Talk:Franz Boehm (resistance fighter)

Veneration
As in various version comments: the information that Boehm is venerated in the Roman Catholic Church and has a feast day is completely unsourced and should therefore not be reinserted without a valid source. To my knowledge, no beatification process has yet been opened.--Medusahead (talk) 10:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The only goal of these changes is obviously the removal of the Isaiah quote: "they are all mute dogs, they cannot bark" (Is 56:10). Why?(Giorgiolupo (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC))
 * As anyone can clearly see, this wasn't "the only goal". Regarding your reset as "vandalism": as long as you cannot source any information on Boehm being "venerated" in the Roman Catholic Church and having a feast (without a beatification process ever being opened), such statements cannot be part of this article.
 * The two parishes sent their petition to the responsible bishop about 13 years ago, and apparently nothing has happened since then.
 * PS: You didn't explain as well why you insist on restoring errors in spelling and Grammar and indicate their correction as "vandalism".
 * In short: please insert a source that proves your claims: that a) Franz Boehm is currently venerated in the Roman Catholic church and b) his feast is celebrated on the Feast of Christ the King (how could that be?) or "October 25" or any time. If you cannot, such statements cannot be part of this article.--Medusahead (talk) 08:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding your personal interpretation that veneration in the Catholic Church only applies to saints, I refer you to the still open discussion on your talk page.
 * Look here: "Venerated by" categorie
 * Like everyone else, you have to provide evidence for your obviously personal opinion. According to my information, the presence of veneration is a prerequisite for beatification and not the other way around.--Giorgiolupo (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * With reference to your PS: In which grammar does it say that you remove the period at the end of a sentence?--Giorgiolupo (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith that the period's removal was an accident. Please also remember that claims need to directly verified before they can be added to Wikipedia. I believe there is debate regarding whether this individual is venerated by the Catholic Church. Short of a source explicitly stating that Boehm was 1.) beatified or canonized by the church or 2.) that he is venerated as a folk saint, claims that he is venerated should not be inserted into the article. The process of beatification begins for many who aren't ultimately beatified, so a source mentioning that process being initiated is insufficient to say anything other than said process began. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * A single example, Giorgiolupo: your given source says on the petition for Boehm (whom it does not call a "saint" or "venerated" in any way): "The congregation uses this opportunity to collect signatures that they would like to attach to the application for beatification. This is a complicated process that will take around five years in the best case scenario…"
 * The statement you extracted and put in the article, reads: "Catholics from the parish in Monheim submitted a petition to the Archdiocese of Cologne to initiate a beatification process for their popular saint. These last words are clearly not what your source says. Please note also, that no other wiki (or source) calls Boehm a blessed or saint.--Medusahead (talk) 10:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Why are you again deleting all the work I did to entity linking the text? --Giorgiolupo (talk) 10:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * From your user page: "Please try at least to follow the arguments given by other users on the talk page and the summaries that came with changes. Please do not insert unsourced statements or OR."--Medusahead (talk)
 * For obvious reasons I won't be reverting this straight away. Please note that you are acting against the knowledge and opinion of other users by repeatedly adding unsubstantiated changes. Regarding the infobox Saint, you have been asked not to reinsert it until a beatification process is opened or Franz Boehm is titled by the church as Servant of God. I'm starting to feel like there's a conflict of personal interests here. --Medusahead (talk) 10:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Medusahead: Please stop lying that my text contains “unsourced statements .” I just see that you want to destroy my text, which I put a lot of work into. You're obviously only doing this because I dared to reset one of your entries and have a different opinion.--Giorgiolupo (talk) 11:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Your various claims haven't been sourced, as I have shown with examples, so calling them unsourced or not covered by your own given source, was not a "lie" (see above). Where do your sources indicate Boehm to be a "popular saint", being venerated by the Roman Catholic Church or having a feast? We are still waiting for an explanation.
 * This isn't about your opinion or mine, it's about facts. By the way, it would be nice if you could stop assuming anything about me and instead look for evidence to support your various statements.--Medusahead (talk) 11:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:ONUS, this is on you convince other editors that there is verifiable, reliably sourced information on this topic. For what it's worth, I agree with Medusahead. Until there is proof for the claims–proof you should add here first–please don't add material. The current citations provided do not source the claims made. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Pbritti:
 * First: I have never claimed that there is an official beatification process in the sense of canonization by the Catholic Church.
 * Second: A petition always comes from the folk (please see the source), which is why he is a popular saints. Canonization is not necessary.--Giorgiolupo (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Then find a reliable source that says that and add it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Pbritti: There is no longer any folk saint in the text. I removed the passage because of your call to assume good faith. You delete other parts of the text.-- Giorgiolupo (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The conclusion that because there is a petition "he is a popular saints. Canonization is not necessary" is improper even if one ignores the false plural. Please read on the definition of a popular saint.Medusahead (talk) 08:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Medusahead: It is not WP:DR if you try to resolve this conflict by destroying the text in such a way. Malicious removal of content is vandalism.--Giorgiolupo (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That I didn't destroy anything (in the contrary, I have even amended the article), has been explained to you umpty times now, by other users and even by administrators.
 * It would be good for you if you discussed the sheer matter — here the definition of a "popular saint" – instead of repeatedly becoming personal. It seems that you attach undue weight to even the smallest changes to a text you have once written (or a picture you have once placed at a certain point). However, you expressly agree to the modification of a text as soon as you make it available to Wikipedia. It can therefore certainly not be said of "vandalism", "censorship", "destruction" and/or being "malicious". For me, this is the end of the discussion at this point, unless there is something more substantive.Medusahead (talk) 08:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Medusahead: I have already written to you several times that you should refrain from lying and making defamatory statements. The given definitions of the popular saint are not of interest here because you keep deleting the same things that I complained about before. The malicious destruction of the text is obvious to everyone (Why do you keep deleting the infobox and links to background information?). Previously you even described the deletion of a period (reset 4 times) at the end of the sentence as correcting the grammar. Ultimately, I can't always check the many errors in your changes. For example, you converted a correct "Saint John Before the Latin Gate" to a "St. John Outside the Latin Gate" and then back to "St. John Before the Latin Gate". What's all this about? --Giorgiolupo (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I should kindly ask you to stop making these untrue accusations. There was neither a "lie" nor a "defamatory statement". For the infobox, once more: a) it leads to misunderstandings regarding the status of Boehm and 2) Boehm is not known for a motto (= quote which is already in the article) but for having been a martyr in the Roman Catholic Church.--Medusahead (talk) 07:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Medusahead: you repeat your vandalism (malicious removal of content) and your censorship without giving any reason. The motto was confirmed by you yourself on, which is why your argument fails for that reason alone.--Giorgiolupo (talk) 05:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I could only repeat myself. Of course, the reason for the change in the infobox was given, it's right above: Boehm was not known for any motto, but for the fact that he died as a martyr in Dachau, which is what the martyrology says. Furthermore, the word from Isaiah is already in the article, with your own difflink above you confirm that you are aware of this.
 * Please don't ping me again and again just to read your rants. For the time being, you can assume that I see the discussion page anyway. You have already been told many times that there is neither malevolence, vandalism nor censorship here. If you do not take note of this, even though it was brought to your attention by administrators, another repetition obviously makes no sense here.
 * In any case, you're not doing Boehm's cause any favors. Maybe you should refer to WP:Third opinion.--Medusahead (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)--Medusahead (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)