Talk:Seraphim Rose

Archives (Index)

1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Consensus seeking on the inclusion of sexuality material

Below, I encourage editors to vote in a consensus-seeking survey on the topic of Seraphim Rose's sexuality and its inclusion on this page. An editor has repeatedly removed this material on the basis that it is sourced from a "spurious" document. However, other editors contend its inclusion is merited by the adoption of this material by reliable sources. For this survey, I encourage editors such as myself that have previously stated their rationale for inclusion or exclusion to refrain from including it below, as we have discussed this at length. New members of this conversation, however, are encouraged to include brief explanations of their reasoning (though these guidelines are neither absolute nor binding). Please vote Yes for inclusion of material or No for exclusion. Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
• No There are no reliable sources for this information which are not suspect, but only a single source which derives from a tabloid journalist who specializes in sensationalism and celebrity noir. In any case, the content in question lacks topical relevancy and is clearly novel and salacious in the context of the recognized body of work on the subject. The Seraphim Rose who is the subject of this Wikipedia entry never identified as LGBT, nor does his life and work bear any connection to LGBT issues or the LGBT movement. It is therefore inappropriate to include these disputed, novel claims (which, again, are totally absent in every other recognized authoritative book or article on Seraphim Rose, including the major work on his life: "Fr. Seraphim Rose: His Life and Teachings", by Damascene Christensen) in what purports to be an encyclopedic reference article intended to convey only the most relevant, supported, neutral, well attested facts about its subject. Classical library (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
• Yes There is no reason to exclude this important aspect of his life. See this source for info. M.Bitton (talk) 02:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
• Yes as this is an important part of his life. --StellarNerd (talk) 04:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, as this is an important part of the subject's life, and the additions in question do not violate WP:BLP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximilian775 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
• No, I did not find adequate and reliable sources for the subject's sexuality. This source above mentioned does not actually state that the person was homosexual.Qaumrambista (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Actually, it does (first by saying that most orthodox writer acknowledge that he struggled with homosexual tendencies and then adding that he acknowledged that he was homosexual in a letter to a close friend), but that's not what the survey is about (the inclusion of his sexuality, whatever it is). M.Bitton (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
    • @M.Bitton: that is different from saying "he was homosexual". I did read the page 56. The author is making a claim, which we must strictly see as his/her view on the subject. We cannot be sure about the authenticity of the claim since Father Rose never disclosed his sexual orientation.Qaumrambista (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
      • @Qaumrambista: We go by what the RS say, our own beliefs are irrelevant. Try reading the next two pages (57 and 58). M.Bitton (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
        • @M.Bitton: I did not raise a question of reliability here. Authors' beliefs and opinions must treated as their own, and not as established facts. (Attribution must be provided) Qaumrambista (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
          • Read what I said above, starting with that's not what the survey is about .. and please, don't ping me again. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, using the book source, with proper WP:INTEXT attribution (the book says that other works don't address the topic, so attribution seems necessary to me). --Pokechu22 (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Discussion

• Sarah Riccardi-Swartz is a notorious critic of Russian Orthodoxy, infamous for having infiltrated a conservative ROCOR parish in America and dissembled herself as a sincere parishioner to surreptitiously gather unguarded information to facilitate a published hit piece. She and the cadre of Fordham University mandarins who underwrite and enthusiastically flog her work are well known for harboring a strong animus toward both the traditional Orthodox teachings and practices professed by Seraphim Rose and those in the Orthodox Churches who hold him in high esteem. All of which is to say that this person is blatantly biased, and not to be regarded as a credible source of information useful to resolve this controversy. Classical library (talk) 03:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
• I'm planning to let this survey go for another 96 hours (so closing sometime late Thursday afternoon in the U.S.). I'll take responsibility for implementing the consensus when the time comes. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
• A few random users voting in the span of 96 ours does not constitute a meaningful consensus by any stretch. I move to revert to the version of the article which appeared prior to user Pbritti's recent gratuitous addition, which reflects a long-standing previous revision, pursuant to WP:STATUSQUO Classical library (talk) 04:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

  This message was left by a user now blocked. See here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• I suggest a WP:SNOW close. M.Bitton (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

  @M.Bitton: Since one other editor has expressed opposition to inclusion, I want to keep it open for another day at least, just for the sake of ensuring any consensus achieved sticks more permanently. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Pbritti: Sure thing (I left the above comment before their opposition). M.Bitton (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• I hope that, if the material is restored, the restorer will replace the awkward phrase "grew disinterested with" with the clearer "lost interest in". --JBL (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

  @JayBeeEll: Noted and agreed, as that’s a clearer phrasing that does not effect content. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Procedural point of order

So, you have "discussions" on consensus that only last 24 hours? That isn't a very convincing process. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: This discussion was broadcast to multiple forums for discussion, with numerous admins participating in discussion surrounding the WP:SPA nature of the only editor who sought total exclusion of this material. The only other voter to vote in the negative ultimately had a disagreement about how attribution should work, rather than whether it should be included. I would encourage you review the various discussions that have occurred previously. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I have no opinions on the substance of this topic, but I agree with Liz that procedurally, this is not a proper consensus. The editor who opened the discussion closed it themselves just 24 hours later claiming WP:SNOW. I've removed the hidden text in the article as inappropriately claiming a consensus where there is none. If you want to get a real consensus, I think you're going to have to open the discussion again. agtx 04:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Agtx and Liz: While I'm certain your intentions are right, I am deeply disappointed in this drive-by challenge to consensus. For over 7 years, this topic has been discussed on this talk page (check the archives) and the sole dissenting party up until this survey was an editor who has since been blocked for their behavior on this talk page and on the pages of those they disagreed with. The most recent discussion was posted to various relevant WikiProjects while it was still open and received input from multiple admins. There was one other editor who voted No in all of this—an editor apparently confused about what the discussion was and ultimately having a disagreement about how the material would appear, not if it should. If you think a "real consensus" is not at least 8 editors explicitly stating their desire for the inclusion of material over more than half a decade in the face of one since-banned SPA editor, I'm not sure a "real consensus" can exist. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti: If you're so confident in the consensus, why not let the discussion run for a week? I don't understand the rush to close it. I'll add that my review of the archives suggests that the discussion has been sporadic -- at best. The last serious discussion appears to have been in March 2020 (early March, right before most of us got distracted with ... other matters). Before that, it was March 2015. All I'm saying is that this is a bad look and procedurally defective. agtx 14:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Agtx: I encourage you to consider that WP:SNOW is precisely for instances like this: when discussion has occurred and an overwhelming number of individuals have voiced their consideration in support or opposition of a decision. Your review of the archives should have also yielded that the only instances of opposition came from the same SPA editor. This has been discussed at least three times, each time with all but one now-banned editor objecting (which, for as niche a page of this, is really not "sporadic"). Not every instance of Wikipedia discussion has to be a drawn-out bureaucratic deliberation; the banned editor involved on this page abused such processes to bully others from implementing a consensus and then, once the others were disinterested in taking the continued crassness, deleted the material. If you want to reopen discussion for the sake of appearances, then reopen discussion. But it won't be the look you think it is. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti: I've reopened the discussion. Note this from WP:SNOW:

Especially, closers should beware of interpreting "early pile on" as necessarily showing how a discussion will end up. This can sometimes happen when a topic attracts high levels of attention from those engaged (or having a specific view) but slower attention from other less involved editors, perhaps with other points of view. It can sometimes be better to allow a few extra days even if current discussion seems very clearly to hold one opinion, to be sure that it really will be a snowball and as a courtesy to be sure that no significant input will be excluded if closed very soon.

The very best way to shut down a socking/spa editor like that is to get a real consensus after a discussion that lasts a reasonable amount of time. If the results don't change from what you had before, that's fine by me. But you have to understand that people aren't looking at Wikipedia every day, and a discussion that lasts a day and then gets arbitrarily cut off doesn't appear fair. Your rationale for the early close doesn't make a lot of sense. We have other processes to solve socking, and since the banned editor is now banned, they shouldn't pose a problem to future discussion. WP:WHENCLOSE suggests that a week is appropriate before closing most discussions, if a close is even necessary. agtx 16:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Agtx: "Early pile on" hardly applies when discussion was carried out extensively multiple times–hence the close. If you think that the consensus is based exclusively on this lateral survey, you're missing the years of prior discussion that afforded editors years to litigate this topic. I would encourage you to reflect on what is more "arbitrary": an editor entering a discussion and asserting it was insufficient and demanding its reopening (without any suggestion there are parties desiring to actually oppose the established position), or multiple majorities asserting that reliably-sourced content should be included on the Wiki? ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Agtx: On a separate note, thanks for handling that vandalism from that IP. Sorry for their abject rudeness. Geez. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti: Always glad to help with vandalism. As far as everything else, I would encourage you to reevaluate what appears to be some resistance to folks other than "the usuals" weighing in. Here, two separate editors raised an issue with your close, and that should give you pause, especially when one of them is Liz (not to say that Liz's viewpoint is inherently more worthy than anyone else's, just that she is someone who very much knows what she's doing on this site).

In any event, the procedural problem is solved. The discussion is reopened. My suggestion would be not to formally close it for at least a couple weeks, if at all (and to consider whether someone uninvolved should do it). But if the discussion comes to a natural end looking anything like it does now, you're not going to need someone to tell you what the consensus is. agtx 17:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Agtx: Thanks again on the vandalism front–that seems to be an issue on this page so if you don't already have it on your watchlist, would you mind adding it? I'd measure what you level against me with regards to new editors. While I strongly disagree with both you and Liz on this "procedural" note (especially when it seems like an initial assessment was made without consideration for the prior discussions), I appreciate your general cordiality (sans that one peculiar call for reevaluation). Let me know if you ever need help or you have more questions about the matters involved in this discussion. I deleted rather than archived some of the debate from Classical library on my talk page (some of them were outright mean, and I don't much want to revisit them), so if you want more context to formulate a position on the sources I can send you the diffs that are pertinent just shoot me a ping here, there, or elsewhere! ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti: Yup, already watching, and glad to keep doing so. My comments were not intended to be anything other than cordial, including that last. As far as the substance of the debate, this is so far out of my knowledge area that I'm not likely to have an opinion of my own (although I understand the contours of the debate as it has been discussed here + in archives). As long as the folks who know the subject come to a consensus, I'm happy. agtx 18:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Agtx: Both opposing parties in this discussion have now been blocked (Qaumrambista for sockpuppetry). While that does not necessarily get to the merits of this discussion, it has been two weeks since this discussion was reopened with no additional comment. I'm going to post on a couple more of the major Christianity discussion pages to see if we can draw out more participants, but I think a close should be considered at the end of the month. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Pbritti rv for no reason

Youre obnoxious and disruptive 2A01:C23:91E7:BE00:38E8:566D:9E8:C6CD (talk) 10:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPA. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Recent changes

@Akhshartag: I'm under the impression you're the same editor as made the above comment as an IP, so I'm filing this under the section I think you created (if not, feel free to delete one equal sign on either side of the subsection title and promote this to an independent section). You've made a few unexplained changes and added several pieces of unreferenced content. It would be appreciated if you could explain those changes and provide relevant sourcing (or explain where material can be found in present sourcing). If not, I'll restore the version before your changes. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Akhshartag: Pinging again. Will undo if no response for another 24 hours as multiple notices on multiple pages have been provided. ~ Pbritti (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

All information is in the sources, no explanation required, i literally just changed the formatting Akhshartag (talk) 12:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Akhshartag: Per WP:ONUS, no explanation required is an insufficient explanation. Your changes are very much not just changes to formatting. Among the additions you made was the phrase "many Eastern Orthodox Christians hold him in high esteem, venerating him in iconography, liturgy and prayer." You reference this claim to this article, which does not support the claim that he is venerated in iconography or liturgy. You also added "the New yorker", which is a failure to capitalize, italicize, and render an accurate link. You have made numerous other additions that are unreferenced in the changes. Again, these changes will be undone unless you can verify and justify the changes. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

With no explanation forthcoming, reverting. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)