Talk:John Bosco/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The quote

I maintain that this section's importance is not significant enough to remain in the article. It centers on one quote from a man's entire life that would be insignificant if it were not such fodder for innuendo. Are there any verifiable sources in history that show that this "fear" came true? Did any of Bosco's accolades turn to pederasty citing their previous interactions with Bosco? Did any of his contemporaries claim any sort of related wrong doing on his behalf? It would seem that the answers to all of these questions is "No". So how could this possibly be significant enough for inclusion with out further context? I support deletion of the section.(Uspastpresentwatch2010 (talk) 05:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC))

"Did any of Bosco's accolades turn to pederasty citing their previous interactions with Bosco?" Er....What? I thought an accolade was a type of award you got from your peers. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I presume he meant acolyte. I'm neither sure why he presumes that Bosco is only speaking of acolytes, nor that the answer to those questions is "no" (certainly there have been substantial accusations of pedophilia amongst Salesians), nor why that is the significant question; much of this article is on what Bosco believed and why. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the section ought to be removed. It is insignificant and found in none of the biographies. It is arguably POV pushing to establish salacious innuendo. Mamalujo (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I naturally disagree. I don't see that there's anything salacious or any POV being pushed. It's just a quote. Bosco feared people thought he had ulterior motives; doesn't mean he did. The quote is sourced nevertheless. Problem with the majority of biographies on Bosco is that they're effectively written as sentimental hagiographies - and aren't particularly objective. I haven't seen one which deals with the facts in a robust and transparent manner.Contaldo80 (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That the quote is highly obscure means that it is insufficiently notable to be included. You rebut that, “It's just a quote.” and “The quote is sourced.” There are myriad quotes attributed to Bosco, we can’t include them all. That a fact it may merely be true and has a couple of obscure, perhaps questionable sources, does not make it sufficient to be included. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: “As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.” Also, to say that it is “just a quote” is disengenuous. It was part of an earlier course of edits which sought, without any valid basis, to protray him as a homosexual and/or a pederast. Anyone who looks at the history of the article will see that. Your other argument, that the biographies are flawed, is likewise a meritless basis for inclusion of this nonnotable, POV charged quote: “Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs.” I'm going to remove the section. Those here who take exception to the deletion because you don't like it might consider that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Mamalujo (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

And, you still have no consensus for removal with the material under dispute. ----moreno oso (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Mamalujo - why don't you come clean about why you don't like this quote, rather than setting out 101 arguments on wiki protocol? Is it because it suggests the man was human, had doubts about his own actions, and was perhaps perceived by others as having questionable motives for his actions. This in my mind is highly significant. It is part of the narrative that covers opposition to his work. He was kicked out of neighbourhood after neighbourhood by people who saw him as a trouble-maker, rabble-rouser, and papal spy. I suggest you would best spend your energy working on the text of the article to look at the environment within which he worked, rather than taking out bits you feel uncomfortable with. That way we can together improve the article overall.Contaldo80 (talk) 08:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

First off, WP:NOTABILITY is a guideline for inclusion of an article; notability is not required for inclusion of material within an article. Beyond that, the claim of the quote being "highly obscure" seems to boil down to nothing more than that the editor doesn't like it; it is a quote that is sourced and cited to the source by others. That it does not happen to come through Salesian material should not be a problem; quite the opposite, as not all material should come through sources that owe their existence to Bosco. Does the quote have a POV? Absolutely - it's Bosco's POV. That's the point - we're showing part of Bosco's beliefs here, particularly beliefs and concerns about those who would follow him - and those who followed him are a key reason for the value of covering Bosco. This material should be restored. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus to restore. Mamalujo, Uspastpresentwatch2010, and myself don't favor it. On the other hand, there is no consensus to remove it per moreno oso, Nat Gertler, Contaldo80. This has been going on for months. Mamalugo pointed out months ago that there was no consensus to add the content and the discussion seems to support this position. Why is this not in dispute resolution? BTW I find this type of editing unproductive on both sides, but in particular moreno oso's placing tags on the section to lock it down and then littering the Talk page with warnings about reporting editors to the "appropriate noticeboard." Another editor has noticed this. Allow me to ask again, why is this not in dispute resolution? Lionel (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It has been to three different notice boards. And if you review the history, one editor has consistently deleted the material without discussing the deletion. All this was indicated to you. ----moreno oso (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

(Uspastpresentwatch2010 is not a registered user and has only posted one comment. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, he is a registered user, was active for about a week. Only posted one comment here, be did several edits at Stephen L. Johnson. Nat Gertler (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes of course, you're right. What I mean to see is that he/she isn't an established user with an established user page. I don't mean to imply, however, that his/her contributions are not valid or equally welcome. I'm just uncomfortable with citing them as justification in favour of/ against consensus.Contaldo80 (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Greetings. Terribly sorry, it was late (or very early) when I posted my addition and did indeed mean 'acolytes'. As for my being a registered user, I am, so please stick to the content of the case and avoid an ad hominem attack. I again reiterate my concern about the pertinence of this section of the article. Is there any evidence that Selesians have committed pederastic acts out some sort of interpretation of the way John Bosco interacted with people as cited in this quote? Thanks for your consideration.Uspastpresentwatch2010 (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Its pertinence is not reliant on whether his predictions came true; it's pertinent because it is his expectations and concerns about his legacy. Having said that, it is certainly true that Salesians, folks who by their very nature claim to have been following Bosco, have stood accused of such inappropriate actions; I cannot speak to whether they were claiming a connection to Bosco in those specific actions. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't see why it should be included. Quoting him without including sourced prose explaining/discussing it is in my mind akin to sourcing with primary sources; it lends itself to original research. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well to be fair we did have a whole prose section around the quote giving it context but others sought fit to remove it. So we're left with what we're left with.Contaldo80 (talk) 09:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

When was there a whole prose section around the quote, so I can go back and see that version? And how far back does this issue go in the talk archives? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 14:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

A long way. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus to remove the text. Surely the approach on wikipedia should be to develop articles and then only remove sections that fail to meet the guidelines? No-one has yet clarified convincingly why the current text does not meet guidelines. Bosco believed that his motives would come under question by others. What's so weird about that? Why hide it away? Contaldo80 (talk) 10:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This section is receiving "undue" attention from editors. It is frankly scandalous that people are devoting huge energies to removing this section of text when the article itself overall is in such a poor state. The grammar is simply shocking and suggests that someone has simply translated huge chunks in a search engine. And in general it all reads as a hagiography - ie symbolic events in childhood trailing greatness and sanctity later on. Very poor. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If someone would point me to the beginning of the discussion in the archives, and show me a version with the whole prose section around the quote, I'd chime in on the issue. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 15:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I commend Nat Gertler for his work in smartening the article up. Anyone else willing to get their hands dirty? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The quote was just removed again and rightly so: no consensus for it's conclusion. The bare quote is obscure to begin with, had no impact on his life, times, or legacy, and there is no context. Unfortunate that my entreaties for dispute res. have gone unheeded. Lionel (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. The quote and its reference have been reworked and was one of the first non-puffery items in this article before the entire article was reworked. ----moreno oso (talk) 04:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not as outlandish as it all seems. Have been doing some work on the Saint Joseph Calasanctius article and hadn't realised how much Calasanz and the Piarists had influenced Bosco. In which case it is highly likely that Bosco would have been aware of the sexual abuse crisis in the Naples school that may ultimately have led to the repression of the order. Thus wanting to avoid similar suspicions falling on the Salesians. I'm not going to make this link explicit in the article, however, as it would effectively be original research (my own theory) but it does give food for thought. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Bosco's concerns over his influence: straw poll

Currently there is a stalemate over inclusion of the quote. Seems there are new editors working on the article and I was wondering if finally a consensus has emerged. Note that this is only a straw poll.

Should we delete or keep the "Bosco's concerns over his influence" section?

• Delete Lionel (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Mamalujo (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Uspastpresentwatch2010 (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

This straw poll is not a good idea, and clearly unnecessary, as edits and comments in the past couple months make it clear that there is not yet a consensus. Per WP:PNSD, "If it is clear from ongoing discussion that consensus has not been reached, a straw poll is unlikely to assist in forming consensus and may polarize opinions, preventing or delaying any consensus from forming.") --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain why it's not a good idea? At this point it seems necessary. There hasn't been very much discussion in quite a while and clearly we're at an impasse. We need some means of establishing consensus. I realize Wikipedia is not a democracy but it might be helpful, at this point, if you propose a more constructive alternative. As lionel has pointed out, there is no consensus that it should be included yet it is included anyway. But, what seems to be a minority of users, refuse to allow its removal. I suggest it is time to remove the item until consensus presents itself that this is notable and credible enough to be included, something I doubt will happen.Uspastpresentwatch2010 (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason why it's not a good idea is in the message you just responded to. At the moment, the quote is both present and flagged with concerns, which seems a reasonable holding position until some consensus arises. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Disagree slightly both points. You offer no reason why it's not a good idea just the assertion that it's not a good idea and an argument why it's not necessary, which I feel also needs better explanation. I think the flags are needed until consensus is arrived or section is removed, however consensus seems to be taking place in a direction you don't agree with (consensus isn't unanimity). Since there is no process for making that determination we're at an impasse the straw poll seems like the best of all presented options (of which, since you offer no alternative, there is only one). I again call for a constructive alternative proposal for a path towards consensus. There may in fact be better ways than the straw poll. So, let's hear it. Leaving the section as is with the flags does nothing towards that end.Uspastpresentwatch2010 (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you missed the part of the message which said "a straw poll is unlikely to assist in forming consensus and may polarize opinions, preventing or delaying any consensus from forming", but that there is why it's not a good idea. As for your assumption that consensus is forming in a direction that I don't agree with, that assumption doesn't match with the history of article edits since the straw poll was proposed. As for what to do with consensus impasse, you can review Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building for some of the tools that are available. Me, I've continued the discussion here when there are people looking to enter into the discussion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Consensus

The recent "vote" and a recent edit summary attributing the work of one additional editor as indicating a consensus suggests that there may be some confusion over what consensus is. Some folks may wish to review WP:CONSENSUS in that regard; it is not, in the Wikipedia sense, a mere majority. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is not the be all and the end all. Wikipedia is not a democracy. We cannot vote that the American Declaration was signed in 1066. The deleted matter is riddled with problems and does not belong in the article. Mamalujo (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, you may wish to review WP:CONSENSUS - it actually is the central decision making system here. If you feel that it is "riddled with problems", you may want to convince the other editors here of that. So far, your arguments seem to have relied on the false claim that it is not in biographies of Bosco (it is in the source it's cited from), and that it is POV when what it is is documenting Bosco's POV. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Several editors have removed the quote. You are the only editor raising an objection. For my own part, the issue is not whether it's in a bio, the issue is that adding quotes without context is discouraged, in addition, the quote has no bearing on his life, times nor legacy. Lionel (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not the only editor to have raised an objection to the removal of the quote; in the past couple months, we've also seen morenooso and contaldo defending the quote. ---Nat Gertler (talk) 01:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

By my estimation, over the last few weeks 4 editors (including myself) have deleted it and only you have restored. Lionel (talk) 02:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It was generally restored more quickly than it was deleted; it seems silly to presume that other editors wouldn't have restored it had there been more time for them to have done so. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Nat, per your suggestion I reviewed the policy on consensus, which leads me to point out: "Consensus can change. Consensus is not immutable". That seems to be the case here. On the point of the merit of the material, you assert that it is found in a biography. Of course it is found in a foreign language biography despite the availability of dozens of English biographies. Policy on foreign sources states: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, unless no English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." Obviously, many quality English sources are available so it's use is not appropriate. A foreign source was sought merely to support the dubious material. Another reason it does not belong. Mamalujo (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You appears to be confused, both about WP:NONENG, which prefers English sources for a piece of information - it doesn't mean that if you can only find information in a non-English source, you shouldn't use it, but that if you can find the same information in an English source, then you should point to that one - and with how the quote appeared, as it was sourced both to the Italian book and to English-language sources. As it is, the article relies on such sources as "I sinistri presagi di Don Giovanni Bosco" and « Storia ecclesiastica ad uso delle scuole » -- is that information to be considered "dubious" and deleted too because you can't read them? (It also relies quite heavily on Salesian-produced materials, which brings up the question of what is dubious.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

By dubious, I do not only mean of doubtful factuality, but also of doubtful import to be included in the article, of doubtful neutrality in light of the material's POV pushing history, and of doubtful meaning without context (and including sufficient context would make it undue weight). Why on earth should it be included? What does it mean? Doesn't it carry with it, out of context in its last form, an implication? Mamalujo (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot of very lazy editing going on. Some of this seems to be driven merely by an attempt not to be seen to blemish Bosco's reputation in any way. This is fine in a hagiography but isn't right for here. The quote does have significance because it tells us something about opposition to Bosco and his own reflections on his work; it also probably relates to his knowledge of Saint Joseph Calasanctius. I'm all for a proper discussion based on historical analysis but I won't support a whitewashed article for simple expediency. Do not therefore support deletion. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

If the quote were significant, it would not be so obscure. Not every obscure fact belongs in the encyclopedia - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Moreover this is a mainstream encyclopedia. Random and obscure facts (assuming they are facts) from random and obscure sources do not belong here. THis is not whitewashing or hagiography, but following wikipedia policy in order to have an encyclopedic, quality, NPOV and mainstream encyclopedia article. Mamalujo (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

How do you know it's "obscure"? There are multiple references provided for it. If it's not included in hagiographies, that speaks more to the nature of hagiographies than to the quote. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

User Attilios has deleted a long standing tag that was supposed to remain until the dispute was settled. I respectfully believe that this user is mistaken in his action. Has the dispute been settled? To my knowledge it has not and no consensus has been reached. I do believe that the unencyclopedic tag is more germane to the dispute. I wouldn't claim that Bosco never made the statement. I contend, however, and it seems many other's agree, that its inclusion is obscure and insidious, pushing a POV with peripheral content. I think the neutrality tag is still important. To be clear I respect view points to the contrary but I don't think it's respectful to take it upon one's self to erase any acknowledgement of the dispute.Uspastpresentwatch2010 (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Bosco's concerns over his influence: - once more

That origin is not sure. Let you give citation about this matter from MB (Memorie Biographice)! This part must be deleted. --Stebunik (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

However good a given reference work may be, we cannot treat it as the only valid source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

And for the record, in case anyone reads this section again: it's in MB vol. 18, Capitolo 21. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Which source has Giacomo Dacquino?

There is written over one book from: Giacomo Dacquino, Psicologia di don Bosco, Sei, Torino 1988, page 128. Where is his citation from? From which book or work? It seems to me as only philosophing about don Bosco withouth knowing his works and works about him. Which source? Citation is needed! Something so don Bosco did not say. It is not in spirit of don Bosco! --Stebunik (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

the talk page is for discussion of the editing of the article, not for discussion of our beliefs about the subject of the article.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why on earth would it not be something John Bosco would have said!? This is ridiculous. It's in fact extremely likely that he would have said it. He faced resistance at every turn in trying to set up his education system from those that distrusted his motives. He would also have been aware of accusations of child abuse. He knew about the Piarists and the trials of Saint Joseph Calasanz and must surely have been aware of the sexual abuse crisis that nearly led to the the end of the order. It must have played on his mind. If you want to start taking out parts of the article that you think are obscure then I suspect we will have very little left. It already reads like something young children would be given in school. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC) The letter from Rome In letter from Rome (1884) don Bosco wrote: „It is not enough, that we love the boys, but they must feel and know too, that they are loved.” (Slovenian: »Ni dovolj, da fante resnično ljubimo, ampak morajo dečki tudi zares čutiti in vedeti, da jih ljubimo.« Janez Lemoyne: Življenje svetega Janeza Boska, poslovenil Tone Vode, Ljubljana-Rakovnik 1934, page 382-284) But don Bosco said too: „Mani a casa!” (The hands at home: no give the hands on other person) (Memorie biographice VI, 704). These two things are not contraries. Don Bosco loved the souls, not the bodies. His motto was: Da mihi animas – coetera tolle – Give me souls, other things take away! Who is homosexual or currupted, can not understand the spirit of don Bosco. --Stebunik (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC) Who can not understand don Bosco? I guess your reasoning about homosexuals would logically apply to the Jews and women? Are there any other groups you would like to label as corrupt? Fæ (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC) I did not say, that homosexuals are corrupt, but that homosexuals (if they practice homosexuality) and corrupt peoples can not understand don Bosco's love to souls. Honest peoples sometimes did not understand it too. Women and Jews are not in the cathegory of homosexuals or the corrupts! Contraposition of homosexuals are not Jews, but between women the lezbians. Why do you mix Jews here? Corrupt - it is a word of don Bosco, not of me. He says, that he is corrupt, which sin against VI. commandament and will draw others in this sin (not only homosexuality!). Let you read his numerous allegoric dreams about this matter!--Stebunik (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC) Your rationale is confused and not based on the sources. Why should the mind of a homosexual Catholic be unable to comprehend Bosco's writing when you suggest that the mind of a non-Catholic could? Did Bosco clarify the definition of "the corrupt" to only apply to homosexuals? As Bosco was a man of his time, did he understand the difference between active homosexuals and Catholics with unexpressed homosexual tendencies? Most Catholic definitions of those who "live in sin" are people do not or cannot confess their sins, consequently such a definition would include all Jews. By your rationale then, all Jews must be unable to understand Bosco and presumably the vast majority of any potential readers of this article (i.e. all non-Catholics, all lapsed Catholics and (by your unsupported definition) all homosexual Catholics). Fæ (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of dubious POV pushing material

There is a remnant of a POV pushing section which was sourced to a fringe psuedo-science analysis, namely graphology, which is akin to phrenology, to paint the subject of this article as a pedophile and/or a homosexual. Not surprisingly, most of the text based on this wild accusation, all of which had its origins in the psuedoscientific analysis, has been deleted. The remaining quote which is not found in any biography and is sourced to dubious, obscure, POV and/or foreign language sources, should likewise be deleted. There is no good reason to include it. This encyclopedia is not a random collection of information or quotes. In light of the dubiousness of the material and the growing consensus, I am deleting it. Please do not restore it without a valid basis for doing so stated here and a consensus based thereon. Mamalujo (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The material you have deleted is far better sourced than most of this article. Your claims about "Growing consensus" is false. If you want to edit Bosco's POV out of this article, please actually achieve consensus, rather than falsely claiming it. --21:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

To the unsigned contributor, please explain why you believe that the growing consensus is false and why you believe that the material is "far better sourced". If you look at the material you'll see that the sources are not original and are self-referencing. It would not pass basic scrutiny under most academic peer review. As far as consensus, it seems that it has been established, aside from one or occasionally two contributors' objections, in favor of deletion. Consensus is not unanimity. Further, at issue is not over the deletion of Bosco's POV, but rather the encyclopedic nature of the inclusion of the quote and that said inclusion pushes a non-neutral POV. If we are to include this quote, should not anything Bosco ever said be worthy of inclusion? I imagine that such a biography would be very un-scholarly. I call for deletion until better sources can be found and better reasons for it's encyclopedic nature.

As far as how to go about deleting or formalizing consensus, does anyone have insight as to the process under the nomination for the check of neutrality? Should we expect something to come of that? Is there means to check on the progress or is it possible to assume that nothing has or will be done on behalf of the nomination? I would rather wait to hear some result one way or another before deleting myself. Otherwise, I think we should proceed with deletion if no response is certain to be expected.Uspastpresentwatch2010 (talk) 06:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I am the unsigned poster; that's what happens when one accidentally puts an extra tilde in the signature. As for being far better sourced, this is material listed with multiple sources (even if one refers to the other, the reuse establishes notability) and the sources are some of the few in the article that are not provided by some Salesian branch, and thus not holding whatever spin those who hold themselves forth as followers of Bosco may have. The quote has been restored from deletion by more than two editors in recent months, so the claim about one or two editors is clearly false. As to the claim that it is POV pushing, no one has been able to show exactly what POV is being put forth, besides Bosco's. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Understandable mistake and one I've made in similar fashion. Regardless, the reuse doesn't establish notability but establishes circular referencing. In fact, Paul Penning and Stephan Sanders' books do not exist anywhere. You can't find them on a Library of Congress registration at all. The first source, of three, is only available in Italy and is out of print. The sources completely lack verifiable or any credibility whatsoever, particularly since the Penning text is laden with the sort of innuendo that started this whole debate at a time when the article when so far as to openly suggest that Bosco was a pederast (thankfully a time long past us now). Now, as to consensus, while two editors may have contributed to the restoration of the section, you and only you (to your estimable credit) have provided any commentary in support on the talk pages in the last six months as to why the section should remain, as according to Wikipedia standards for establishing consensus. Your citation of another's contributions are more of an indictment of their behavior than an argument on the behalf of the status quo on the article. I would suggest that is not sufficient support to deny consensus unless others may join in favor of continuing the section, since consensus is not permanent after all. At this point, I remain convinced that consensus is established and it is in favor of deletion. As for other material which may only have the support of pro-Selesian POV, if you feel that it lacks merit, I think you've started or can contribute to another discussion. What remains is that the sources here are poor, even if there are three poor sources they are all still poor, the section itself is unencyclopedic, and the inclusion itself only serves to push a non-neutral POV. Thank you for your engagement and willingness to discuss your reasons for inclusion.Uspastpresentwatch2010 (talk) 07:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, as a clarification on the Penning text, it is only included as a citation on other Italian language websites citing this Wikipedia biography which attempt to use it as evidence of Bosco's alleged pederasty. Otherwise it is impossible to find any book or article that even verifies the existence of the Penning text. Once again, there is no LoC registration for any such work nor anywhere else but from the original contributor who entered the citation, as goes with the Sanders citation. Can anyone provide contrary information? It would be very useful for the discussion if it indeed exists so verifiablity could be established.Uspastpresentwatch2010 (talk) 07:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

More response when I have time, but no, it is not true that only I have addressed reasons for keeping this in the last six months on the talk page, nor is the talk page the only thing to measure in establishing consensus. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

As for doubting the existence of the Penning text, the book does exist and can be found through used book sources and, yes, in the LOC; I suspect the problem is that you were looking for Penning as the cover author, when he is one contributor to a larger academic work. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This section has gone from bad to worse. Now there is no delineation between the "Concerns Over His Influence" and the remainder of the biography related to his legacy. There is clearly a difference in the subject matter that has been merged and the final three paragraphs have nothing to due with Bosco's 'concerns over his influence'. If we're really concerned with maintaining a sound biography and not pushing a POV we should easily be able to at least reach consensus that this section is in poor shape and to fix it accordingly. Uspastpresentwatch2010 (talk) 04:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Along the same lines and just as poor, this section is a sub-heading under "Preventative System" with which the subject is also completely unrelated. The entire page is in bad shape because of this and has been since users (some of whom are now banned) many months ago tried to push the unsubstantiated POV that Bosco was a pederast. This remaining text from those days seems to be a surviving dinosaur from rightfully extinct POV pushing. Uspastpresentwatch2010 (talk) 05:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the "Preventative system" section was altered to link it to the pederasty suggestions - I think it's just a coincidence that it goes on about getting on well with boys. That said, I agree that the 'concerns over his influence' section does read badly. I don't think, however, that it's helpful to dismiss the issue of Bosco's interest in young men as POV pushing. There is not enough evidence to suggest he was ever involved in anything untoward - yet his insistence on controlling masturbation among his wards makes for slightly uncomfortable reading (today at least). What's most important is that Bosco beieved that his intentions could be misunderstood (rightly or wrongly) and should be seen in the context of general opposition to his work. To that end I would support a revision that retained the quote but set it in that context. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but it seems I was unclear. My reference was to much earlier versions of this article that clearly claimed that Bosco was a pederast and this section's quote in question was a part of that and remains the only part that hasn't been removed. My objection to POV pushing seems to be fair to me where we have merely innuendo and no further support for any idea that Bosco concerns for young men was anything beyond religious and fraternal. That said I truly respect (while disagreeing with) your opinion that it is worthy of including in a biography that Bosco was concerned in this case about how his intentions were interpreted. It seems completely out of place in this current context and, in encyclopedia article, rather than an extremely detailed biography, its inclusion is imbalanced. It's important to note, there is a lot to dislike about this article. Favorable and disfavorable content is poorly sourced and in many cases presents facts that are clearly unencyclopedic. Stating my bias, I'm not in the practice of spending a great deal of time making comprehensive edits to favorable content to biographies. My interest is vetting content that can be interpreted as disfavorable, so I'm sorry if the balance of my objections has been toward this subject when there is plenty more to pick at here. Given that, if Bosco were worthy of a more comprehensive biography, and contributors were willing to make the comprehensive additions, I would be amenable to keeping this quote (provided it the sources are sound - another debate entirely).

As for improving this section, the section and subsection titles need to be reworked completely. I propose that we make this section, "Death and Legacy". If there is more content of value and pertinence to include regarding "Bosco's Concerns Over His Influence" a subsection could be created for that, otherwise, it's too out of balance. Perhaps it could be included in a subsection on matters he addressed on his deathbed, it could again seem worthy of inclusion. Standing alone by itself wouldn't seem inappropriate. Another subsection "Canonization" could also fit in the new "Death and Legacy" section which would absorb most of the remaining content aside from what might fit better under a subsection regarding the Selesian order after his death. Uspastpresentwatch2010 (talk) 03:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't disagree with this proposed restructuring. As I said I think the quote is worth keeping because it highlight's Bosco's very real concerns about being misunderstood. That said, there has been lengthy discussion on the sources for the quote and I think it is better sourced than a god chunck of the article material - much of which is simple hagiography. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my restructuring ideas. I'll start working on them in sandbox and try to have them up soon. Please make adjustments as I'm sure more will be needed. As for the remainder of the article, I agree that there are some dreadful sourcing issues and hagiography would be an apt title it seems for much of it. That said, being better sourced than other dreadfully sourced material doesn't say much. I also maintain that it isn't notable enough to carry it's balance in the article with out adding considerable substance to the article to mitigate the undue weight the matter is given. We're going in circles though. I'm going to see if we can get additional on some of the boards. Hopefully we can get somewhere. Thanks for your engagement. Uspastpresentwatch2010 (talk) 04:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The quote is obscure and the only reason it is included is POV pushing. It is the remnant of a section which was even more explicitly so. The poor quality of the sources also militate in favor of it's deletion - one is a foreign language source, the other two are rank polemics. Despite an abundance of biographies, no biography is quoted to support it. Mamalujo (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Reason for canonization

To say that St. John was canonized "In recognition of his work with disadvantaged youth" is misleading. Men and women are not canonized in recognition of their work but in recognition of their sanctity. To phrase it the it is phrased is to say that's all he's known for. Caeruleancentaur (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I would be okay with deleting that clause. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 02:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

POV-section tag

The tag provides a link to Wikipedia:NPOV dispute which is a guideline on editing an article with a POV dispute. The nomination tag does not link there. The POV tag should remain as long as the dispute exists. Lionel (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Michael Rua

I think it's unsatisfactory to say that Bosco and Rua were simply friends. Rua played a significant role as travel companion and collaborator in establishing the salesian movement. This story summarises it quite well: "One morning in 1847, Saint John Bosco was handing out medals to children he met on his way. A boy about 10 years old shyly planted himself in front of him and held out his hand. "Oh, it's you, Michael! What do you want?"—"A medal..."—"A medal? No. Something much better."—"What?"—"Here, take it!" And saying that, Don Bosco held out his left hand, open but empty, and with the other made a gesture of cutting his left hand in two, offering him half. "So—take it! Take it!" But take what? The hand remained empty. What did he mean, the child wondered. Several years later, Don Bosco would explain the riddle: "My little Michael, in life, you and I, we will always share everything—sorrows, worries, responsibilities, joys, and the rest, all the rest, will be ours together."

