Talk:George Preca

Untitled

http://www.sdcmuseum.org/ (the site of the organisation of which George preca was the founder.)

Attention tag

This is obviously a cut and paste job from a very POV source, and needs edited ASAP. -- Pastordavid 10:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

I'm willing to perform a complete rewrite of this article, as time allows. (And I do think a near-complete rewrite will be necessary.) Alekjds ^talk 04:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm completely rewriting this article at User:Alekjds/Preca. I don't expect it will take me longer than a day to do it. Alekjds ^talk 22:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Twin article

This article has a twin, apparently. Check out the incorrectly named "Preca" article. It appears to have been excessively plagiarized, and from the same source as this article. It should be deleted. Alekjds ^talk 23:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Replaced

I just replaced this article with my own rewritten version, as I had committed myself to do late last month. Hopefully this will do the trick. It's not as long, but that's probably desirable considering that anything is better than the plagiarized mess that was the last revision. Even so, any comments or concerns are more than welcome, they would be very much appreciated, in fact. Alekjds ^talk 06:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Dun Gorg

He may well have been affectionetly known as Dun Gorg. What does it mean? Avalon (talk) 06:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Second Apostle of Malta

The second sentence of this article reads " . In Malta, he is known as "Dun Ġorġ" and is popularly referred to as the "Second Apostle of Malta", after Paul of Tarsus "... citation NEEDED ! No Original work here please Alan347 (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on George Preca. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.maltastar.com/pages/msFullArt.asp?an=10133
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070501054306/http://www.maltatoday.com.mt:80/2001/1230/dun_gorg.html to http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/2001/1230/dun_gorg.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 05:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation

Zackdeg I've restored the material you removed. I've noted that you've removed material from the Herbert Ganado article as well - despite a different source and no issues around Catholicism. With regards to this article I need to emphasise that the material is sourced. Your main argument seems to be that the Chetcuti book is "speculative". But the article does make this relatively clear: "In 2010 author Joseph Chetcuti published a book titled "Queer Mediterranean Memories" that made the claim that Saint George Preca had been a (repressed) homosexual but who had nevertheless led a chaste life. However some arguing for and against this suggest that the evidence presented is on "tenuous grounds" but is plausible." If you have suggested amended wording then we can consider? Your second argument about "defaming the catholic faith" may be true or not, but not sufficient grounds to act in relation to Wikipedia. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Zackdeg the talkpage is the right place to discuss contentious issues so that we can find a way forward. I've given you a chance to respond but you haven't yet. I'm giving you a second chance. Your argument that "The book you're citing is not backed by any evidence" - that is personal opinion, and not a reason not to include sourced material. You could argue I suppose that the book is not a reliable source (which I don't think would be a convincing argument in my opinion) but you'd need to set out an argument as to why it fails the reliable source test. Your second argument that "MANY MANY people vividly remember him (my aunties included) & none corroborated what Chetcuti insinuated" is not really how things operate on Wikipedia. Nevertheless I am assuming GOODFAITH and will seek a third opinion on how we handle the issue. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Contaldo80 read all of what I wrote, because it's all important, but the most important part starts on Paragraph: 9. As I've already explained to you, your only citation for this "fact" is based on a speculative source. If you really did complete an M.Sc. then you should be able to tell the difference between reliable and non-reliable sources, and this is not one of them! Here is yet another reason why you're wrong: In those days, everybody knew everything about everybody in Malta, and gays were hated. And I mean this in the most literal of senses, in old Malta (especially in localities with a VERY strong sense of community like Ħamrun - where he lived and worked, and Valletta - where he was raised) you couldn't fart without someone knowing (a childish metaphor, but one that conveys what I'm getting it perfectly). This was further amplified by his public life, and the fact that he had people walking in and out of his home for advice almost 24/7.

Furthermore, as already pointed out to you, Maltese people in those day hated gay people with a passion (we've come a long way considering Malta now holds the No:1 spot for LGBTI+ right), so if they even imagined he might be gay (and this could have been based on any evidence, shaky and homophobic as it might be), they would have shunned him and demanded he be defrocked, not praised him, invited him into their homes and made him the go-to man for anything they needed advice on.

Every Maltese/Gozitan man woman and child knows this, but considering you're not, I don't blame you for quickly believing Chetcuti's book!

However, let's - for a second - entertain the fact that what Chetcuti based his book on was indeed evidence, and not speculation. You assert that Saint Gorg Preca was gay because: "The book also made claims that he kissed the feet of men in public but not those of women and also addressed letters to men with phrases such as "Dear Salvu" but to women addressing them as "Dear Daughters"". We live in a world where saying someone's gay for wearing make-up is 'ancient' and 'homophobic' (and I'm sure, like me, you agree) so why do you think that his actions, being normal at the time (as I'll later explain) made him gay? If I'm honest that offends me; but, since this is a supposedly logic discussion, is besides the point.

Back then, like most other countries, women were treated much differently than men, which included interaction and communication with members of the opposite sex (because remember, in the eyes of citizens in those days, no respectable person could ever be gay). As such, men who weren't related, or married to the woman in question, wouldn't dare touch her, as he'd be accused of having a sexual interest in her, unless it was part of a ritual (such as a priest giving her a blessing) or necessary (such as medical intervention). Considering this extreme ideology at the time do you think a man, much less a priest, would get on his hands and knees, lift up her many skirts, and get underneath them (another factor to consider) just to kiss her feet? The people (who as I have already explained were all gossip mongers) would have told her husband/father that "Dun Gorg assaulted his wife/daughter". A statement which he would not only believe, but take action against! Such behaviour also translated to communication (both spoken and written). Where addressing a woman too informally would have resulted in a similar situation. As such, addressing a female by her name, not least with such an informal greeting as "Dear" placed in front of it, would have gotten anyone in trouble. On the other hand, clergymen often addressed crowds and individuals as daughters, sons, brothers, sister...etc. On the other hand it was common practice for men to embrace each other, be informal with each other, and even be naked in each other's presence (not least where alcohol was concerned!

Wanting to mimic the person he tried to base his life around: Jesus Christ, Dun Gorg often did things that embarrassed him in front of everyone, both to keep himself humble, and to act as an example to the public (that held him in the highest repute), that you shouldn't let your social standing get in the way of doing a good deed, nor should it make you pompous. To name a few such actions: (1) being held in such high regard by the public, he often used to get offered a lift by multiple people simultaneously, and, having the option between a car, and a dirty vegetable cart pulled by a donkey, he would choose the latter. (2) Regardless of outstanding support for the society he founded (both from the public, and some clergy), he never got angry or rebelled (as his supporters had) when he was ordered to closed it down, as that is what his vows dictated he did. (3) Regardless of having the title of Monsignor, he never used it nor did he wear the traditional garb of a priest with such rank. (4) He used to spend most of his free time in the company of what society deemed to be the worst people around. In fact, his first followers, and indeed the first prefect general of his society (Eugenio Borg), were all longshoremen and the like. (5) He had a habit of getting down on his hands and knees to kiss the feet (which were more often than not filthy due to the popularity of dirt roads at the time) of the people he stopped to talk to. Now since - as I already explained - he couldn't do this to women, he only kissed the feet of men!

All the information I gave can easily be validated by calling SDC M.U.S.E.U.M (https://www.sdcmuseum.org/) or by asking ANY Maltese/Gozitan person, as we ALL grew up attending daily lectures at the society he founded! But, I reiterate, you wouldn't know this since you aren't Maltese!

Listen, a quick look at your page shows that you're obviously predominantly concerned with LGBTQI+ issues, and for that, both as a gay man, and a member of the would, I thank you. However, jumping at every opportunity to say that some historic figure or other was gay just because some source told you so, isn't helping the cause. This is especially true about San Gorg Preca, because, as I said, Malta not holds the number 1 spot in Europe for LGBTQI+ rights, so forcing the fact that someone like him was gay, will only serve to rile up idiots and homophobes, something which I think we can all do without! Don't get me wrong, if you can conclusively say that a historic figure is gay, go for it regardless of what idiots might say. But not when you have such a useless reference as your source! And definitely not when you have not idea about the person, or the culture he/she lived in! In fact I think that was Chetcuti's problem. A source (be it whatever) pointed out habits that Saint Gorg Preca had, which told him that he was gay. And he went with it, without considering the social context in which it was performed.

Furthermore, while I commend your work, I would advise you to not cherry pick, because even a glance at the Times of Malta article you gave as your source clearly shows it's an argument against Chetcuti and not for. Please read it again before changing it back! Skipping the first part (which was only an introduction) here's the article by the Times of Malta:

As I said during the pro-gramme, a book outlining the history of homosexuals in Malta and recording their tribulations should help us to confront and come to terms with the demon of collective discrimination and help us avoid repeating the same mistakes in the future. When it does that the book makes a valuable contribution; but it goes beyond such a presentation.

Chetcuti, for example, was unfair to claim that certain prominent dead people were gay, especially when the 'outing' is based on flimsy evidence. Unfortunately, the book pathetically tries to shore its arguments by naming saints among the list of homosexuals in Malta and abroad. A homosexual orientation, just as a heterosexual one, does not block the road to sainthood. A person can have either orientation and become a great saint.

One of my objections to the book is that the allegation about the presumed homosexual orientation of San Ġorġ Preca is not borne out by the 'facts' mentioned in the book. Chetcuti bases his case on very tenuous grounds: that San Ġorġ was a priest; that was not married; that he had a 'homosexual' voice; that he publicly kissed the feet of men while not doing the same to the feet of women; and that in his letters he addressed men with phrases such as "Dear Salvu", but women as "Dear daughter", for example.

Further 'proof' was found in the threats received by Fr Alexander Bonnici, the biographer of San Ġorġ. What was there to hide, asks Chetcuti. Intellectual honesty should have led Chetcuti to say Bonnici clearly states that he wrote all the facts he garnered during his investigations notwithstanding the threats he received. Nothing was hidden, so there is nothing to speculate about.

Chetcuti's urge to attack the Catholic Church led him to mistakenly put homosexuals in the same basket as child abusers. This is untrue and unfair. Paedophilia and homosexuality are different from each other.

However, Chetcuti thought he could score easy points by referring to the child abuse cases currently plaguing the German church and trying to closely link these allegations to the Pope. Similar attempts were made by the London Times and The New York Times.

All are factually mistaken. It is simply not true that the Pope, when he was Archbishop of Munich, permitted a known paedophile priest to exercise his pastoral ministry in a parish.

Gays, like heterosexuals, can be saints or sinners. We should look at everyone, first and foremost, as human people, and secondly - if we need to - as people with one kind of sexual orientation or another.

My God. I can honestly say that I have never seen a more blatant or extreme case of cherry picking...wow! How I didn't notice this before I will never know! Unless you can find a rock-solid source, don't change it back or I will report you because I'll say it again: you cherry picked everything! In fact I don't think I can call it cherry picking, when you've only included the part about the book and a few direct quotes to make it look legitimate, completely bypassing the ENTIRE, yes the ENTIRE article! Zackdeg (talk) 00:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to be constructive here but you're presenting a lot of original research and personal judgements. To be clear we are not asking whether Preca was homosexual. Instead we are including material that suggests it has been a point of discussion. And whether the sources used meet criteria around WP:VERIFIABILITY. I have asked for a third opinion to try and find a sensible approach. I suggest we wait for this before making amendments to the article which has remained stable for a long time. Otherwise I think you risk edit-warring. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

First off, you are not being constructive. Someone who's constructive wouldn't keep pushing for something armed with no evidence just to say there might possibly be a Maltese gay saint (again, being gay myself, I would have absolutely no objection to that, but I reiterate YO HAVE NO EVIDENCE). Secondly, yes you are saying he was homosexual by making it sound like Chetcuti's word is Gospel and by completely by-passing the against argument by making it sound almost non-existent (when in actual fact it is the opposite). If you want to look past the mountain of evidence I gave you and keep pushing to have Chetcuti's nonfactual work included in the article, I advise you use something along these lines: In his book "Queer Mediterranean Memories", Joseph Chetcuti insinuated that Saint George Preca might be gay because he kissed the feet of men in public but not those of women and also addressed letters to men with phrases such as "Dear Salvu" but to women addressing them as "Dear Daughters".

Do not try to dismiss my argument as "personal judgement" because apart from being a childish tactic used by those who can't admit when they're wrong, it's (yet again) incorrect. Nowhere do I make the argument or its insinuation personal. And don't try to say that this article has been stable. Numerous users have removed your edit several times (further verifying my quest to have it put to bed once and for all). The only reason you're picking on me is because I won't back down BECAUSE OF ALL THE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zackdeg (talk • contribs) 01:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of all the above, I've decided to show you what constructiveness is by editing the section "Sexual Orientation" to something we both can be happy with. It keeps what you wanted (which I quote to be "To be clear we are not asking whether Preca was homosexual. Instead we are including material that suggests it has been a point of discussion.") by leaving it in, hence making it a point of discussion. While satisfying me by providing more information, a social background and by making it clear that the origin of the argument is currently based on speculation. Note that I haven't altered YOUR source, as I feel like it satisfies both sides.Zackdeg (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't accept your proposed version because it's mostly made up of your own opinions. You haven't provided any sources for the points you are making; and furthermore have gone on about your "aunties" meeting him (as if that demonstrated anything). I also think you're getting a bit carried away. You keep insisting that I am saying that Preca was homosexual. In fact I am saying no such thing - I make no judgment either way. I am simply referencing a book that suggests he was a repressed homosexual - and balanced this with those who disagreed (incidentally with no evidence to refute the actual claim). Your reasoning that "forcing the fact that someone like him was gay, will only serve to rile up idiots and homophobes" is worrying. That's not the way Wikipedia works - you don't stay silent on some things because they might upset someone else.I note that you've now insulted me by calling me "childish". I further note that you have now reverted the article 3 times in less than 24 hours which is effectively edit-warring. You have not waited for a third opinion. I am not going to revert your changes again for the time-being because I do not want to be accused of edit-warring. I have refrained. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

There you go again. You went through all the evidence and arguments I've made and cherry-picked the points that might help you. Literally none of it is my opinion, it's all factual social perspective, and where I said that the section of the book was dismissed, well...check your own source (thanks for proving to me you don't know what the hell you're talking about). The only time I ever mentioned my aunts (which was one time BTW) was when I said that regardless of there being MANY people who vividly remember him, none have corroborated Chetcuti's claims unlike other sections of his book which are backed by testimonials. The only reason I mentioned my aunts was to prove to you how common the occurrence is of finding someone who personally knew him. The fact is that I was right before, you aren't putting in the section simply as a discussion piece, but as a statement. U did this by more or less saying something along the lines of Chetcuti said he was a homosexual, there are some that have said he's wrong because the argument is tenuous at best. Evidence to refute the claim? After explaining his actions and giving you a social reason why e distinguished between men and women, are you seriously going to ask that again? Instead let me ask you, apart from the 2-bit rubbish you're quoting as a source, where's the evidence to back it up?

A quote from myself: "Don't get me wrong, if you can conclusively say that a historic figure is gay, go for it regardless of what idiots might say. But not when you have such a useless reference as your source! And definitely not when you have not idea about the person, or the culture he/she lived in!". I said you were riling up idiots and homophobes for nothing because you have no evidence to back it up. In fact, as the above quote shows, I fully condoned you saying a historical figure was gay, but only if you have a good understanding of the person and the culture he/she lived in as well as evidence. Once again I commend you on your cherry-picking.

Yes I did edit this page a lot, but that's not because of malicious intent, but because I kept noticing things I missed, or coming up with new links I could put in the external reference section (you reverting my edits for no good reason after I disproved your flimsy source not included).

Let me rectify yet some more cherry-picking. No I did not "Insult you" for being childish. I said that you were trying to dismiss my entire argument by saying it was personal judgement, when it was in fact not (as can be read above), which, in my opinion is a childish tactic primarily used by those who can't win an argument based on proof, evidence or an explanation. The full text: "Do not try to dismiss my argument as "personal judgement" because apart from being a childish tactic used by those who can't admit when they're wrong, it's (yet again) incorrect."

Lastly I admit, yes I have gotten carried away, but not for reasons you might think. I'm sick an tired of having someone with no knowledge of Malta, it's people its culture or worst still the person in question, contradicting me, someone with a good knowledge on all mentioned aspects, plus something called proof, evidence, and explanations. As I already told you before, if you feel so strongly about this I invite you phone SDC M.U.S.E.U.M and ask them to confirm all that I wrote.Zackdeg (talk) 02:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The SDC Museum or Society of Christian Doctrine is a religious foundation. Why on earth would I want to ring them up to ask them for their views on this subject? You also assume I know nothing about Malta. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the following words from the text: "Furthermore, when considering the above mentioned so-called criteria for homosexuality in relation to the social climate of the era, one soon realises that the difference between how he treated men and women were most likely the product of stringent conservative values and beliefs, such being that even the slightest of touches made by a man on a woman, would have been considered to be advances of a sexual nature, that is unless said contact was between family members, or necessary (example during a medical intervention, whilst giving a blessing ...etc.). Informal contact between members of the opposite sex was also frowned upon, instead preferring to use titles such as Miss, Misses, Lady...etc." None of this is supported by the cited reference (Times of Malta). Please provide a clear reference to the material before reinserting. Without such a reference then it is WP:OR and fails to meet guidelines. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

You know full well that when I invited you to check the information I gave, with SDC M.U.S.E.U.M, I meant all the historically recorded information regarding Saint George Preca. It's obvious that you nothing about Malta because you asked me to source my description of the social background about the time, something which is common knowledge to everyone who had even remote contact with the islands at the time (and therefore doesn't require a source). However, if you need to check what I wrote, I invite you to read ANY book regarding Malta's history (and I mean ANY book), talk to someone who spent time in Malta in the 19' hundreds or just phone random Maltese numbers and ask them if Malta was super conservative at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zackdeg (talk • contribs) 10:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Just stop Zackdeg. I know plenty about Malta thanks - I've spent time there extensively. You haven't told me anything about history and culture that I didn't already know. So calm down a bit and don't impugn my ability to edit this article. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 03:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

3O Response: The question is whether there is significant coverage in sources for this to be notable and whether it is a defining characteristic of the person to be included in the biography. The "Gay Saints and Sinners" (Times of Malta) source is from the time of the book's publication and I feel that it is more about the book and its author than it is about Preca. The response article "The Church's attitude to gays" is by the author (Chetcuti) himself, and these look more like bloggy letters-to-the-editor. Was Preca's sexual orientation a matter of discussion only surrounding the book, or does it continue to be significant? Someone writes something controversial, another contradicts it, and the matter falls from discussion. Unless the matter caused a real uproar and there was significant discussion, I don't feel that warrants inclusion. I was unable to access the mardigras78ers source (from reverted edit detailed below). Based on the Times of Malta webpages I'd say this was an outlier, and that the information would better belong in an article about Joseph Chetcuti or his book Queer Mediterranean Memories. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

So Reidgreg in much simpler terms, you're saying that the "Sexual Orientation" section shouldn't be included in San Ġorġ Preca's page, but should instead form part of a page dedicated to Joseph Chetcuti and/or his book? Zackdeg (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't move it verbatim, but information from those sources might be used for an article about the book or author, assuming there are other sources to establish the notability of such. There might have to be some discussion about how bloggy they are – were they paid writers in the employ of the Times of Malta, directly representing the publication? Assuming otherwise, I think they could still be used in an appropriate context. And no, from the sources I've seen, I don't feel that it belongs here in any form. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Reidgreg for a helpful opinion. In terms of the questions you pose. Is sexual orientation a defining characteristic of the person to be included in the biography? My answer would be yes - sexual orientation is a significant characteristic and tells us something important about how the individual lived and worked. Your point about the sources - Times of Malta - is true but then it overlooks the fact that they are supporting sources and the main source is (of course) the book by Chetcuti himself. You pose the question was the claim about homosexuality notable? Again the answer is yes because it got coverage in the mainstream media but also saw direct interventions from the Archbishop of Malta and the Government of Malta. The alternative way forward to create an article for Chetcuti and/ or his book I think would be problematic. As I'm not sure he is notable enough as an author to warrant his own article. Contaldo80 (talk) 03:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Sexual orientation IS a defining characteristic in someone's personal life. However no one knows that is was one of Saint George's characteristics and as such, it can't be placed in this article because, as I have proven, the only existing source that states as such, isn't based on any evidence, source or testimonial whatsoever. Apart from the fact that the cherry-picked aspects of Saint George Preca's life that Chetcuti gives as evidence, can't be used as grounds for homosexuality, the only shred of dignity the singular statement has about it, is extinguished once one looks at the social context it's in. On top of that add Chetcuti's bias toward the Catholic church and it's members, and the fact that no one has ever corroborated his speculation in the slightest.

The claim for Saint George's homosexuality is NOT notable because:

(1) In a world of approximately 7 billion people, only one has made such a claim, which (I repeat for the umpteenth time) can't be relied upon because: the ground on which he bases his claim, can't be used as criteria for homosexuality, and even if they could, were normal when one considers the social climate of the era. (2) Being such a beloved person, the issue was discussed at length on different platforms, most notably of which: Xarabank.

"The alternative way forward to create an article for Chetcuti and/ or his book I think would be problematic. As I'm not sure he is notable enough as an author to warrant his own article."

In other words, you want the speculative claim that Saint George Preca was possibly a repressed gay to be on wikipedia so much, that you're willing to fight tooth an nail for it to be included on this article, but you're not willing to write about it on a page dedicated to J.Chetcuti and his book. Why one might wonder? I'll tell you why. Because despite the fact that you've brought this book up so many times as a so-called source, you've never even seen it, let alone read it! Nor do you know enough about J.Chetcuti to author said page, nor can you find another source to corroborate Chetcuti's claims. Why else would you include as your source, an article that disparages the book, if not because you haven't read the book yourself?

I implore you to stop this now because to be quite frank we've gotten to the point where you're own third opinion and I have proven you wrong so many times, that we've ended up going around in circles. However, I must point out that my will to correct mistakes made about Malta and it's people, as well as to fill in blanks where I can, is far stronger than your misguided misapprehension that making historic figures out to be gay, is going to further the LGBTQI+ cause, especially in Malta, where (as I have already stated) we boast the best LGBTQI+ rights in Europe! Zackdeg (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Zackdeg I'm afraid your editing style is very abrasive. You force rushed conclusions without having a proper debate on the issues. You then start to make it personal by implying that non-one but you knows anything about Malta (some of your personal religious also creep in). I think where we are is that there is general concern that the claims that Preca was homosexual are controversial (although we agree they are notable) and that more sources would be needed to include such material in the article in order to improve verifiability. I am grateful again to Reidgreg for offering a third opinion. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Force rush conclusions? Seriously? We've been at this or days now, and while I've given evidence upon evidence upon evidence, you've only managed to do two things: source the same article which goes against you're entire argument, and cherry-pick little pieces of what I write to keep this going. I was not abrasive, I was mealy pointing out the truth, read this entire conversation if you so wish to enlighten yourself to this fact. I see you think you've found a back door to try and undermine my solid argumeny...allow me to shut it for you. While I'm grateful for everything the Catholic church has done for me and my country, I am an atheist. No, where we at isn't that "there is general concern that the claims that Preca was homosexual are controversial (although we agree they are notable)" because a controversy is a situation where a prolonged debate cannot reach a solid conclusion due to lack of evidence, on the contrary to this debate, where you keep sourcing the same sentence which I have conclusively proven to be fake. Furthermore I don't know how you came to the conclusion that I think this is notable, when I said "The claim for Saint George's homosexuality is NOT notable because:(1) In a world of approximately 7 billion people, only one has made such a claim, which (I repeat for the umpteenth time) can't be relied upon because: the ground on which he bases his claim, can't be used as criteria for homosexuality, and even if they could, were normal when one considers the social climate of the era. (2) Being such a beloved person, the issue was discussed at length on different platforms, most notably of which: Xarabank.". I mean seriously, the word 'not' is in capitals (your cherry-picking is getting even shakier than before). You may try to find sources to verify this fact, but I'm confident that anything you find will be derived from Chetcuti's book.

