Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John F. Harvey

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Notability seems to have been established. The original author of the article at one time retracted his deletion request, under the condition that his version be kept, but it has been pointed out that that is contrary to WP:OWN. It shows that the G7 request was not made "in good faith" as the guideline requires, but was done to get the upper hand in an edit war. Please take the content dispute to the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John F. Harvey

John F. Harvey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Courtesy nomination on behalf of User:Hoestermann, who has attempted to have the page speedy deleted. The text of his request follows:

The "editors", particularly User:Roscelese, have changed the text to such an extent that it appears that certain ideological positions have been imposed on the original content. I am not a specific admirer of the subject, but I am well versed enough in Catholic theology, and the temperament of Fr. Harvey, to know that neither the Church, the memory of Fr. Harvey, nor the public at large, would be served by the words, expressions, and terms contained in the "edited" content. I am the sole author. By Wikipedia rules, i have the right to have the page deleted. Thank you. Hoestermann 22:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At this time, I do not express an opinion on whether to keep or delete the article; my nomination is procedural to open up a discussion on whether the article merits retention, as Hoestermann feels it does not. —C.Fred (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • I am the only author. Others were merely "editors". None contributed additional or relevant material. They slashed a whole lot, more than 75% of the original content, then changed a few words here and there. No other person contributed original content. Review edit history and this assertion will be proven. Per criteria for speedy deletion, as the sole author, I have the right to request speedy deletion, see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion —User:Hoestermann (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

• Procedural note User:Hoestermann is, as far as I can tell, indeed the "only or substantially the only" author, and should he desire to do so, no AfD is needed, he may simply affix {{Db-g7}} to the page.

I think this would be a shame since the subject appears to be notable, and the article has taken considerable effort. Disagreements over content could be resolved at the talk page, and a sensible solution found. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

• • Just to summarize on certain objectionable edits on original article.

1. Roscelese keeps reverting to LGBT language. The Catholic Church admits to no identity politics. Neither did Fr. Harvey. The Catholic Church uses the terms "homosexual" and "same-sex attraction." Of the two, Courage International prefers the latter. The principle behind this? That the person is not solely defined by his sexuality, but that he is a complex, independent creature made in the image and likeness of God, and deserving of care and affection just as all men and women are. (Before you get into a conniption on my usage of "he" and "his", remember that customary English orthography uses the masculine pronoun as the equivalent of the neuter.)
2. There is no rule prohibiting the inclusion of journal articles in a Wikipedia page on a person. Roscelese keeps deleting the list of journal and scholarly articles written by Fr. Harvey. Why? Perhaps her comments about the "notability" of the subject reveals a certain prejudice. It's as if she wishes to obliterate the memory of Fr. Harvey, and his work on the moral theology of same-sex attraction. Is she the authority on the Catholic Church's pastoral work on people of same-sex attraction? If not, why does she presume to question the work of Fr. Harvey and of Courage International? Why does she wish the public not to know of the vast writing of Fr. Harvey on the subject? Hoestermann 23:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• The article that Hoestermann wants to write doesn't seem to be compatible with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and I agree with him and Rich that there's nothing preventing the use of G7 here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • Of course you would. What better than not to be "triggered" by topics with which one is not in agreement? See Jean-Pierre Faye's Langages Totalitaires.[2] Reminds me of Kristallnacht and the Taliban eviscerating the Buddhist shrines. Despite sanctimonious encomiums on "netruality" one wonders if certain personal prejudices have not indeed crept into the wholesale deletions. There is a vast difference between quoting a work by a subject and opinions of a writer on the subject. If one were to review the original page, it would be apparent that the writer made no personal opinions. He merely quoted third-party, secondary sources, and words of the subject gathered from his books, articles and interviews. The original text was no more objectionable than those contained in:

1. Catholic Church on Marriage
2. Catholic Teachings on Sexual Morality
3. Catholic Theology of the Body
4. Courage International
5. Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism
6. Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination
7. On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons
8. Theology of the Body of John Paul II Hoestermann 04:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• • The deletions on the John F. Harvey page made by Roscelese were made without regard to this distinction between quoting a work by a subject and the opinions of a writer on the subject. Hence, a commentary on personal prejudices is apt, here in the "talk" space. I would prefer to have the page on Fr. Harvey remain on Wikipedia, but without the noted prejudices imposed, and without the legerdemain with which it was treated by Roscelese. A review of the revision history will reveal that no suggestions to changes were made by Roscelese. Hoestermann 06:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• REDIRECT to Courage International, I guess. Although it is kind of a shame we can not find some sort-of compromise between LGBT-approved and Catholic-approved language here. Maybe an acknowledgment he preferred "same-sex attracted" and others, or critics even, prefer a different terminology. (Some chaste LGBT Catholics do use the terms "lesbian" or "gay" as I'm pretty sure Eve Tushnet does. Others feel that language is too culturally specific or defining by sexuality. Interestingly I read an article on, dang I can't remember now I thought maybe Slate, of some actively gay men not wanting to use the word "gay" because they feel it has cultural or definitional connotations they don't relate to. Terminology is often a matter of debate among many groups and thus a headache here. Like what do you do with people who self-identified as a midget?) The topic of same-sex-attracted or LGBT chaste Catholics has grown a bit, I think the Washington Post had a profile on it, so again a bit of a shame if we can't find a way to speak of it without offending either side.--T. Anthony (talk) 08:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to T. Anthony. Thank you for your comments. I'm afraid there is no compromise to be had. Please note the following text which was deleted by Roscelese: [Fr. Harvey asserted] the teaching of the Church that same-sex acts are "intrinsically evil," that same-sex inclination was an "objective disorder," and that "these truths are a fundamental part of the Church's doctrine." If these theologically technical terms seem "pastorally insensitive" . . . they are indeed not, "if they are clearly explained." He adds, "documents from Roman Congregations must use exact language dealing with the issue at hand to the persons for whom they are meant." ^[1] (Most of the foregoing terms are from the Catechism of the Catholic Church and they are liberally quoted in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Roman_Catholicism#Overview_in_the_Catechism_of_the_Catholic_Church). I might add that nowhere in Catholic teachings does the Church condemn persons with same-sex attraction. In fact, as in all situations, the Church says hate the sin, but love the sinner. Hoestermann 11:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as a G7. Whilst I think they might be notable, a G7 deletion is valid here IMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • RETRACTING DELETION REQUEST— If there are no more edits arising out of personal prejudices, I am happy more or less with the version as at 11:50, July 6, 2015‎. Please comment. Hoestermann 11:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
    • There's no such thing as "keep as long as no one edits in a way I don't like". You keep adding poor sources, personal commentary and inappropriate language. People are going to remove it because it's not policy-compliant. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Roscelese's comments. No proof given for the above accusations re: "keep adding poor sources, personal commentary and inappropriate language". By "people", a neutral observer can only take it to mean Roscelese. Because no one, but she, has taken an exception the likes of which she has demonstrated by her wholesale deletions. Besides, how, precisely, are the following innocuous phrases describable as having no merit, are tendentious or objectionable?:

1. "Throughout the years, Fr. Harvey regularly traveled to New York City to meet the Courage group there on Saturdays."
2. "Fr. Harvey lived at the Wills Hall student residence, with his fellow Oblate priest, Fr. Peter Leonard, O.S.F.S., where they ministered to the pastoral, spiritual and intellectual needs of the students there." (Scroll down in the John F. Harvey revision history. You will see that Roscelese thought that as he lived at the student residence hall, she dismissed him as an "undergraduate". Do the math. Fr. Harvey lived at Wills Hall between the ages of 72 and 92 years. I don't know where she went to college, but where I did, we had RA's. At Catholic universities, they did better — they post priests; the better to guard the moral virtues of students.)
3. "Fr. Harvey had already been teaching moral theology for 30 years, while also providing spiritual guidance to seminarians and priests struggling with same-sex attraction when, in November 1978 . . ."
4. "Fr. Harvey was a moral theologian by training and was a student of the teachings of the Church, especially as reflected in the works of Saint Francis de Sales and Saint Thomas Aquinas. He wrote more than a dozen books and scores of scholarly articles."
5. "Christoper Damian states that book Homosexuality and the Catholic Church do not present a comprehensive picture of the Church’s understanding of, and approach to, same sex attraction, for it fails to give due consideration for the statement in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that "the psychological genesis remains largely unexplained."

They are factual and are from independent, verifiable sources, which are properly cited and referenced. Please see the most recent John F. Harvey revision history and my "edit summary" explanations. Please also see Talk:John_F._Harvey. I dare say someone has come unhinged. I am waiting for Roscelese to substantiate her accusations. Hoestermann 13:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment AfD is not a place to extend an edit war. Where material is not suitable for inclusion in an article, it is important to explain by example, especially to newer editors, what the reasons are. Conversely there is no value in attacking other editors, established or not, avoid phrases like "do the math" and "someone has come unhinged". As for the language, you both need copious helpings of good faith here, to establish whether these are terms of art, or dated phraseology, and what explanation should be given if they are used. It really needs to be taken one step at a time, on the article talk page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  

  Use of "Dated" phrasing is often the only way to fairly present scholarship from the past, the porpler approach is to put old-fashioned therms of art in quotations, rephrasing using contemporary terms obscures the nature of arguments form other eras. We may not approve, but the job of encyclopedia writers is to illuminate, not to recast and distort older meanings amnd arguments form another era, as Rosecaleese has attempted to do here..E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am no expert on gender politics, however, since the article claims that "The Homosexual Person: New Thinking in Pastoral Care" is a notable work by Harvey, I ran a couple of searches on it and it is obvious that this was a serious work in its era and that it was discussed in a serious way by supporters and critics both. [[User:Roscelese] appears to have political issues with the work (in fact, most of us would with a work of this sort - Harvey's is hardly a popular stand) but editors ought not to politicize AFD. Roscaleese should also be reprimanded, perhaps topic banned, for POV editing of this article, but that is not an issue for AFD. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- As President of a Seminary for 12 years, I would have thought he was notable. POV editing is a form of vandalism. The culprit should be warned and his/her activities restricted or the article should be edit-protected. If there are RS for the POV, that can be dealt with in a separate section. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.