Talk:George Preca

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Twin article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Replaced 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Second Apostle of Malta

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sexual Orientation 

message: 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)
thread_title: Revised text

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Edit by [[User:Contaldo80|Contaldo80]] on 11/09/2018

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  References 

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 . —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion