Talk:Salesians of Don Bosco

message: The ocurrences of sex abuses is not a controversy in the order. 
In fact, the order by itself has nothing to do with that. 
I agree the title is not accurate.WikiDCM 13:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversial obsession

message: If you are a supporter of Don Bosco, take a look at this page.
*St John Bosco and LGBT edits evrik 04:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please look at this page

message: I suppose there should be the logo of salesians shown in the article - but I'm not sure about the copyrights - though I suppose it even should be shared. Anyway, I don't also have time to put it here now, so I'm simply writing here and linking:
* the logo: http://www.salesians.org/slm/images/logo-sdb.jpg
* an article: http://www.salesians.org/slm/sdb02.htm
Why is such a significant portion of this article written about the logo?  It seems inconsequential in an encyclopedic context compared to the mission of the organization, its history, its members, etc. (unless the organizations mission was, in fact, to produce logos).  Perhaps I'm missing it, but I feel as if almost that entire section could be reduced to two or three sentences.  Thoughts? Pylon (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo 

message: I think that if any more potentially POV paragraphs are added, they should be first vetted here. --evrik (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The paragraph is short and to the point, and backed up by facts. No reason to delete. Please assume good faith. Bakersville 21:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: *I was asked to weigh in on this argument by evrik. I'd like to note that I only edited this article once to add proper spacing and that I don't know much about the order and am not Christian. I think the sexual abuse paragraph does have a place in the article, however, it DOES NOT have a place at the moment. Just because something is sourced doesn't make it not be in violation of WP:NPOV and that paragraph is in violation of WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. After the article is further expanded about more important things in the order's history (and a few sexual abuse cases aren't that notable in 100 years of history), a sentence or two can be added to some other part about the sexual abuse but probably not a section. We should be working to expand the article regarding the major issues and then once it's big enough, adding the sexual abuse cases will stop being NPOV due to undue weight. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 15:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I respectfully disagree, Yonatan. That section is only two sentences long, in an article of over 20kb. I really don't see how that constitutes undue weight. Further, there are seven references which support those two sentences. Try as I might, I cannot see how this violates any aspect of WP:NPOV. Jeffpw 15:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, though I don't know if I'd be the best person to weigh in this as I'm an almnus of Don Bosco Technical College in the Philippines, I side with Yonatan, that the sexual abuse paragraph DOES NOT have a place in the article. We are talking about the Organization itself. I would have the paragraph included, IF there was a concerted effort by the worldwide Salesian organization to cover-up for it, or perhaps the Rector-Major (the head of the Salesian worldwide organization) is the one involved in such an issue, these cases would merit such an issue to be told about the organization. Perhaps if articles about its provincial units are written then it can be told therein. —Scorpion prinz 16:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breaking off 

message: Once facts are set is up to the reader to make his/her own mind. The cases quoted in most cases are not alleged cases of sexual abuse. The order itself has admitted fault. Also, I think that the practice of massively mailing like minded editors to come to the rescue to cabal on an article is inappropriate (imho). Bakersville 20:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Not again 

message: :Image:NewSDB.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:NewSDB.gif

message: :Image:OldSDB.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:OldSDB.gif

message: It's been a few months, but the last discussion seemed to come to the consensus that the material should be included, although perhaps not in a separate section.  That seems like an appropriate compromise (in interest of full disclosure, I actually think the material shouldn't be included at all given scope of entire article).  Given the varying positions, this seems a reasonable approach, since it at least addresses recentism and undue weight concerns.  --Anietor (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abuse material 

message: At this edit an anonIP deleted what seem to be legitimate refs: 
*"House of the Accused. When priests within the Salesian order based in San Francisco were accused of sex abuse, the leaders chose to keep quiet" SF Weekly 4 January 2006
*"Vatican sued in sex abuse cases" BBC News
*Ron Russell "Troubled Order" SF Weekly 4 October 2006
*"Abuse. International investigation implicates Salesians/Australia" Catholic News
*"Runaway Priests" Dallas News 2004
Other refs to explore include:
*Kit R. Roane. "The long arm of abuse ; Problem priests cross not just states but oceans as well" U.S. News & World Report. Washington: May 6, 2002. Vol. 132, Iss. 15; pg. 26 
*" Abuse was common in religious orders" San Jose Mercury News 1 April 2008
*Jeremy Herb and Rob Dennis " Abuse was common in religious orders"  The Denver Post 1 April 2008 
*"Salesians fighting civil suit" Los Angeles Times 9 May 2008
*"Dutch priests accused of child abuse" DutchNews.nl 26 February 2010
*Robert Chesal "Dutch Catholic Church faces child sex abuse scandal" Radio Netherlands Worldwide 26 February 2010
There is clearly an ample fonds of reliably-sourced material on this topic that deserves discussion in the article. LeadSongDog come howl 16:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs 

message: I think they should be removed. I intend on removing them. Does anyone oppose? Moray An Par (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links in the tables 

message: Content added by  has been removed from this article for copyright reasons. In spite of warning, the individual using this IP has persisted in copying content from copyrighted sources without compatible licensing to Wikipedia. Please do not restore any removed text without first ensuring that the text does not duplicate, closely paraphrase or plagiarize from a previously published source, whether the one cited or another (issues have been detected from other sources than those named). Based on the editing pattern of this person, we cannot make the assumption that the content is usable. You are welcome to use sourced facts that may have been removed to create new content in your own words or to incorporate brief quotations of copyrighted material in accordance with the non-free content policy and guideline. See Wikipedia:Copy-paste and Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/67.184.212.160. Thank you. --💵Money💵emoji💵💸 02:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright cleanup

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion