| Revision as of 20:24, 29 February 2020 edit68.132.126.95 (talk) →Seraphim Rose: where was the discussion?← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:45, 29 February 2020 edit undoC.Fred (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators278,368 edits →Seraphim Rose: where was the discussion?: 3RR violationNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| If you insist on removing the portion questioning the spurious and irrelevant claims regarding alleged sexual behavior, a compromise which has stood for five years, then the entire section alleging past homosexuality (which is sourced exclusively from an "expose" written by a notorious tabloid author) should be removed, for the reasons stated in talk. | If you insist on removing the portion questioning the spurious and irrelevant claims regarding alleged sexual behavior, a compromise which has stood for five years, then the entire section alleging past homosexuality (which is sourced exclusively from an "expose" written by a notorious tabloid author) should be removed, for the reasons stated in talk. | ||
| *Also, be advised that you have violated the ] yourself in the article. I strongly suggest you self-revert. —''']''' (]) 21:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:45, 29 February 2020
Seraphim Rose: where was the discussion?
Which section of Talk:Seraphim Rose demonstrates where consensus was reached for your edits? —C.Fred (talk) 19:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
It appears in "Matters up for discussion". In actuality the entire section regarding alleged homosexuality should be scrapped as it constitutes unverified scuttlebut which appears nowhere in the acknowledged major biography of his life, besides bearing no relevance whatsoever to the subject matter, since Fr. Seraphim Rose did not identify as homosexual and the basis for his inclusion in Misplaced Pages has nothing whatsoever to do with anything relating to homosexuality. While a final agreement could not be reached in talk a tentative compromise was struck wherein the claim would appear but would be tempered by the inclusion a short countervailing statement. But to be clear, and for the reasons enumerated above, I favor the removal of these spurious, novel, and unsubstantiated allegations in their entirety.
If you insist on removing the portion questioning the spurious and irrelevant claims regarding alleged sexual behavior, a compromise which has stood for five years, then the entire section alleging past homosexuality (which is sourced exclusively from an "expose" written by a notorious tabloid author) should be removed, for the reasons stated in talk.
- Also, be advised that you have violated the three revert rule yourself in the article. I strongly suggest you self-revert. —C.Fred (talk) 21:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)