Talk:John Bosco/Archive 1

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. - —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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)

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. 

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. 

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.

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
 * 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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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) —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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 &mdash; 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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

Removing the Page Protection
I'm going to think some more about a suitable compromise.evrik 17:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The request was removed from the protection page. It's last incarnation is here.


 * 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)

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)

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)

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.

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.

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.

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

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)

It seems to be that the bulk of this article is unsourced, uncited and unverifiable. The comments regarding his attraction to minors, oddly, seems to be the only part of this article that's referenced, and that keeps getting deleted! I think some commentators have taken the discussion too personally - we need to remain objective and non-partisan if we are to create a useful and balanced article. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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

New Proposal - Raw text
I have some text in my sandbox [] 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)

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 [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(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)

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)

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 &mdash; 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 [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(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)

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

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)

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)

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"!!! &mdash; 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)

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)

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 agree with Mamalujo. It's not that bad. --South Philly
 * 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 &#x2709; 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)
 * 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)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
John Bosco → Giovanni Bosco – It is his real name Haiduc 21:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~
 * Oppose in the english speaking world he is known as John Bosco --evrik 05:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not so. I did a quick check before making the change suggestion to look into just that. There were many hits which returned serious material using the original form of the name (Giovanni). I did not do a comparison, however. Haiduc 10:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Show me some examples. --evrik 17:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * IMDB, Smithsonian, Scottish university site; Haiduc 02:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The first is an Italian movie, the second is an African artist who goers by Jean Bosco ... the preponderence of references are to John. --evrik 17:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
Add any additional comments
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpellman (talk • contribs)
 * I think some reference to youth should be kept. --evrik 16:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Who is 201.192.84.242 ?
The guy who did this change: (cur) (last) 22:49, 20 April 2007 201.192.84.242 (Talk) (11,193 bytes) ("some sources speculate on possible pederastic motivations" is more balanced, and puts the idea of Bosco's "repressed" pederasty in the light it deserves until there is solid consensus.) ... is me, Carlvincent (I forgot to log in -duh!). And the reason for this edit I find to be obvious having read the discussion page. I am not a Catholic, and I am not pro Catholic. I don't even have a religion, so please don't think I'm defending the Roman Catholic Church or Giovanni Bosco. My only motivation is that I find it scientifically objectionable to add interpretations based on what an author "reckons" are the "repressed" motives of don Bosco. If there isn't solid evidence, it's just plain calumny. Again, scientifically, it's like adding to Elvis' article with "(possible alien abduction, and now lives in Orion's belt)". Let's keep Wikipedia serious and stop adding spurious statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlvincent (talk • contribs) 18:10, 20 April 2007
 * Thanks for the comments. evrik (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment
Blackmail use of dreams "In 1854, when in Piedmont was in discussion if the state had to confiscate the ecclesiastical properties, Bosco started to spread a series of dreams which forecast the death of members of the Savoy court or of politicians striving for the unification of Italy. Bosco activity, which had been described as having 'manifest blackmailing intents', ended only after the intervention of Prime Minister Camillo Benso, Count of Cavour."


 * I this section really necessary? Has anyone seen the source? I think the title pushes POV. --evrik (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the source is very clear. Translation is that in the article section plus the other paragraphs listed here. Evrik's behaviour is frankly suspect Catholic POV. Why a saint can't have lurid sides and we'd be allowed to show it here? --Attilios 17:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The title was POV, and since I can't read Italian, I can't tell if the source is accurate. Please do not add the information again until we can come to a consensus. this has been listed as an RFC sto bring other editors in. evrik (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The whole area of Bosco's dreams (still in print I see, plus a volume of analysis ) should be covered. The famous "Dream of two columns" clearly had political implications in the Italy of the day. The source says what Attilios says it does, but the section should be expanded to cover his dreams in general, and more fully sourced - the newspaper article probably has a POV, and fuller references should be found. Places to start might be:


 * Ribotta, Michael. “The ‘Big Rat’ and the ‘Mad Priest of Turin’: Don Bosco’s Relationship with Prime Minister Rattazzi,” JSS 7:2 (Fall 1996), 55-74.
 * Mendl, Michael. “St. John Bosco’s Dealings with the Cavour Family,” JSS 2:2 (Fall 1991), 1-17.

Footnote 66 here is useful - it does not entirely bear out the newspaper Johnbod 18:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC) I see no reason why this content is unacceptable; it just have to be rewritten. Use descriptive terms and attribute properly. Italian sources (and all foreign language sources) are acceptable, althougoh English is prefered on the English Wikipedia. Savidan 23:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Im okay with the sources ... but the title is still POV. --evrik (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd still like to see a complete translation. --evrik (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm uncomfortable with the term blackmail. That's serious POV. --evrik (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree the word blackmail is rather excessive. Johnbod 14:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The first Catholic crusader, as I had forecast, has struck. Clearly shocked like a child discovering his father could be a burglar, he removed that section accusing it of being "POV". What I doubt, is that he'd be some known user trying to hide under unnamed ID. As for the word "blackmailing", is not mine... he's sourced. anyway, if you have a better translation for "Chiare finalità ricattatorie", put it in (maybe find some help at wiktionary:ricatto). Ciao. --Attilios 21:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"In 1854, when the Piedmont was occupied in a discussion of whether the state had the right to confiscate ecclesiastical properties, Bosco spread a series of dreams which forecast the death of members of the Savoy court or of politicians striving for the unification of Italy. His activity, which had been described as having 'manifest blackmailing intentions,' ended only after the intervention of Prime Minister Camillo Benso, Count of Cavour."
 * I just removed it again. Before its gets added again, can you expand it to include what the end result was and perhaps more bacground of who and what was involved.--evrik (talk)
 * Unfortunately you can't read Italian, otherwise the Giovanni Dall'Orto's excellent study at Culturagay.it would be enlighting for Catholic crusaders who think the world (and saints...) are only roses and flowers. I see that Evrik and some of his friends have also opposed, some times ago, to a good sourced section simply mentioning that there are theories that Bosco would be homosexual or pedophile: isn't this censorship? I'm so disgusted by how people becomes blind in matters such as religion. --Attilios 16:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Blind no ... but my experience with your edits shows that you love to promote the study of pederasty and homosexualioty in Wikipeida, you have a definite POV.
 * I've just reread the whole talk page before. I've noticed that Evrik has enjoyed a substantial patronizing of the whole stuff, opposing and arbitrarily removing stuff from the articles at his will (ie, everything that could hint a shred of doubts over the alleged "saintly" qualities of that, let me tell it as it's manifest, gross dumb who was called Bosco). I think, if I have support, we should get finally free of such an imposing and unwanted censorship presence and be able to write everything we want here, as long as it's sourced of course... a thing that Evrik seems to have a strange, personal idea about, as for him sources giving an idea of Bosco that he  doesn't like are considered "unreliable". Ciao. --Attilios 16:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Who in Piedmont?
 * How were the dreams spread?
 * What is the relation of the Savoy court to Piedmont and to the church?
 * What was Bosco's position on unification?
 * Did the properties get conficated?
 * How, when and why did the PM intervene?
 * Who described the actions, and when did they do it, as blackmail.
 * Please answer these questions, or flesh out the paragraph to include the information. Otherwise the text is just pushing POV. evrik (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Evrik, your excuses for your hagiographic bias are pathetic. The whole article would be deleted if one should reply to your captious questions for the rest of the Catholic POV by which it is written. --Attilios 18:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with the gist of what has been said, simply the poor way in which it has been written. It is incomplete and pushes a POV. Instead of driving an edit war, why don't you work up some better text. --evrik (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the text as it stands prior to Evrik's last revert:
 * In 1854, when the Piedmont was occupied in a discussion of whether the state had the right to confiscate ecclesiastical properties, Bosco spread a series of dreams which forecast the death of members of the Savoy court or of politicians striving for the unification of Italy. His activity, which had been described as having "manifest blackmailing intentions," ended only after the intervention of Prime Minister Camillo Benso, Count of Cavour.

I would suggest that the description of the dreams as having "blackmailing intentions" be attributed to someone (was it Benso, or Petoia?). The other details that Evrik is asking for would be nice to have, but if they are not available, we should not resort to original research or excluding otherwise sourced material. Other than that this text looks balanced and well-referenced. If after this change the insertion of the text cannot be agreed to, I would suggestion formal mediation. Savidan 18:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with mediation, but I would really like to see a more complete paragraph, that is more informative and not lacking so many of the details. Otherwise, I feel that the insertion of the text does not further the article. --evrik (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Evrik has just mentioned me for a 3RR revert accuse. It's clear that this is just a trick he uses to substantially patronize this page. One can't do anything, as he smply revert everything you add, sourced or not, until you can't continue for the 3RR menace. --Attilios 23:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If you would like a "more complete paragraph", Evrik, I would suggest that you do some legwork rather than making the perfect the enemy of the good. A sufficiently sourced addition has been presented, and it is inappropriate to remove it simply because you personally would like additional information. Unless there is evidence that such information can be sourced, it should not be added, because it would constitution original research. Savidan 04:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I wonder if a compromised can be reached by adding the paragraph without using the blackmailing term. My Italian is rather rusty so I don't know what the best translation for "ricattatorie" is. Blackmailing is defined as "extortion by threatening to reveal disgraceful secret" (Webster). It is unclear how mentioning (or fabricating?) dreams will result in blackmailing. IMHO adding the paragraph without the blackmailing term still gives a background of the alleged use of dreams as a threat to political opponents. Bakersville 12:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact, that's just my translation. Before Evrik's deleting fury, I asked if anyone with better Italian-English knowledge than mine could help to find the correct term. The meaning should be "extortion by spreading of fear". Is it "racket" better? --Attilios 14:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, “racket” is worse. The accusation which we are reporting (not making) is essentially that Bosco was acting “in bad faith”. That is certainly not a translation of ricattatorie, but it’s the closest English I can think of to put it succinctly. —Ian Spackman 12:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

