Talk:The Singing Nun

Untitled comments

who many suspect may have been her lover too

Please provide support for this claim. The article is not encyclopedic without some backup. --Ed Poor

Actually, Ed, I don't see what the problem is. It does not state that they were lovers. It says "many" followed by "suspect" followed by "may have been." Yes, there were people who suspected it. They were living together, and they both committed suicide in strange circumstances. Were they? I am not prepared to make that claim, but any research on the topic will bring up that possible claim. Danny

I think this is unsubstantiated although probably considered correct. An oft-cited reason for their suicide was the financial failure of the home for autistic children which she founded. user:sjc

Hi. They were lovers, actually it is not a secret. They suicided together and rest into the same grave. But a question : what is this story about a children school ? I actualy never heard about that - I didn't read the book about "soeur sourire"... (84.4.4.232 Jean-no, from the french wiki)

It doesn't matter!

Why do you care about who she loved?

At least she loved

The One and Only Worldwise Dave Shaver 09:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Jesus and John Lennon

What is the reference to agreeing "with what John Lennon said about Jesus in 1966" ? What did he say? TEF

John Lennon said "The Beatles were more popular than Jesus" (Which may or may not of been used out of context by a reporter). This caused a great controversy and many riots, boycotts, and protests against The Beatles especially by Conservative Christians in the Southern United States. Many radio stations banned their music and Churches held burning their records and merchandise. John, somewhat ashamed of what he said, apologized a little while after. The Beatles also stopped giving public preformences, partly in fear of their safety.--Hailey 13:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Reference to the lover

The Curse of the Christmas Single, from the Guardian - David Gerard 12:03, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it means to be "lesbian" but shouldn't the subject use the word to identify themselves? This article [1] says she admits "love and attraction" for her longtime companion, but was "unable to face her own (sexuality)". If you don't admit it I can't see how you could be labeled as one. I've said my peace.Tstrobaugh 12:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What you said was a piece. A piece of what? Indeed. Peace.

I agree there's no need to label her as "lesbian", even if she was. But she was clearly "in love" with the woman she lived with, she killed herself with, she was burried with. Therefore, I don't see any reason not calling her and Annie Pécher "lovers".

Incidently, I know they worked in a school for autistic children, but never heard she founded that school. ??

Confirmed: her companion was Annie Pecher (no accent, at least on the tomb) [2].

I'm guessing the exchange rate was roughly 45 BEF to 1 dollar back in 1985, which would mean that $65.000 was 2.340.000 BEF and $300.000 13.500.000 BEF.

The article also calls Annie Pécher a "childhood friend." The 2009 film presents them that way, but that may be a fictionalization. Other biographical sources online indicate they met as adults. Annie Pécher was several years younger; a childhood friendship seems unlikely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.83.186 (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Obviously wrong information

I just deleted the following: "In a great irony, the very day of her suicide and unknown to her, the Belgian association that collects royalties for songwriters (SABAM) awarded her approximately $300,000 (571,658 Belgian francs) -- more than enough to pay off her $65,000 debt (99,000 Belgian francs) and provide for her. "

Reasons: before the euro became the currency of Belgium, 1 USD was roughly 30 to 40 belgian francs. So $65,000 is between 2 and 2.5 million belgian francs. If she indeed received 570,000 francs royalties (I found one source citing the figure, barely enough), this equals to maximum $19,000. So even if she indeed would have received $19,000, this would not have repaid her tax debt. Asavaa (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

JFK assassination?

Many radio stations in the U.S. played "Dominique" and other softer hits more often in the wake of the John F. Kennedy assassination.

Huh?? What possible connection did this song have to the JFK assassination? It was a worldwide hit, not because of anything to do with JFK, but because of its (dubious) musical merits; that means that radio stations were going to play it anyway. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Amen! They had nothing to do with each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.173.4.86 (talk) 03:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, maybe "Dominique" WAS "played more often after Kennedy's assassination." In the mind of the public, he was strongly associated with the Catholic religion. After his death, playing a religious song which was written and sung by a Catholic nun would have been considered a tribute to him. But this didn't make "Dominique" a hit. It already was one." Younggoldchip (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Question

"Lacking any receipts to prove her donations to the convent and her religious order, Deckers ran into heavy financial problems".

You don't tell what was the position of the convent. Did they deny they received her money ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srelu (talk • contribs) 05:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Closing of her school

I have read various articles in several languages and one of the main reasons she made the synthesizer remake of Dominique was that her tax debts threatened the closing of the school for authistic children she founded. After the remake became a financial failure the school was closed in ~ 1982. As she felt the school was her most important work in her life the final closing was most probably what made her depressive and develop her suicidal tendencies in her final years. In the current version of the article it is just reflected that she had debts and commited suicide, but living under the principles of poverty she never cared about money and put the money into the monastery and her school for authistic children. I think the article should be edited a bit to reflect the source of her depression more. I can really recommend the german Wikipedia article and literature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.189.188.112 (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

From fr.wp

It would be interesting to include the following paragraph in en.wp: Les services fiscaux belges réclament alors à Jeanine Deckers les fortunes qu'aurait dû lui rapporter sœur Sourire, restant sourds à ses protestations. Elle fait appel à son ancien couvent et à son ancienne maison de production Philips. Si les sœurs lui remettent ce qu’elles estiment être sa part (l'aidant notamment à acquérir son appartement de Wavre, à la condition qu’elle cesse de dénigrer la congrégation et qu’elle signe un document pour solde de tout compte), Philips, qui avait touché 95 % des dividendes ne fait rien. --92.75.26.20 (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I’m putting this comment here just to record that this para from the French Wikipedia article is in, probably since some time. (I haven’t checked the editing history.)

But I’m going to edit it slightly to make the meaning clearer, so the "clarification needed" label can go. I’m not sure if I’m entitled to remove that label myself, or someone "higher up" has to do that? --Geke (talk) 10:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Categories

Hello, I have removed a couple categories because they were not supported by text in the article nor enough sources to meet the criterion in Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, to wit: For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate. Elizium23 (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I have just reverted your correction. The text clearly describes Annie Pécher as "her companion of ten years", and the claim is supported by a reference: note 9 says that " [Deckers] embraced her lesbian sexuality" (The Course of Christmas Single, The Guardian, 10 December 2004). --Ciospo (talk) 10:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

One reference does not make a "verified consensus of reliable published sources". Elizium23 (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

But three do. The Guardian article, David Mansour's and Jay Warner's books -- not to mention the French one. How many more do you need?--Ciospo (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Besides, we needn't feel compelled to categorize every person's religion, sexuality, eye color, and belly-button style merely because someone created the category. I'm not sure her sexual preferences are a big part of her notability. Eric ^talk 16:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

But they were part of her life, and since that particular category is considered encyclopedica, they should be mentioned.--Ciospo (talk) 21:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Being a "companion" may or may not indicate a lesbian relationship, and Decker actually denied that they were anything more than close friends. I agree that there is no "verified consensus of reliable published sources", particularly the quality, detailed sources. Slp1 (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea where you have ever read that statement by Decker, Slp1, but the sources clearly state otherwise. This is an encyclopedia, not your personal blog. --Ciospo (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

So do we now categorize everyone who is/was heterosexual as such, on the grounds that it was part of their lives? Then do we make a cat for people who started out with one preference and switched to another? People who are 80% homosexual and 20% heterosexual? If so, we have lots of work to do, and I would be hard pressed to call it encyclopedic(a). Eric ^talk 23:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

"So do we now categorize everyone who is/was heterosexual as such?" Exactly. "Then do we make a cat for people who started out with one preference and switched to another? People who are 80% homosexual and 20% heterosexual?" This category already exists: LGBT. "If so, we have lots of work to do." Of course, it's Wikipedia, not a holiday camp.--Ciospo (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

For crying out loud this woman is notable for her song "Dominique" and the fact that she was a lesbian. Is there a reference to her in popular culture today that doesn't draw from the fact that she wrote this song and was a lesbian! See American Horror Story for the latest. Just get real people. Stopping writing gay and lesbian people out of history. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Strange notion of what constitutes a reliable source! And one that does not at all make the statement about Deckers attributed to it! Esoglou (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I am looking for a "broad consensus of academic and/or biographical scholarship about the topic" WP:EGRS. All I am seeing is a few sensational blurbs in music rags. Elizium23 (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you already looked, but it also seems to be in Sauvat's biography, Ollivier's biography (I don't have access to either of these AFAICT, but this is mentioned in the blurb in both cases), Simmonds' book of dead musicians (The Encyclopedia of Dead Rock Stars is a dumb title, but it's from a publisher that we'd probably consider reliable for any other fact), and a "probably" in a book from OUP. (It's also brought up in a number of memoirs, including some rather well-known like L'événement - I mention this not because they're reliable sources, but rather to show that not only can it be sourced, it's common knowledge.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Chadwick bio(s)

I've left the Chadwick link in Further Reading, as I would expect that it would be of interest to anyone investigating Deckers. However, it is self-published, so shouldn't be used to support a point in the article. Bromley86 (talk) 11:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

On relationship with Annie Pécher, again

I've retained a brief summary of the source. If we're going to go into more detail from the source to make out that Deckers was totally against the relationship and Pécher pressured her into it, it behooves us to add the fact that she had feelings for her for some time before their relationship was physical (another source calls Annie the love of her life). Ooooooor we could just use a brief summary without trying to insinuate either that Pécher harassed a heterosexual woman into sex, or that Deckers took advantage of a child. Enough of this nonsense. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Please keep to what the source says. Don't set up a strawman caricature as an excuse for deleting something you dislike. The text that you deleted did not say that "Deckers was totally against the relationship and Pécher pressured her into it". Nor did it "insinuate that Pécher harassed a heterosexual women into sex". If it did, you would be justified in removing it. It didn't. It doesn't. So please let the article report what the cited source states. You accepted that source as highly reliable, so much so that you said all others could be set aside. This is what it says:

Gaylive: After she left the convent, she went to live with a woman friend. From that can we conclude that Jeannine Deckers was a lesbian?

Leen Van Den Berg: Since they first met, Annie was in love with Jeannine. She had a blind admiration for her. But the feeling was not reciprocated. Jeannine saw in Annie a close friend, nothing more. When Jeannine entered religious life, Annie kept visiting her regularly in the convent, and when Jeannine got leave to go as a nun to study at Leuven, Annie took care to find a shack in the neighbourhood of the house where Soeur Sourire stayed. When it seemed that Soeur Sourire would have to go to the missions, Annie fell into a deep depression and tried to kill herself.

As soon as they went to live together, Soeur Sourire made it clear to Annie that she did not want to begin a relationship with her. Though she had left the convent, she still saw herself as a Dominican Sister and wanted to remain true to her vows, that is, her vows of chastity and celibacy. In other words, she simply wanted them to live together as friends. However, Sister Sourire's diaries show that the two women, who lived together for more than twenty years, were growing closer, that she fought against her feelings for Annie, until from about 1980 they entered a lesbian relationship. For Annie the moment she had awaited for years, for Jeannine a tremendously difficult step.

Esoglou (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Including the phrase "11 years her junior" is insinuative of misconduct and not needed. Deckers was 33 when she moved in with Pechier, who was 22. They then became lovers when Deckers was 47 and Pechier 36. Can we not pretend that gay and lesbians are predatory child-snatchers. Although the Catholic clergy is stuffed full of cases of people in authority sexually abusing children, this doesn't seem to be one of them.Contaldo80 (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

What an extraordinary interpretation! When Jeannine Deckers as a young woman was in charge of girls at a seaside resort, one of them developed a crush on her that Jeannine Deckers was so far from taking advantage of that it was only when that young girl became a woman of 36 that Deckers agreed to begin a sexual relationship with her. Who else would think of that as insinuating predatory activity? "For Annie the moment she had awaited for years, for Jeannine a tremendously difficult step." Esoglou (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Relevance of Pécher's age when she became attached to Deckers

The fact that Annie Pécher was eleven years younger is of obvious relevance when speaking of her attachment to Jeannine Deckers. It shows that, whatever it ripened into later, it began as a preadolescent girl's crush on an older person. Esoglou (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The accusation has now been made that the information is not in the cited source. The cited source, referring to Deckers, explicitly speaks of Pécher as "de onze ans sa cadette". Esoglou (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Tantae molis erat ... Esoglou (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 19 February 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 12:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

---

The Singing Nun → Jeanne Deckers – This was her birth name, her name in Belgian law. As a nun she was called Sister Luc-Gabrielle. She had the stage name of Sœur Sourire or Sister Smile and her recording of "Dominique" was credited to her as "The Singing Nun" in the United States. Later she took the stage name of Luc-Dominique. "The Singing Nun" was instead the name of a fictionalized character in a film based on her, or rather it was the name of the film itself. A later film based on her real life was called Sœur Sourire (Sister Smile). Relisted. Favonian (talk) 12:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC). Esoglou (talk) 08:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It is incorrect to imply she was never known as the Singing Nun herself. Her only hit record in the U.S., the #1 "Dominique", was credited to "The Singing Nun" on the single[3][4] and on the Billboard charts.[5] —  AjaxSmack  15:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I was wrong. Still, her name was Jeanne Deckers, not The Singing Nun. Esoglou (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Weak oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. She is more widely known as The Singing Nun. ONR (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

If, in spite of all the information in the article about who and what she was, people want to limit her to being the singer of one song and its marketing in English, we'll just have to be satisfied with that. Esoglou (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. It is rather a good example of where WP:COMMONNAME apply. – nafSadh did say 22:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Singing Nun. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081021010901/http://www.catholicleague.org/annualreport.php?year=1996&id=22 to http://www.catholicleague.org/annualreport.php?year=1996&id=22

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Relationship with Annie Pécher

In this source quotes an interview with Deckers' biographer Leen Van Den Berg:

• "Annie was in love with Jeannine from their first meeting, she had a blind veneration for her. But that feeling was not reciprocal. Jeannine saw a good friend in Annie, nothing more. Annie continued to find Jeannine regularly in the convent after her arrival and when Jeannine of the monastery was admitted to study as a nun in Leuven, Annie made sure she found a flat near the house where Soeur Sourire stayed." etc., etc.

Was this all invented by Van Den Berg? Is her 2005 biography of Deckers wholly unreliable? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you clarify - what do you think was invented? Why is the biography subsequently unreliable? Contaldo80 (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Please forgive me, User:Contaldo80, but my questions above are somewhat rhetorical, in response to the large-scale deletions by User:Diligens, which I felt obliged to restore. You might also want to ask him the same questions. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Martinevans123 If you are going to discuss, then please do. I already gave my reason, and "hearsay" is not evidence. If Deckers can be quoted saying she was gay, then provide the quote from the diary. But if she does not say it, then the edits were necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diligens (talk • contribs) 22:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about the level of familiarity of Van Den Berg with her subject to know for sure how much credence can be attached to what is reported in the biography. Perhaps you are. This is obviously a sensitive area since, during her lifetime, Deckers may have felt unable to openly declare her sexuality. I'm not sure Alan Turing said much publicly about his sexuality, until he was forced to do so in a criminal trial. I was restoring material that seemed to have been taken from a WP:RS, but I am fully prepared to be otherwise advised by someone who is more of an expert on Decker's life. Do you have good reasons to doubt it? Perhaps other editors could comment? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Martinevans123, I am fully aware of Reliable Sources policy. This does not fit it at all. If someone says a diary means something but doesn't provide the text of the diary, this is not verifiable or reliable. Until such time as this can be actually sourced to the diary, this information has not been verified.Diligens (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)Diligens

To which sentence in this article do you have the most objections? Could you just select one, for the purposes of example and examination? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Martinevans123. Diligens - I think your edits are being disruptive. The material you keep removing is perfectly reliably source - please stop playing around. Contaldo80 (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Contaldo80, what do you mean "keep moving"? I did it once. Nothing disruptive about that. Having someone refer to a diary without quoting it, is NOT reliable or verifiable as a source. Diligens (talk) 11:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

I have looked further into this. "Leen Van Den Berg" is a nobody according to WP guidelines about reliable sources. Diaries themselves could be a reliable source, that is, if they are accessible and quoted. I could not access these after searching the Internet, so whatever is in it is NOT "verifiable". If someone wants to prove something, he quotes it. It's what everyone does. This "Leen" person didn't quote anything. The character of a diary is give day-to-day raw, plain truth. Yet, all "Leen" could say was "until they started a lesbian relationship from about 1980". Nothing raw and definite there. This shows that if he doesn't even know the year, then he is obviously interpreting stretches of text to come to his own conclusion. It would be a disaster for Wikipedia for editors to start going back in history and everytime they see someone stated he/she was in a "close" or "intimate" relationship, to make it automatically mean a "sexual" relationship. It's insane because it would make almost everyone in history gay. Wikipedia is going down the tubes if this becomes a norm. I am asking for some decent discussion on what I have just said. Diligens (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

I see. Could you possibly link us to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

What does "I see" mean? Do you agree with it all, and if not, please disagree with whatever specifically right here. This is a discussion here. Diligens (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

I was asking for a link that might inform our discussion. One which might support your, somewhat bold, assertion that Van Den Berg "is a nobody according to WP guidelines about reliable sources." Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC) p.s. but I'm also waiting, with baited breath, for the "it would make almost everyone in history gay" part of the discussion.

I'm sorry, but either what I say is reasonable or not, which is why I asked YOU for discussion. You. As for being "bold", wikipedia guidelines encourage bold edits as being good. Now, if something is "verifiable", then it is capable of being verified. I challenge you to verify the text in the diary. If you (or anyone reading this) cannot find the text of the diaries and present it here, then my edit will be reverted because it could not be verified. If the diary says she had a "sexual" relationship, I will be happy to concede. Diligens (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)Diligensa

Kindly provide a link that supports your assertion about Van Den Berg or retract it. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

No, a first claim needs to support itself. You need to find a proof that she was gay, or it fails. Diligens (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

The statement "she was gay" doesn't appear in the article. To which sentence in this article do you have the most objections? Could you just select one, for the purposes of example and examination? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

p.s. it seems that van den Berg is a notable writer in the Dutch language: nl:Leen van den Berg. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so you are denying that lesbian is a synonym for gay? Diligens (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

I'm suggesting that we discuss the wording of the article and how it represents the source material. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

That's not what the discussion is about. It's about whether the statement that she was a lesbian is verifiable truth. Diligens (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

You need to read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

You need to read it. It says that something cannot ONLY be truth, but it must also be verifiable. Like if a submit a photo to WP that I took myself, I cannot simply claim I took it, but it must be verifiably true. Diligens (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

I have already read it. I read it again. It says this (amongst many other things): "Because truth is not always something as clear and unquestionable as we may desire. In many cases, such as in topics related to social sciences, there is no "truth" but simply opinions and assumptions.. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

This is not a social science. This is whether a person was something or not based on a diary. Are you saying that if we don't know if a person's gay, it is okay to "assume" it just because someone has a roommate of the same gender? Diligens (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

We seem to have different views on what constitutes social science. In the absence of you suggesting the sentence "to which you have the most objections", I propose we examine this one: However, Deckers' diaries indicate that, although she resisted her growing feeling of closeness to the younger woman, they fell in love and a sexual relationship between them arose some years after they began to live together." Do you have any objections? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I asked you a question. Diligens (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

I'm prepared to discuss the content of this article, but not to enter into a general discussion on what constitutes "proof" of someone's sexuality and the weight that can be given, relevant to that question, to that person's personal diary. I think individual cases will differ too much. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

We are discussing the content of this article: the claim that this woman had sexual relations with another woman. We are not talking about any other case than this one, so it doesn't matter if another differs. I am asking you based on WP principle, that if a woman does not admit that she had lesbian sexual relations, do you say that it is okay to publicly claim she did based on "opinion" or "assumption", as you quoted to me? I am asking you for a yes or no. Diligens (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

No direct source is given that Deckers ever said this, or even that she wrote it in her diary. As far as I know her diary has never been published. The claim is based on the interview with Leen van den Berg who had access to the diaries, via Luc Maddelein, who researched the film version of van den Berg's book, and who also spoke with Deckers' associates. Do you think that one sentence should be modified or not? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Of course that sentence should be removed, that is why there is a discussion here. You still didn't answer my last question. Answering questions is part of a discussion. Diligens (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