Overlinking

I removed a couple of links from the lead, but am I alone in thinking that there are rather too many still remaining, both in the lead and in the body? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 15:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and got it back to what I consider a reasonable amount of linking. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Good work! --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Problems with "Bosco's concerns over his influence"

Doesn't seem to be important enough to include. If there are no objections I'll remove it per WP:UNDUE. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

There are indeed objections, and there's been plenty of discussion of that before. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey Nat, I don't see anything in your response that supports including the quote, nor anything proving that UNDUE does not apply. Since it's just you and me here, and your objection doesn't support inclusion, I'm going to invoke WP:CCC and remove the quote. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You already tried waving WP:CCC, and I've already pointed out that that doesn't call for the deletion of anything. Then you came here and pretended that you would do something if there was no objection, and when it was pointed out there was an objection, you did it anyway. You want to see the objections spelled out, you can read them up and down this page. If you want to pretend that consensus has changed, you might think about actually showing that consensus has changed. Now I'll go restore the sourced and important material that you deleted without consensus. --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion has concluded. Please do not modify this section. Result of discussion (80% support): Delete section.

RFC re: "Bosco's concerns over his influence"

The section "Bosco's concerns over his influence" contains an obscure quote which has negligible coverage and thus fails WP:UNDUE. Additionally it has no context and adds nothing to the readers understanding of Bosco. Do you support removal of the section? – Lionel ^(talk) 07:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment (I am pretty sure that the same rules apply for RfC as for RM. The nominator does not second himself) Giacomo Dacquino is a well known psychologist/marriage counsellor in Italy, I'm rather surprised to find he wrote a book on Don Bosco, and surprised to find this text in it, but not sure it that irrelevant. The reason that you won't find the original Italian text when Googlebooking for it is that interpretare should end with an -e in modern Italian. Source is here http://www.donboscoland.it/articoli/articolo.php?id=3690 But having said that is Giacomo Dacquino's pick of this notable? Not especially. Is it? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I really don't understand the arguments as to why inclusion of this quote is WP:UNDUE. A simple read of Bosco's life would see that he faced opposition to his work at every turn. The quote shows he was particularly worried about accusations of child abuse against the order. One accusation among many. This would have been particularly in mind for him because of his understanding of what had happened to St Joseph Calasanctius. I would be grateful for clarification, however, as to why some editors focus on this quote again and again (despite doing nothing to tidy the rest of the article)? Are they worried it makes Bosco look bad? Contaldo80 (talk) 13:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Keep - the claim that the comment is "obscure" or gets "negligible coverage" is baseless; it's the most sourced thing in this article. This is an article that deals very much with Bosco's concerns, and with Bosco's legacy, and Bosco's concerns about his legacy are quite relevant. Arising from the Memorie Biografiche, it gets cited in places ranging from that well-known psychologist's work on Bosco to one of the most read blogs on the Internet. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• I am indifferent, leaning towards weak delete, per Lionelt. Thousands of footnotes going to unreliable sources like blogs (even if it is the most read thing in existence, it is still ad populum), do not make an article sourced. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 04:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm a mite confused; none of the footnotes in the relevant section of the article is a blog. One is a book by a noted psychologist, the other two are from academic works. The mention of the blog above was only to address the baseless claim of the quote being "obscure" in this discussion. Or are you speaking of the Memorie Biografiche? That's not a blog, we just pointed to an online edition of this work. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd just woken up and not had my sedatives yet (not a joke, but still funny) and skimmed it most briefly (maybe because I've been involved in far, far too many very vicious disputes recently - this is like the lamb laying with the wolf in comparison. (I was speaking of the memoir, and as soon as I see something that's hosted on the internet as a source in a disputed article it's a sphincter-clench.) Now, weak indifference. (I can't work up any passion here, unlike in Genesis creation narrative, as I don't see what the dispute is about; I wouldn't have included it myself, but don't really object. I do hate the so-called "singular" they, though. I wish I could nest scare-quotes to deal with such horrid mangling of the Queen's English!) St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 13:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I am going to have to waffle yet again, and agree with History2007 below. It may be notable, but the lack of context is enough to make it unencyclopedic, as in "improper use of quotations" (I forgot that guideline/essay), and, it just came to me, this is a primary source - that's why it feels so open to speculation and interpretation, and "wrong", but I couldn't quite articulate it before. If it's that important, find a secondary WP:RS. I hope to not waffle again (fuck you, Plato, for telling me to go where the argument leads). Delete. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 02:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment/Question: What is at issue here? I do not even understand what the quote is trying to say: it is so vague and roundabout one can read many things into it. Is it hinting that he knew of sex abuse and kept quiet? The sex abuse and continued coverups in the Catholic hierarchy have been covered by only 200 newspapers I think, so what is the issue here? Is it saying that his second in command was abusing people? Or is it implying that he did it himself? Or that others in the organization were doing it? And the section title "concerns over his influence" may be too generic for this specific issue - whatever it may mean. As is, this quote is pretty vague and unclear. It not an encyclopedic item unless it is further clarified. An encyclopedia should clarify things, not be a riddler. So until that is clarified, this is not a paragraph that informs, it is a riddle and a puzzle for the reader to solve. History2007 (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