I didn't make it personal, and I sure I didn't give the impression that I am the be all and end all of Maltese knowledge, on the contrary. What I said was this: "I'm sick an tired of having someone with no knowledge of Malta, it's people its culture or worst still the person in question [you], contradicting me, someone with a good knowledge on all mentioned aspects, plus something called proof, evidence, and explanations."

A mountain of sourced and common knowledge evidence on my part, a third opinion (that you yourself sought after), and a lack of evidence on your part with the exception of a few words from a mostly discredited book. Why do you keep pushing for this? Are you going to keep seeking opinions until one of them turns up trumps for you (who, unless your friend or seriously biased, I doubt will turn up)? Zackdeg (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Sadly you've given a lot of opinion but not many facts. You haven't provide any evidence to suggest that Preca was or was not homosexual. You haven't provided any evidence on the wider social context. I have decided to proceed not on the basis of your contribution but on the basis of the third opinion - which suggests that the claim is controversial and the one source (Chetcuti) not sufficient to include this claim in the article. That's the end of the discussion as far as I'm concerned. Contaldo80 (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

One last point:

I dare you to find a crucial part of my argument that wasn't either based on fact, or common knowledge/sense. It's true, I haven't given you any evidence to prove he wasn't gay, but short of seducing him, I can't see how I can do that. What I have done however is prove that the ONLY source you can find is meaningless, and just a shot in the dark. If you want evidence on wider social context, I invite you to talk to ANY Maltese/Gozitan person over the age of 40. If that doesn't appease you, you may also look up ANY article you want that treats any subject in the same era as San George that gives a social background, where I guarantee that my overview of social order at the time will be more than corroborated.

Re: "I have decided to proceed not on the basis of your contribution but on the basis of the third opinion - which suggests that the claim is controversial and the one source (Chetcuti) not sufficient to include this claim in the article." What you have essentially said is: the mountain of evidence I've been giving you was for nothing, because what I originally said (i.e.: one shaky sentence doesn't constitute evidence) was apparently more than enough for you, and all this time, and back-and-fro was just a product of you not wanting to back down and admit you were wrong (i.e.: you were edit-warring). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zackdeg (talk • contribs) 00:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Revised text

In the spirit of compromise I've attempted to re-write the section on sexual orientation to link as closely as possible to supporting sources. It now reads: "The writer Joseph Carmel Chetcuti has described Preca as a misogynist, which suggested a possible repressed (homosexual) orientation.[8][9] The Archbishop of Malta, Paul Cremona challenged the idea, and the Maltese Department of Information issued a press release saying the book "disparaged" Preca.[10] Some arguing for and against the claim of homosexuality suggest the evidence presented is on "tenuous grounds" but is plausible." Please could other editors share their thoughts on this and be very specific about concerns (indicating how these align with Wikipedia guidance). Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit by Contaldo80 on 11/09/2018

A good tidy up was more than necessary. However, I am going to replace the items which you removed due to them being un-sourced. I agree that where necessary, things should be sourced, however common knowledge (which all of this is) shouldn't be. This is why in the previous section I wrote "I'm sick an tired of having someone with no knowledge of Malta, it's people its culture or worst still the person in question [you], contradicting me, someone with a good knowledge on all mentioned aspects.". If you had grown up on Malta, attended lectures at SDC M.U.S.E.U.M, sat in for History, Social Studies and Religion classes in secondary school, or at the very least spent a long time on the island interacting with the locals, you would have known that what was written there was common knowledge.

However, between this article being a disaster in the first place, and you taking a torch to it in retaliation to losing the above argument, I have decided to consult and collect numerous sources, and use them to pen an entirely new page on him (after deleting this one).Zackdeg (talk) 22:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Well good luck with trying that. There isn't such a thing as "common knowledge" - any material added to the article must be reliably sourced or cannot stay. That is consistent with the approach on Wikipedia. So I'd advise you to make sure you adhere to the correct policies. If you also refer one more time to my not having knowledge of Malta then I will lodge a formal complaint with administrators. I do have knowledge but remind you that no-one is required to have specific knowledge of an issue to edit articles. You have been warned.Contaldo80 (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Lead

Zackdeg you removed text that I had revised to restore some of questionable quality in the lead: "He dedicated himself to his flock, and religious education. His activism earned him praise and in 1952, Pope Pius XII bestowed upon him the title and rank of Monsignor. Despite the honour and prestige that such a title would have earned him with the Maltese at the time, this honour greatly saddened Dun George. In fact, not only did he never wear the vestments of a Monsignor, but he left the very document that conferred upon him said title, on the desk of then Archbishop of Malta, Mikiel Gonzi. He was a popular figure on the island and spent hours in the confessional to be closer with his people. He had assumed the religious name of "Franco" after becoming a Secular Carmelite." Firstly "dedicating himself to his flock" is a religious term - I have suggested pastoral duties as a more neutral term. You then added something about him being "saddened" by an honour - without a source. Then that he was a "popular figure" (subjective) and spend time in his confessional to be "closer to people". Can we keep to sourced facts please and avoid the drift into romanticized hagiography. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I note you've just restored your previous version without engaging on the talk-page. If you're just going to edit war without trying to collaborate on solutions then I will go down the path of seeking dispute resolution. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Please put your glasses on, because straight after the end of my edit (i.e.: Mikiel Gonzi) you will find a reference, marked [2], which will redirect you to this article: http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2007-06-04/news/the-first-maltese-saint-dun-gorg-preca-a-biography-174428/. However, if this doesn't appease the apparent lord almighty of all things wikipedia, I invite you to also take a look at this article: https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20150809/life-features/translating-the-holy-bible-into-maltese-a-century-of-bigotry-and.579996 where you will find a picture of the original decree by pope Pius XII conferring upon Saint George the title and status of Monsignor, and underneath it a caption by the same newspaper supporting my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zackdeg (talk • contribs) 23:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The source doesn't say "saddened". This risks editorializing. I've fixed the lead to link clearly with the source and the left the bulk of the material to the main article (as lead is meant to summarise). Please let me know if you have outstanding concerns and we can see if we can resolve. Separately your statement "doesn't appease the apparent lord almighty of all things Wikipedia" is personal abuse and fails civility rules. I intend to make a formal complaint specifically about this point. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Thanks Manannan for trying to fix some of the references in this. But I still wonder whether a Vatican website can be seen as a reliable independent source to verify some of these statements - it looks very hagiographical to me. I retain concerns around NPOV. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm late responding to this because I only just happened to come across it. The citation to the Vatican News Service's Biography of Preca was used to establish information already present but tagged for a citation: (1) the date and location of baptism; (2) what he did/did not do immediately after ordination; (3) that he finally decided to become a waterfront catechist, and (4) his belief that he had some sort of "spiritual experience". I'm not sure why the details of his christening should seem so contentious as to require a reference, nor do I expect that information would ordinarily be found in a secular source, which would hardly consider it worth mentioning. That's the general problem of trying to substantiate apparently minor details. I don't see anything particularly hagiographic. Mannanan51 (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I still have concerns that it is a reliable source. I think we're facts are relatively no contentious like date of baptism then it's probably ok. Where there are more contentious statements that relate to religious experience and miracles then I'd be more concerned. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Dun Gorg Preca.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)