We're here to improve the article. Did I suggest it be removed? I asked if it should be modified. Happy to hear any views from other editors on this. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

This discussion started because I removed the allegation she was gay. That is what the discussion is about REMOVAL, not change. Contaldo jumped in an lied about me right away to try to make me a disrupter even though I though I followed WP protocol for bold edit, and then when he was caught lying, he ran off. Does a liar care about truth? Now you, Martinevans123, do you care whether a lie gets into a WP article about another person. Would you like that to happen about you? Yet, you keep trying to turn this into a discussion about "change" when it has been about "removal" from the very start. You pretend like you want to discuss things but then you keep avoiding my points and avoiding answering my questions. That's not discussing. Diligens (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

I haven't "run off". So you can calm down for a start and apologise for being so rude - and retract your accusation that I lied. Lied about what? I do find your approach disruptive and I am concerned that you have already made up your mind (for whatever reason) that the singing nun could not possibly be gay or in a relationship with pecheur and determined that the article should reflect your belief. If you want to remove text that has remained stable in the article for a while then build consensus rather than jumping about indignantly.Contaldo80 (talk) 03:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I have been calm writing everything I have written. Running off means that in the normal course of discussion, it is normally perceived that one has no more to say when not responding for days. You lied about me by saying "The material you keep removing", which implied a revert war. No such thing happened. WP guidelines say to make "BOLD" edits. This is what I did. It doesn't matter whether it was unchanged for a while, but errors often are undetected even for years. It's not my belief that that she is not gay, it is my belief that when there is not verifiable proof of a claim, that it should not be claimed. Verify it, and I will believe it. Now, I wrote to Van den Berg, and I did not get a response. But I also wrote to another more prominent author (Chadwick) and I did get a response. Chadwick also wrote a book on Decker and she says no such thing. There is a quote on the Internet that I have verified with Chadwick, and it says, "Chadwick incidentally takes issue with those who describe Deckers and her life partner Annie as being involved sexually. Both, she says, took vows of celibacy and “it is disrespectful to assume that they broke their vows”." Diligens (talk) 11:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

I'm sure we would all admire your enthusiasm. But WP:OR, such as personally writing to authors, rarely pays off here unless it leads to material published, by a recognized reliable publisher, in the public domain. If that "quote on the internet" from Chadwick falls into that category, and Chadwick is also regarded as an authoritative source on this subject, it's possible that it could be added to the article to provide balance. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I just asked an active, official WP Administrator whether this claim is "verifiable" and from a "reliable source", and the Admin said, "No. See WP:REDFLAG. Serious claims likely to be of a controversial nature need to be backed by multiple independent reliable secondary sources." I will be reverting this until someone presents these multiple sources. Diligens (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

You're objecting to both sources now? Both Leen van den Berg and Philip Jenkins? I'm not really seeing the "controversy" you suggest here, apart from your own personal objections. The article has been quite stable for some time. But, of course, User:Ad Orientem would be very welcome to make any suggestions about this content. I notice that your edit at their Talk page includes this statement: "The author made a claim characterizing the person as being something most of the world considers dispicable, like an alcoholic or thief." I think that may be somewhat revealing of your personal opinion and prejudice. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

It requires "multiple high-quality sources". A source is low-quality when it doesn't cite it's source in footnote. What's happening now is that people are writing books by finding statements on Wikipedia, and then when and editor at Wikipedia objects, someone tries to cite the book! That is a cheap, vicious circle. Nothing high-quality about it. I picked an admin out from the top of the list, and I wasn't going to add another controversy in with the question I was asking about objective WP guidelines; I wasn't going to give a controversial example. For instance, homosexuality and abortion are two such hotly controversial issues. Diligens (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

I see. So Philip Jenkins wrote his book "by finding statements on Wikipedia". That's pretty inventive. I really don't see how homosexuality is a "hotly controversial issue" any more, especially in the Netherlands. I think we can be pretty sure Deckers did not have an abortion. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing high-quality about one, non-academical sentence, that has no citation, and merely says "probably" to a claim. Diligens (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

Yes, it does say "probably" and that's exactly what the article also said until you removed it. Why is that book, by a notable and well-respected author, not "academical"? What "academical" text would you be prepared accept exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

No, the article here did NOT say that. You cannot even get things straight yourself within days even though it is right here to verify! The discussion is finished. The Admin gave us the lowdown. Diligens (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

Here's your last removal. Before that the article said "...and the two probably lived in a lesbian relationship until they both committed suicide.". The discussion doesn't stop just because you think it should. "The admin", User:Ad Orientem , has not even expressed a view here. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• I am not going to comment on the quality of the sources as I am unfamiliar with them. However, I will note that the section removed in this edit would need to be backed by multiple independent reliable secondary sources to be included. If those sourced don't exist, or have not been found yet, then I would leave that section out until solid sources can be found. The claims made there are clearly controversial. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• I guess you must mean "potentially controversial", as I really don't see any ongoing public discussion of this. And while there may have have been some local controversy when Deckers died in 1985, I don't see how that translates to controversy now, 34 years later. After this length of time obviously considerations of WP:BLP do not apply. The fact that two single women who lived together "probably" had a sexual relationship is hardly an earth-shattering claim in 2019. Similarly, Diligens does not convince me that the claim is a controversial one - his objections seem to be based rather on his view that a sexual lesbian relationship is "something most of the world considers despicable", which seems wholly biased and unwarranted. I'm also a little surprised that you have made a decision without any appreciation of the sources, particularly the van den Berg interview. But I suspect other good sources exist and it will be only a matter of time before they can be found. Wholesale removal of that section is not justified anyway, in my view. A minor rewording could be easily achieved. By the way, I'd agree with the removal of the Categories. The relationship with Pécher seems to have been a significant feature of Decker's life. I think its unreasonable that Pécher is mentioned fleetingly only in one single sentence. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