History said what I'm thinking and said it better. It needs to be cleaned up massively (e.g. contexted, if that's a word; put in context) but I can't muster a strong conviction, or even a policy-based argument, to delete (nor to keep, for that matter). It seems like useless trivia that people can take too many ways (hence the mystery), so, as an inclusionist, I'm indifferent, just because it is information. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 13:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep: I think it's pretty clear. The purpose of its inclusion is to show that Bosco was aware of the strong opposition to his work, the spectre of Joseph Calasanctius, and concern that accusations of sexual abuse (real or imagined) were a genuine concern (especially interesting in light of the modern day child abuse scandals within the Catholic church). I think it's an extremely important quote - and of much greater interest and relevant for people than some saccharines stories about "dreams" etc. I want this article to be a rigorous and genuine look at the man, his work and his legacy. Not some sort of soft hagiography. People in 19th century Italy didn't much like him - we need to understand why. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Did I read "I think it's pretty clear", then a long explanation that is not included in the quote? Calasanctius (whoever he is, and I have no idea) is not mentioned in the quote. Is he? I do not see him mentioned. Hence your conclusion is your own reasoning, generally known as WP:OR in these parts. And a section with no text except a quote? if you want something "rigorous and genuine" please find WP:RS sources that say "Bosco was an abuser" then I would totally support its inclusion in the lede. Find a WP:RS source that says the church paid $X million in hush money (as they did in many other cases) to hide Bosco's behavior and I will support its inclusion in the lede. As is, it is a quote with no explanation, and just acts as an innuendo that Bosco abused people. An encyclopedia can not run on innuendo. History2007 (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I'd assumed you'd taken the time to read the previous (lengthy) debate on this issue. We have gone over this ground far, far too often. I also have no idea what point you are making - I didn't say Bosco was a child abuser did I? I said that Bosco feared that others might see him (or colleagues) as abusers. Incidentally the sources that I have put in his article are actually the most academic. Most of the others are from Bosco "hagiographies". I suggest you channel equally your energies towards them - in the interests of even-handedness. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Because sinful, fallen men generally don't like the holy living among them? Very few saints have ever been liked in life (look at Jerome for an extreme example; everyone hated him, even Augustine disliked him, it seems, from some of their correspondence), and are generally canonized centuries after death. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 13:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I think he wasn't much liked also because he was a bit reactionary. His support for the anti-democratic approach of the pope wasn't exactly in keeping with the spirit of the times. Having large ganges of young men gathering around him also presented a threat in terms of law and order. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Remove it, innuendo, source something else - Okay, I've seen enough now to confirm what I half suspected; as History2007 says it's in the article as innuendo that Bosco knew about priests and did nothing. If that's the intent then let's have a WP:RS that says he knew and did nothing. Or make something useful out of what Giacomo Dacquino says. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

That is interesting, in that I thought the innuendo was that Bosco was the abuser himself. That confirms that different readers will see different issues in that hint, given that it is accompanied by no explanation. History2007 (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation.". As discussed above, unless this quotation is backed up with WP:RS sources that explain it and give it context, is nothing but an innuendo that Bosco was deviant. He may have been, or not, I have no idea, but the quotation by itself, sans explanation just hints that the speculation that Bosco (or his assistant) was/were an abusers. They may have been, but I see no WP:RS sources at all to explain that in the section. And I think it is "just a quote" without any WP:RS explanation, because none has been found. Those who want to keep it need to find WP:RS sources that explain it, not just read their own explanations into it, as Contaldo did by introducing names of people not in the quote. Either the the hints in the quote need to be explained by WP:RS sources, or it needs to be deleted. An encyclopedia can not run on innuendo. History2007 (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Needs context, at the very least The quoted passage is obviously in response to something, but the article is coy about what. If this is to be retained it needs to be part of a passage that explains the context of the remark. Otherwise I would agree it needs to go, as at the moment it is more of an insinuation of malfeasance than properly encyclopedic material. Mangoe (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - I note that there have been previous questions about allegations of Bosco's possible alleged homosexuality, in reference to some quote about him being "dangerous" in some way. Dacquino being a marriage counselor, however much of a professional in that field he might be, does not necessarily make him in any way an expert in this field. And the fact that this material might be from a "widely-read" book is also not particularly important. Popularity of blogs is also not a determinant as per wikipedia. Personally, my own choice would be to perhaps include the information in an article about the relevant book if it meets WP:N and I tend to think it probably does, and perhaps include a link to that article here. But I have serious questions, similar to History above, about the innuendo factor which seem to be involved. John Carter (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Remove, because it doesn't "work" without context, and the only "context" is pure speculation (of a kind that certain POV pushers just can't get enough of). Let's try to stick to the facts and leave the speculation out. --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I does seem to me odd that we're asking to take out one of the few direct quotes from Bosco himself. I'm all in favour of context, but I object to removing primary evidence from an article because it offends personal sensibilities. There are 3 sources supporting this quote (not just Daquino!) Bosco used to get young men to tell him when they masturbated - odd behaviour even for the time. The article needs to deal even-handedly with the good stuff and the bad stuff. There is a laughable section about "extraordinary dreams" that is so sentimental and pointless that it's not worth of an encyclopaedia. Anyone like to look at that?! Contaldo80 (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Not just the dreams section, but a few other sections were source free. I tagged them as such. Either they get sources or they have to be deleted. I do not know much about Bosco, so can not even put it on my edit path to fix those sections. If no one fixes them, they will just need to be deleted. That does not, however, remove the innuendo problem from the section that is the subject of this Rfc. An innuendo based section either needs to have context and explanation, or has no place in an encyclopedia. If you manage to find WP:RS sources that explain the quote, please do, else accept the fact that you have no sources to give it context, and in Wikipedia quotes without context do not a section make. History2007 (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the "innuendo" stance is very convoluted logic. You've decided to read something specific into the quote, and because there's no sourcing for the thing you've chosen to read into it, you feel it must be deleted. By goodness, what section of Wikipedia cannot be deleted if we choose to invent things for it? --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Convoluted logic is your assessment, not mine. Leave it at that. History2007 (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

We've had three different men (including myself) read the quote in three mutually incompatible ways. That proves it needs context, or to begone. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 01:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It serves no encyclopedic purpose whatsoever to include a quote or statement which cannot be said to be clear and unambiguous, except in those rare circumstances when the ambiguity itself is to some degree the topic of the article, and that statement is in no way the topic of this article. WP:NPOV could, arguably, not be met, unless any and all interpretations are listed, and I have trouble seeing how that would even be possible here; WP:WEIGHT probably could not be met, until and unless reliable sources as per WP:RS are produced indicating the subject meets weight requirements, and blogs and the like generally do not meet RS standards - even then, such a later interpretation would probably best be in a separate article. So, all in all, I cannot see how this material has to date been demonstrated to be of such significance in independent reliable sources other than the book itself indicate that the subject has received substantive attention in reliable sources. John Carter (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Remove, unless context is provided Largely per User:In ictu oculi. The context justifying the quote would, of course, itself, need to be non-speculative, and it seems from previous discussion that may be problematical. The quote should be removed in the meantime. Begoon ^talk 01:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Remove: endorse above. A quote in a separate section, with the only context being section title is not due in the article (especially in a separate section alone) though it is sourced. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Remove entire section' - I don't see the point of having the section there unless there is more to say and credible sources are cited. Thepoodlechef (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Remove entire section' - Source are weak/POV, speculative and loaded with inuendo. Matter is not found in other biographies. Material is peripheral a best and appears to be tied to a POV pushing agenda. Mamalujo (talk) 09:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

End of RFC?: March 9 to April 9 2012 is 30 days now, so I think the end of the line has been reached. History2007 (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Summary of RFC: After 30 days, and 7 extra days of wake, there were 2 votes to keep, 7 votes to delete. Seems like it has to go, so will remove it now. History2007 (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

There was another "delete" vote after the fact, so it became 8/2 for deletion, so I will close the discussion in any case. History2007 (talk) 09:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Extraordinary dreams

What is the value of this section? There are no sources listed and the section outlines a series of dream which Bosco claimed to have had. We al have dreams - so why are these special and worth mentioning? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I can not see that section. Am I dreaming?... Kidding. I commented it out, and if no source after a while, one day we wake up and it will be gone. History2007 (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This section as it is can be gone with no problem. But there is a dream (with some see as prophecies) of him that has some relevance that it's not on the article: his dreams of a "promised land, flowing with milk and honey and inconceivable riches" between parallels 15 and 20, used as one of the mottos to justify the moving of the capital of Brazil to the interior of the country, from Rio de janeiro to Brasília, constructed for this intent[1]. The city attracts a lot os mystics because of things like this. ZackTheJack (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not know this topic really, but if you look at the Pt and It wikipedias, they seem to have material, but it will need WP:RS references if it is going to stay. There are other sections that are reference free and need refs or sooner or later will be dreams... History2007 (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The removed section is imho the English translation of Don Bosco own memoirs of the oratory (see Italian version here [2]). The source is given in the article. I am not sure it is relevant to have it written in full extent here as it is a repetition of the previous section. Don Bosco is known for another prophetic (end of times) dream: the dream of the two columns (pillars) about the papacy and the Church. Sometimes linked to the third prophecy of Fatima. This dream led to the foundation of the Basilica of Our Lady Help of Christians, Turin[3][4][5]

Imho Don Bosco's dreams have to put back into their historical context (1854 dogma of immaculate conception, end of the Papal states in 1870,...). But that's above my pay grade ;-) Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we need to have a "small and high quality" article for now, instead of a large and unreferenced one... History2007 (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree but in my opinion two facts should be at least summarised in a couple sentences. After all Don Bosco is the patron saint of Brasilia (per Brasilia wiki page), some books even give the year of its dream (1883), some even its date (30 August) and place (Hyères,France) :-D The dream of the two columns makes the link between Bosco and his burial place. Reference could easily support those two aspects of Bosco's life--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Just find WP:RS sources and add it. They key issue here is the lack of sources. History2007 (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive discussion. I'm not opposed to mentioning dreams full stop, I just think we should be selective and choose those that can be tied to a particular event or context (and then properly referenced). I feel the IT and PT articles are weak because they fall on the wrong side between biography and hagiography. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

There are sourcing problems all over this article. I left messages for the 2 main authors to see if they want to come back and add them. But they cannot sit there unsourced for ever. History2007 (talk) 09:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Death

What did he die of? Where is he buried? Can we put this in the article.... message was probably by Contaldo80

I looked and there are many more solid sources about that, e.g. Oxford Dictioanry of Saints etc. The sources used here are at times websites that can get WP:Linkrot. I will try to clean some of it by next week, if no one else does. There are many more solid sources than the websites used here. Will take a few days.... History2007 (talk) 09:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Sources for article improvement

I don't think I am going to have time to rewrite large chuncks of this article, but I did find a few WP:RS sources that can be used for that purpose:

• The Oxford Dictionary Of Saints by David Hugh Farmer 2004 ISBN 0198609493 entry for John Bosco [6]

• Butler's Lives of the Saints, Volume 3 by Alban Butler 1999 ISBN 0860122522 pages 88-90 (also see page 132) [7]

• OSV's Encyclopedia of Catholic History by Matthew Bunson 2004 ISBN 1592760260 page 501 [8]

• Encyclopedia of Catholic Social Thought, Social Science, and Social Policy by Michael L. Coulter, Richard S. Myers and Joseph A. Varacalli 2012 ISBN 0810882663 pages 36-38 [9]

The sources have links so whoever is up to it can use them. I will watch and comment once in a while, but will not major editing for I had not scheduled to work on this and I have other things that have been waiting for a while. But these sources should be enough to make a much shorter and well sourced article out of this. History2007 (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

And why must it be shorter, History2007? --Albeiror24 - English - Español - Italiano - ខ្មែរ 09:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on John Bosco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100520062334/http://www.sdb.org/ENG/Pagine/_2_12_19_25_.htm to http://www.sdb.org/ENG/Pagine/_2_12_19_25_.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081114092334/http://magnificat.ca/cal/engl/01-31.htm to http://www.magnificat.ca/cal/engl/01-31.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100608193518/http://www.donbosco.org.au/DonBoscoStory.htm to http://www.donbosco.org.au/DonBoscoStory.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807061747/http://www.zenit.org/article-3537?l=english to http://zenit.org/article-3537?l=english

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Bosco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071206015444/http://www.bosconet.aust.com/moparts/ch55.html to http://www.bosconet.aust.com/moparts/ch55.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)