please explain here why you think it is. It is referenced, it expressed a negative circunstance of the Salesian order but not from any particular point of view Bakersville 19:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The order has not been exempt from notorious cases of sexual abuse. In the United States, among others, Salesian High in Richmond, California had lost or settled sexual abuse cases[1] and in Australia is alleged that the Salesians moved a priest convicted of abuse in Melbourne to Samoa in order to avoid further police investigation and charges[2].

    • It's poorly written and is trying to push a POV. One of the sources is 404. --evrik (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It also uses weasel words. --evrik (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If it is poorly written please feel free to edit it not delete the whole paragraph. The source is Catholic News, not an anticatholic group. What is 404? What weasel words do you refer to? The sexual abuse cases are a reality. Deleting the paragraph will not change that reality Bakersville 22:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I think it's better for the person who wants to introduce controversial material to come up with the acceptable text. 404 means it's not there, and Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. --evrik (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Then instead of the Costa Times article not longer there I proposed http://www.sfweekly.com/2006-10-04/news/troubled-order/ and if as weasel words you refer as notorious cases, it can be change by high profile cases. By the way I only reverted 2 times today. Bakersville 22:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  • My mistake. Do you have a new suggested sentence? --evrik (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I see that you added the sentence back already. About the title ... sexual abuse, especially when it is "alleged" is POV. --evrik (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

First, is not alleged when the perpetrators themselves have admitted the offense. Second controversy is ridiculous. It will read, salesians have engaged in the controversial practice of sodomizing 12 year old boys. Nothing controversial just plain criminal. Also mine wasn't an anon edit. Bakersville 18:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Your title is full of POV. I am removing it again solely because yo haven't sufficiently shown why those words have to be used. --evrik (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You have to be kidding me. If you want me to be more demonstrative of what sexual abuse is, I can add in the article: "...a jury decided in favor of plaintiff Joe Piscitelli, who accused Whelan of groping him as a teenager in the 1960s and masturbating in front of him while a Salesian brother watched" or "Father Klep – former principal of the Salesian College in Sunbury, who later ran a youth centre in Brunswick – was convicted in 1994 of four charges of sexual assault". In the interest of encyclopedic synthesis, I would prefer to leave these quotes to the references. If you think that I need to further substantiate the sexual abuse title then I can add them to the article. Bakersville 20:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You are not giving any reasons as why this title and paragraph are POV. They are factual in nature and well sourced. The POV tag does not belong. Bakersville 21:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Just because something is sourced doesn't mean it isn't trying to push a POV. I could argue that the two incidents you mention aren't notable enough to judge the more than 100 years of history that the order has. --evrik (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • That the 100 years of the order had a positive impact in society is a POV. That some priests of the order had committed crimes to those who were trusted to protect with the blind eye of their superiors is not. Bakersville 21:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Want top start a straw poll? --evrik (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I think the issue is pretty clear. Why start a poll on a factual matter? I am open to do some research and add more cases to substantiate the claim if that will help solving the dispute. Bakersville 22:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Using a neutral article to advance a claim is not WP:NPOV. --evrik (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    • Your point originally was that using a title stating "Sexual Abuse" instead of your suggested "Controversy" was advancing a POV. Sexual abuse describes the fact that some salesians had been involved in this crime. It is not a POV. Salesians themselves have apologized for this crime. It is something that happened and it is relevant to the recent history of the order. If you read the policy, it is clear that there is no violation of NPOV. I will clear the tag until you can give a clear explanation of why it is a policy violation to title this section "Sexual Abuse". It is the term used to describe the conduct. I did not use "raping little children" or "unconscionable acts by salesians". Bakersville 23:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Let me quote from WPNPOV:

The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

Now, I have been trying to edit in good faith, and I have been using WP:AGF, you are making it harder and harder to do - especially since you have been driving an edit war, and then threatening (twice) to report me. I have been more than happy to debate this with you, and even compromise. I would appreciate you adding the tag back in until this is resolved. --evrik (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I have never assumed bad faith. You treatened to report me for a 3RR that never was there. Yesterday when you in fact committed 3RR I've gave you the chance to self revert instead of reporting. Nothing personal. Your original POV dispute was the tittle of the section. Your suggestion of "controversy" as a title wasn't adequate as I tried to explain earlier. Show me what part of the NPOV policy is breached and I will try to rewrite or change accordingly. I added 3 other references to further substantiate the facts. Just adding the tag without engaging in a discussion is disruptive. Bakersville 15:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I am uninvolved in this article or dispute, and have read the article with a neutral mind frame. The contested paragraph is well sourced and written in NPOV. I see no reason why it should be deleted. In fact, to delete it would be a POV act in my mind, giving the reader a distorted view of this order. in short, it should stay. Jeffpw 15:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I have reinserted the POV tag. There are over 40,000 Salesian priests, brothers, sisters, and lay people working in 120 countries all over the world. The inclusion of these few incidents creates a false impression, particularly where many are mere allegations and may yet end up being dismissed from court or result in recantation by the accuser, as is not uncommon in these cases. It is also noteworthy that in the Whelan case the claimed wrongdoing was almost half a century ago. Mamalujo 18:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I very much agree with Mamalujo's point. In fact, given the age of the Whelan case, it would be more accurate to point out that there have been 100s of thousands of Salesians since then, and to include a few incidents creates a grossly inaccurate impression. Any organization, group, club, etc., that has existed for over a century, and has included so many members, will naturally have some that committed crimes, engaged in inappropriate activities, etc. Obviously a religious order is held to a higher standard, but its members are still human beings who will ineveitably exhibit human failings, sometimes to a terrible extreme. Adding additional references misses the point entirely. It's not a question of whether the accusations, or conviction, actually took place. They obviously did. The issue is whether it is relevant to such an extent, given the encyclopedic nature of this article, that it needs to be included as a separate and unique section. It is not. Unless, of course, you have a particular POV or perhaps axe to grind, and want to raise the exposure of the issue beyond where it should be in the larger context. --Anietor 20:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph is short and to the point, and backed up by facts. No reason to delete. Please assume good faith. Bakersville 21:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Breaking off

  • I was asked to weigh in on this argument by evrik. I'd like to note that I only edited this article once to add proper spacing and that I don't know much about the order and am not Christian. I think the sexual abuse paragraph does have a place in the article, however, it DOES NOT have a place at the moment. Just because something is sourced doesn't make it not be in violation of WP:NPOV and that paragraph is in violation of WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. After the article is further expanded about more important things in the order's history (and a few sexual abuse cases aren't that notable in 100 years of history), a sentence or two can be added to some other part about the sexual abuse but probably not a section. We should be working to expand the article regarding the major issues and then once it's big enough, adding the sexual abuse cases will stop being NPOV due to undue weight. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 15:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree, Yonatan. That section is only two sentences long, in an article of over 20kb. I really don't see how that constitutes undue weight. Further, there are seven references which support those two sentences. Try as I might, I cannot see how this violates any aspect of WP:NPOV. Jeffpw 15:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at the controversial material and have copyedited it to improve grammar etc. I think the information could be more neutrally expressed and have changed it accordingly. Also convention has been to include such allegations in a "controversy" section. I have done so here. It avoid the words sexual abuse being in the TOC. However I don't think there's an undue weight problem here. I think details of the abuse would be problematic but a couple of sentences noting that these cases have happened, properly sourced, are quite acceptable. WjBscribe 15:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, though I don't know if I'd be the best person to weigh in this as I'm an almnus of Don Bosco Technical College in the Philippines, I side with Yonatan, that the sexual abuse paragraph DOES NOT have a place in the article. We are talking about the Organization itself. I would have the paragraph included, IF there was a concerted effort by the worldwide Salesian organization to cover-up for it, or perhaps the Rector-Major (the head of the Salesian worldwide organization) is the one involved in such an issue, these cases would merit such an issue to be told about the organization. Perhaps if articles about its provincial units are written then it can be told therein. —Scorpion prinz 16:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Still think that controversy is not an adequate title but I understand the concern about appearing in the TOC. I am also content. Bakersville 17:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV Not again

Once facts are set is up to the reader to make his/her own mind. The cases quoted in most cases are not alleged cases of sexual abuse. The order itself has admitted fault. Also, I think that the practice of massively mailing like minded editors to come to the rescue to cabal on an article is inappropriate (imho). Bakersville 20:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Is cabal really a verb? Since the article is read world-wide, outside opinions (besides the two of us) are good. --evrik (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Opinions are good and that's what wiki is all about. What I am objecting is to your practice of mass mailing many editors (don't mean everyone you contacted) with a story of positive edits to salesians and the catholic church. I am not saying that is against any policy, it just sounds absurd. Bakersville 22:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, Bakersville, that would be a violation of WP:CANVASS. Arbcom weighed in with this statement: "Briefly, a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine. Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not. The difference lies in the disruption involved. If what is happening is getting everyone upset then it is a problem. Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article." Is that what happened here? Jeffpw 09:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry you feel that way. Please free to ask some people to weigh in on this yourself. Why don't you ask for mediation? --evrik (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I've thought you were already content with the resolution. Bakersville 23:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
          • You two need to start getting along as after all you're both working towards the same common goal. :) Personally I don't know what would've caused evrik to think I'd support his side as I'd never encountered him before as far as I can remember. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 00:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Nothing personal once again. As we've already reached an agreement with evrik. Bakersville 00:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I am okay with it the way we left it. --evrik (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I apologize for not commenting on this until now despite being asked to weigh in by evrik quite awhile ago. It appears that you have now reached an acceptable form for the content. Looking through the history of the article, the only issue I noticed was that of undue weight, which still might apply in the current form. I am not sure that it deserves a heading/category within the article because these are isolated cases within a quite large order and group of people. I personally would favor a one-line comment somewhere in the article mentioning that they have been involved and linking to the abuse article. However, I believe the current form of the article to be good enough to be acceptable and left alone. Emtilt 18:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

  1. ^ A day of reckoning
  2. ^ Abuse. International investigation implicates Salesians/Australia

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:NewSDB.gif

Image:NewSDB.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:OldSDB.gif

Image:OldSDB.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abuse material

It's been a few months, but the last discussion seemed to come to the consensus that the material should be included, although perhaps not in a separate section. That seems like an appropriate compromise (in interest of full disclosure, I actually think the material shouldn't be included at all given scope of entire article). Given the varying positions, this seems a reasonable approach, since it at least addresses recentism and undue weight concerns. --Anietor (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)