p.s. I notice you mention secondary sources. This discussion started off discussing Decker's actual personal diaries, which have never been published. Would these actually be disallowed as sources here if they were to be published? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe in your town it is not a controversy, but the en.Wikipedia concerns the English speaking people across the globe. In the U.S. alone it is a major controversy, roughly half the voters for/against. Completely aside from that, the fact that Deckers while living had denied it more than once, automatically makes it definitively "controversial". Suicide is controversial, and I think is also despicable, but there is verifiablility and reliable source for that fact in this article, so I accept what is despicable...so don't bother rushing to accusations of bias. Diligens (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

Quite regardless of where you live, your prejudice against gay sex has no place in guiding your editing here. If Deckers, as you say, "while living had denied it more than once", and there are sources for that, then that should also be added to the article. Her relationship with Pécher, whether sexual or not, was a hugely significant part of her life and deserves to be examined properly in this article. Not conveniently swept under the carpet on the basis of some old-fashioned and misplaced prudery. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

You need to learn the difference between motivation and bias. They are not the same. Since all my reasons were confirmed by the Admin according to the WP rules, there was no bias in my reasonings. And, most people have friends and family they love and live with who are nothings to the world. Pécher was one of them. Diligens (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

From what you have said in is discussion, and on Ad Orientem's Talk page, I believe your motivation is misguided, because you are biased. I invite Ad Orientem to clearly confirm here that "there was no bias in your reasonings". I don't recall him doing any such thing. He just quoted us one specific item of editing policy. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Bias means being swayed against reason. Reason and rules were fully complied with. If there is a bias, it didn't affect the argument, and therefore the argument and rules stand as they are. Address the Admin from here on with this matter. Diligens (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

You say that the claim that "...the two probably lived in a lesbian relationship until they both committed suicide" is "controversial". I see no controversy, only your dislike for something you personally consider "despicable". Martinevans123 (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Making claims about someone's sex life is going to be controversial, irrespective of their gender preferences. We deal in facts, not speculation. And where sexual orientation of historical figures is concerned the general practice has been to steer clear of making claims that are not backed by solid sources. To be clear, I oppose reintroduction of any claims regarding the subjects sex life absent clear confirmation of those claims from reliable secondary sources. Even if, for the sake of discussion, the claims are true, if they haven't gotten significant coverage in RS secondary sources then adding the claims to the article is probably WP:UNDUE. And that is a no no. See also WP:GAY. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. The criterion in question seems to be "documented" (not published). It is claimed that Deckers' diaries documented her relationship. But these have never been published or extensively appraised. I still don't agree with Diligens' description of them as "hearsay". I was hoping you were going to answer my question concerning Diligens' argument that lesbian sex is "despicable". What if he had said "we can't include these clams as they cast a poor light on the Roman Catholic church"? I wasn't asking for bald claims, but for a reasoned examination of what material there is. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

There is no way that this would pass WP:V as it stands. And I do not believe there is enough secondary source coverage to pass WP:DUE. Private opinions regarding homosexuality run across a wide spectrum. However that is neither here nor there. We edit articles based on established policies and guidelines. Editors are entitled to their personal beliefs and homosexuality remains a controversial topic. However, they should refrain from injecting their personal beliefs into content disputes. In this case WP:PAG does not currently support inclusion of the challenged material. That may eventually change as discussion of the subject in reliable sources expands. Or it may not. Time will tell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, we should edit based on policy. But I'm sure we would both agree that policy should not be treated as a convenient camouflage for prejudice and bigotry. I wonder if you also wanted to answer my earlier question about personal diaries being a "primary source"? Also, would there not be some value in explaining what has been said of the relationship e.g. "Dutch writer nl:Leen van den Berg has claimed, on the basis of material in Deckers' private diaries, that ...." etc. etc.? I think it's a little coy to describe Annie Pécher simply as "her roommate". I trust you have now had the opportunity to familiarize yourself with the sources being discussed here. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

p.s. I see that the fr.wiki article Sœur Sourire says this: "Elle refuse par ailleurs à l'époque de se considérer comme homosexuelle ; selon la biographie de Sœur Sourire écrite par Catherine Sauvat, les deux femmes ont eu des relations sexuelles, mais uniquement au bout de plusieurs années de vie commune." That author is Catherine Sauvat. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. So the journalist and biographer Catherine Sauvat says that the two women were in a sexual relationship. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

PAG are values neutral. I do think that we should avoid using pejoratives directed at other editors for their beliefs. Homosexuality remains highly controversial and many people have sincerely held moral objections. That said, we all need to be careful about editing articles with a WP:AGENDA. Which also cuts the other way. There have been instances where some editors wanted to identify certain persons as homosexual in order to promote what they see as its normalcy. We need to be vigilant lest things like this become a socio-political football in articles. Yes, the diaries, if they were ever published, would be considered a primary source. We generally deprecate the use of primary sources in favor reliable secondary sources. Unpublished diaries are not even a primary source. It sounds like there has been some speculation about her private life, but again, we don't deal with that. If/when multiple reliable secondary sources make specific statements of fact regarding her alleged sex life and this is covered in enough detail to make mentioning it in the article WP:DUE, we can go there. Until then, we are just dancing in circles. I am moving on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the interview by van den Berg can simply be considered as "some speculation". I would have thought she would be considered an expert on this subject. Her book is, after all, given as "Further reading". I'm also rather disappointed that you characterise my attempts to improve the article as "dancing in circles." Martinevans123 (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not impugning anyone's motives here and your work on this article is appreciated. I am just observing that PAG excludes the challenged material at this point. That's it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you for your clarity. I am left assuming that, if the diaries are never published (and I don't see why they ever would be), if what van den Berg has to say cannot be believed, you think that there will never be any source deemed to be sufficiently sound to warrant inclusion. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I find some of the statements above simply ridiculous. Who on earth could claim that "homosexuality is controversial"?! It is a naturally occurring and scientifically supported phenomenon. The acceptance of homosexuality may be controversial but that's not what we're talking about here. I think we are moving into the sphere of censorship. What was wrong with citing the la Croix article that said "Deckers had a long affair with Annie Pécher"? What was wrong with Jenkins claim that "the two probably lived in a lesbian relationship until they both committed suicide."? Can we be specific please rather than falling on arguments that someone might be offended about two people of the same gender being in love or having sex. Contaldo80 (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Thankfully, the wikipedia rules contradict you with a great level of sanity. What you say is beyond ridiculous. You are promoting the idea that if something "happens" then we should all accept it. That is basically criminal mentality. It also "happens" that many people hate homosexuals, and I bet my bottom dollar that if someone in your community published your name and said that you "probably hate homosexuals and yourself", you would shove your little "happenism" right under the carpet. Diligens (talk) 06:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

I find your argument misplaced and irrelevant. WP is WP:NOTCENSORED. Deckers' relationship with Annie Pécher was a very significant aspect of her life. But we are prevented from properly examining it in the article because of some invented "controversy". Martinevans123 (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Contaldo80, I wonder do have the full details of the article in La Croix? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Diligens - are you targeting me with homophobic abuse? It looks that way but I can't quite tell as your as your point above is frankly incoherent. Perhaps English is not your first language in which case I'm prepared to be generous in this instance. Rather than expressing your view that we should all be relaxed about hating homosexuals, you can instead spend some time answering my point about why the Jenkins source and the La Croix article are insufficient? Contaldo80 (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The claim was mad above that Deckers denied several times that she was a lesbian. But I've not seen any sources to support this claim. Can we produce them please or retract the claim. Thanks Contaldo80 (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I heard it directly from Chadwick, the English author of a book on the subject. And here on a talk page (unlike the article page) we are free to use arguments in a freer manner. Diligens (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

You "heard" it from Chadwick. With all due respect can we have something that points to written evidence rather than conversations individual editors may have. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break II

• We have decided very clearly here, with the direct intervention of admin Ad Orientem, that this article cannot question the sexuality of anyone unless a quote from her diary makes that clear. Yet you two people¹ are flagrantly being disruptive by directly and in multiple instances going against that decision. Disruption will be reverted according to WP guidelines. Diligens (talk) 10:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

Chadwick herself told you this personally, yes? When was that? I don't see any mention from Ad Orientem of "a quote from her diary"? Where was that? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC) p.s. Chadwick writes in English, but she's American, isn't she?

Also, your use of the phrase "question the sexuality of anyone" seems inappropriate and non-neutral. Why should we assume that Deckers was hetrosexual? Why does the linked blurb for Chadwick's book say "... after years of substance abuse, sexual denial and financial woes."? . Martinevans123 (talk) 11:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

There is some useful background from Chadwick, about the background to her book, at her blog page here. One can see her point. But she doesn't say anything very definite about the two women's sexuality. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Our guidelines and longstanding community consensus, as noted in the lengthy discussion above, are fairly clear. Introducing sexual orientation in biographies is only permissible if it has been discussed in depth by multiple independent reliable secondary sources. The only exception that I am aware of is in BLP where it cannot be discussed under any circumstances unless the subject has openly and publicly self identified as homosexual. (FTR I don't agree with that, but it has been adopted by the community.). In the absence of such in depth discussion by RS sources, we don't discuss their sex lives at all. We remain silent. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

And we can't even suggest they were "life partners" in any way, regardless of any actual sexual activity? Could you clarify for us exactly what is meant by the word “multiple” in this context? As far as I can see, we currently have at least four sources that claim the two women had a sexual relationship – one in Dutch (van den Berg interview) one in French (Sauvat book) and two in English (La Croix periodical and Jenkins book).. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I have posted a request for additional input from experienced editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. Hopefully we can get something resembling a consensus on the level of coverage. Guidelines have never specifically defined "multiple" as far as I am aware, so it's a bit of a judgement call. My own opinion would be that this somewhat is dependent on the level of discussion. I think it is time to bring in some more experienced editors. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