http://gesu.altervista.org is an apparently orthodox and entirely pious Catholic website with extensive coverage of Don Bosco’s dreams and his use of his accounts of them here. I imagine that it’s a copyvio of one of the books mentioned above. But since it doesn’t identify its source, we can’t can’t use it as a source. (A shame, because the details—if true—would make small improvements to the article: we could clarify, for instance, what kind of Catholic financial assets the Piedmontese parliament thought ought to be up for grabs; we could mention that he sent an account of his dream to both pope and king.) Nevertheless it does seem to demonstrate that making reference to Bosco’s self-alleged dreams of courtly funerals does not make you a heretic or an anti-Catholic bigot. So, to the stupid and/or bigoted Catholics here (the other Catholics will know who I mean!), please engage brain before reverting. —Ian Spackman 12:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I never said, or even implied, nor did anyone else, that anyone was a heretic or anti-catholic bigot (but if the shoe fits). The fact is, the source is dripping with bias and POV, but if it is so dear to you and your fellow traveler, I will leave it.  Discussion with you would apparently be fruitless anyway since you appear unable to discuss the subject matter without engaging in juvenile ad hominems (A classical logical error, after all. So whose brain is really disengaged?). Mamalujo 19:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Pity you aren't Italian, but I think the magazine from which it's taken is absolutely neutral. Its publisher is the second most Italian important encyclopedia publisher, so one can trust about reliability of the people writing there (which includes also Nobel prizes other renowned journalists)... it is not even Einaudi or Feltrinelli publishers that one could accuse to be left-oriented, for what this means. If one studies a bit the matter, it is clear that Bosco's intents were such as described... in fact, as soon as Cavour intervened, the unlucky forecasts stopped... casually? for example, reading This one truly makes one laugh from how tendentious and explicitly "politic" is Bosco in his intent of menacing powerful people in such a medieval way. Savonarola didn't do better; though, the latter could be excused that there haven't been people such as Voltaire or Locke in the meantime... And, the different ends of Bosco and Savonarola (the former, made saint; the latter, burnt alive) could make you understand the different rank of Alexander VI, with all his faults, and a jerk like Pius IX. --Attilios 20:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * [Replying to Mamalujo (is he self-identifying as a stupid Catholic?!)] I expect I am an heretic; and I am certainly anti-Catholic in principle in as much as I am an atheist. However my experience of Catholics in the flesh (perhaps I have been lucky) has been largely an experience of highly educated, sophisticated, witty and non-bigoted people. (Often a bit ‘odd’, too, of which I entirely approve.) I don’t allow my philosophical principles to override my instinctive liking for individuals, and have not found it sensible to restrict my respect and admiration to fellow atheists. As an editor on Wikipedia I quite often find myself editing articles relating to Catholicism, simply because my Wikipedian interests tend to be related to Italy. But were my edits this morning to the Sacro Monte di Crea designed to push any opinion that the Counter Reformation was a humanitarian disaster? I don’t think so. I think that writing for Wikipedia only makes sense when done in a spirit of humility and cooperation. If you want too “push a POV” (an entirely reasonable thing to do in itself) you do it in a book, in a bar, or on a blog. Not in Wikipedia articles. Your edit history, however, leads me to think that your approach to editing Wikipedia is rather different and much more a matter of pushing some personal hangups about a history in which Catholics are to be seen always as victims.


 * The source appears to me to be good (and the paragraph is one of the few parts of the current article which is sourced at all): tell us in what way it is dripping with bias and POV? —Ian Spackman 21:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I know that I'm a little late to the dance, but when I was looking at RFC's this one caught my eye. But before I go on, Attilios, please remember civility. Your comments above are very uncivil and very hostile to anybody who disagrees with you.  Having said that, I don't have a problem using citations that are in a foreign language.  If we banned things we couldn't read because they were in foreign languages, then we would have to ban books/magazines that aren't published online because most people won't be able to verify quotes from them!  The place where I have concerns are with the translation of the text if it is included in the article.  If the user who contributed it did the translation, then there is the risk of WP:OR as the translator might not select the proper term/words.  The challenge with translating languages is that there is a literal translation and a "Dynamic Equivalence" translation.  One translates the words exactly as they occur, the other realizes that this doesn't always work and tries to capture the "spirit/intent" of the passage.  A translator CAN bias an interpretation based upon the way he/she does so.  Thus, IMHO, no long quotes and anything translated by a wikipedian should be presented in both the English and original language.Balloonman 14:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Translation (R U S T Y !!!!
My Italian's quite rusty - however, I looked the first article over. I can give a rusty translation. If someone more fluent than I wants to jump in, feel free - I'm  REALLY RUSTY , heck, google can probably do better than I can !

Translation of article: ''' {* NOTE: THIS IS WORD FOR WORD WITHOUT CHANGING THE SYNTAX                                     ITALIAN SYNTAX IS SOMEHWAT THE REVERSE OF ENGLISH SYNTAX.                                     I DID NOT ATTEMPT TO FIX THE SYNTAX BECAUSE OF MY ITALIAN'S ''' ''' ROTTEN!! *} '''

The left omens of Don Giovanni Bosco

One of the recurrent aspects and

characteristic of the dreams and theirs

assumption to true and own

detections, considered like

directed messages to single individuals or

to the entire one [ ??? ]. In the within

of such detections,

[ ????????????? ]

numerous visionary or

profession dreamers, than

often they have originated some cults,

like the [ ???? ] visions of the devout person

Marietta in the Foggiano, died in 1977; or

like the [ ??????? ] mesagges of Domenico Masselli di Stornarella

(FG), to which vision of the Madonna in 1959 appeared one.

You attend also the dreams and visoions of It knows and Madonne to you in

tears in [ ?????????? ] of delicate [ ????????????????? ].

Houses emblematic of dreams take advantage of to you to fine

political-reactionaries, and that gil they were worth the sad one

[ ?????????? ] reputation, and represented gives

Giovanni Bosco. Its fervent [ ???????] [ ???????] one, nearly

always [ ?????????] of ruins and misfortunes, he was

begun from 1854, year in which the law was discussed

in order to confiscate the ecclesiastical assets from part of

Piemontese state. Its dreams,[ ???

?????????????????????????????????????]

died of various members of the court of

Savoia or of the politicians who fought in those

years for the joined one of Italy. Only the participation of Cavour

riusci to put aim to the [ ???? ] delirious and [ ???????]

[ ????? ] of Don Bosco, that it began to be

taken seriously a from it represents you of

real house that gives various members of the Room

KoshVorlon (forgot to sign in !) {RIP Lucianno Pavarotti }  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.151.41.1 (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Prophetic Dreams of death
The paragraph as Mamalujo edited reads "Bosco reported a series of dreams which forecast "great funerals at court”, referring to members of the Savoy court or of politicians, which forecast was largely fulfilled within weeks."

It seems to imply that Bosco had certain ability to foresee the future (unless somebody in the Savoy court had a terminal illness or Bosco new that somebody was going to be murdered for political reasons, in the first case the assertion is trivial and in the second defamatory). Any reasonable rational person would argue that the capacity of foresee the future in dreams is very unlikely. The source of this extraordinary claim is Bosco.net and is written by a certain father Michael Mendl. A google after Michael Mendl doesn't seem to show any particular credentials on history or the dark arts of clairvoyance.

The source is not a "reliable source" as per WP:RS Bakersville 18:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a reliable source. Although the article appears on the internet at Bosco.net, it was published in the Journal of Salesians Studies, an academic journal about Don Bosco, the order he founed and related matters. It is published by the Institute for Salesian Studies in Berkely, California.  The article in question is well researched and sourced.  Mendl was one of the translaters of, and wrote the forward for, the English edition of Bosco's autobiography.  Far from engaging in hagiography himself, he notes that one of Bosco's popular biographers did not use historical method and that the biographer engaged in hagiography.  As to the deaths, on January 12, 1855 the Queen Mother died; on January 20, the Queen Maria Adelaida died; on February 11, the king’s brother Ferdinand of Savoy died; on May 7, the king’s youngest son died at 4 months. The King he signed the law nonetheless on May 29, practically accusing Don Bosco of causing the deaths by some supernatural means. Mamalujo 08:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest Bakersville reads my comment in the section above of july 5, which as well as giving the reference to the Mendl article in print, gives a link to an online extract from an academic biography of Pius IX covering the matter, tangentially but in adequate detail. The dreams were publicised by Bosco himself; does this exclude him from being a "reasonable rational person"?  The point is not so much that the dreams accuracy of the dreams, as the use made of them to put pressure on the government. Johnbod 12:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no objection in terms of the disclosure of alleged dreams for political gain or for Bosco threatening his oponents with the wrath of his god. My only point is that any connection between alleged dreams and actual deaths implying that Bosco (of any human being for this matter) had the ability to foresee the future in his dreams is obviously ridiculous. If we mention the deaths and delete the "fulfill forecast" is ok with me. Bakersville 21:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Don Bosco feature article in Spanish
The Spanish version was selected few days ago as feature article. Who can help to put the template here. Thanks. --El Viajero Paisa (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. utcursch | talk 16:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Where's Il Grigio?
Why no mention of Il Grigio, Bosco's supposed mysterious canine protector? Even if one disputes the existence of the dog(?), it should be mentioned in the article somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.109.46.96 (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A weirdness in the article
The section Foundation of the Salesian Family begins:
 * Even before this, however, Don Bosco had the help of several friends at the orthodontic surgery place.

To be honest I can’t be bothered to re-read this hideous article yet again in order to discover whether there were indeed unexpected miracles of dentistry performed by Mr Wood. But I suspect that there has been a little vandalism, and there might be someone who who would be interested in locating and eliminating it. —Ian Spackman (talk) 12:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have made the correction. The sentance should have read "friends at the oratory".Mamalujo (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Splendid. But f course, you never can tell with saints, as Pooh might have said. Ian Spackman (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Paedophilia
I do not find it sufficient to suppress any textual additions that refer to Bosco's paedophile attraction on the grounds that 'consensus' has been reached. I am far from convinced that those enforcing the consensus have been sufficiently objective - and have not allowed their personal Salesian prejudices to impinge upon the debate. We have to approach this article from a NPOV, rather than take personal offence that Bosco may not have been tha man we thought him to be. And I speak as a baptised Roman Catholic. This is a biographical and not a hagiographical article Contaldo80 (talk) 09:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with the material is that it is poorly sourced, blatant advocacy for a highly factually dubious assertion, POV, and makes a highly speculative and grave claim. Per WP policy, extraordinary claims require exraordinary sourcing.  The sources here do not meet that standard.  The claim is essentially a fringe theory and does not belong in the article.  This matter was dealt with extensively previously on the discussion board and the same fatal problems remain.Mamalujo (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Don Bosco paedophile??
Not ever happened that the Catholic Church has recognized as a saint, a person with inclinations towards paedophilia. To find a saint in depth should study the process of canonization where it is analysed even the slightest negative detail of his life. Even a doubt on the morality ring may not clarified the process. Therefore, before making statements on Don Bosco based on a book, one must go to the sources, and read the process of beatification and canonization. I ask them to excuse my English. 88.37.120.106 (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think you are wrong. Over the past 2000 years the Catholic church has canonised plenty of individuals with questionable personal practices. Not least during the medieval period! One quick example worth looking at is the Montara case (on wikipedia) and the beatification of Pius IX. In a speech in 1871 Pius called the Jews of Rome "dogs" and said: "of these dogs, there are too many of them at present in Rome, and we hear them howling in the streets, and they are disturbing us in all places."!!! We should not rely on Church sources alone to support or refute any argument - as they are not impartial enough. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Is un incompatible comparison between an incorrect statement and a moral act unacceptable. 88.37.120.106 (talk) 10:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not clear what you are saying? Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry User:Contaldo80, there are no evidences of such an accusation on Don Bosco and no comparisson with the examples you give. --AL (talk) 10:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh? There clearly is evidence - although I accept some may dispute whether it is valid which seems fair enough (although worringly there hasn't been one non-Salesian educated contributor who has disputed it...) But that's not really the point of this discussion, so please worth keeping track of what's going on. Thanks Contaldo80 (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If he was born and died in Italy then why do we call him by an English name that he was never called in his life? We should call him Giovanni Melchiorre Bosco which is what we should rename this article to. Bolinda (talk) 04:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)B

And presumably link it to the article on Roma! It's called anglicisation - and quite common. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Small updates
1. Promoted "Studies" to same level as "Sources". 2. Added a new study by Arthur J. Lenti. Jmrasor (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)