We shouldn't be assuming either way. That is NPOV. It should be Neutral, neither implying one way, nor the other. Diligens (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

You quote Chadwick above, from her online blog, saying: "it is disrespectful to assume that they broke their vows"? Are you agreeing with her or not? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Ad Orientem wrote: "Discussion involving personalities, motives, personal, social, moral and or religious beliefs of other editors is both irrelevant and unconstructive." So, it doesn't matter what I personally think on that point. What matters is my last entry on NPOV. Please weigh in on that. Diligens (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

Yes, he did. Let's hope that you now realise that statements like this: "The author made a claim characterizing the person as being something most of the world considers dispicable, like an alcoholic or thief" have no place in a discussion such as this. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

What I said was a fact. But, that was something I wrote elsewhere to Ad Orientem, not here. Now, back to NPOV. Please weigh in on that. Diligens (talk)Diligens —Preceding undated comment added 22:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

What you said was "a fact"? Ah right, not just disgusting homophobic bigotry, then. Thanks for "setting me straight" there. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Now, back to you weighing in on what REALLY matters here...NPOV. Diligens (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

You want me to "weigh in" on WP:NPOV, one of the WP:Five pillars of editing? I'm really not sure what you are expecting to me to usefully say. This generally "goes without saying," doesn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

"Neutral" in this case, means neither implying lesbian NOR implying non-lesbian. If you disagree, then explain. Diligens (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

I have already said here that I would be happy to see both sides of the debate represented. What I cannot accept is that the relationship between the two women, whatever it's nature, is somehow swept under the carpet as if it never happened. As if they were mere "acquaintances" who happened to share the same house. I'm not sure we even know what their shared accommodation was, do we? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

No, showing "both sides" is not "neutral". Neutral is between both sides. You are promoting a bias toward sexual attraction. The NPOV is that they are "best friends and lived together". This "best friends and lived together" does NOT imply they are lesbian, as well as does NOT imply they are not. Agreed? Diligens (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

You have an odd view of balance. I suggest we await the outcome of the input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography and, in the light of that, follow what the sources say. In the meantime, I wonder could you please normalise your signature. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I do agree that we need to be wary of WP:SYNTH. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I look forward to you finding a source that says "they were best friends who lived together". Martinevans123 (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I just asked a question of you that requires a Yes or No answer, and you just dodged it. Why don't you at least admit that you cannot answer it? Diligens (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

Ok, this is getting tiresome. Please, stop this internecine sniping. Diligens I am becoming concerned that you are editing with something of a WP:AGENDA that may not be in line with the goals of the project. You are entitled to your views, but here we confine ourselves to PAG when editing and we treat other editors with courtesy and the assumption that we are all here to build a great encyclopedia. Everybody needs to keep this in mind. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Please, Ad Orientem, weigh in yourself: Should we imply lesbian, or should we imply non-lesbian...or have no implication either way? Diligens (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

There can be no implication. Anything of that nature must be stated explicitly (WP:SYNTH) and discussed in depth by multiple reliable sources (WP:DUE and WP:GAY) in order to be introduced into the article. In the absence of specific statements of fact from RS sources we just avoid the subject. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so the two people¹ here I am discussing with, just violated multiple times what you just said. Now what? Diligens (talk) 23:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

I'll admit nothing thanks. If you can find a reliable and notable source that says "they were best friends who lived together", I'd be happy to use it, fully attributed. If not, as Ad Orientem suggests, to say that, in Wikipedia's voice, would be WP:SYNTH. There seems to be a fundamental problem here, that no amount of well-meaning side-stepping will solve. If Chadwick is correct, the only sources that could cast proper light on this question (it seems), i.e. the diaries and photographs, have been "kept" by researcher Luc Maddelein. Until they are brought back, even in a limited way, to the public domain, the debate is somewhat clouded. I think this ought to be explicitly explained. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC) p.s. could you kindly remove the extra name dangling off the end of your signature? Thanks so much.

@Diligens- I am not seeing anything that is improperly sourced right now and the section that made explicit claims about her sexuality has been removed. The word "Partner" is reliably sourced. If you have objections could you please be specific and include diffs? Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

You just sold yourself, like Richard Rich. Diligens (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

(edit conflict) add to my above In the absence of more coverage and in order to avoid the UNDUE implication regarding her sexual orientation, I could see an argument for replacing "partner" with the woman's name. But if we can find additional RS secondary sources using that or other language that clearly amounts to the same thing then I think we may be crossing a line where not using the word could run afoul of NOTCENSORED. This is a delicate and rather gray area. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Diligens- What is your purpose here? Are you trying to build a solid biographical article based on our PAG? Or are you trying to protect this person's reputation from allegations that you find deeply offensive? I am not being satirical. That is a serious question and I would like an answer. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

A serious answer for your serious question - I am here to uphold the WP rules you initially stated forbid questioning this person's sexuality. My motive is neither here nor there. I also support NPOV which states that we should not be suggesting NEITHER she was lesbian NOR that she was straight. Just leave it alone is the NPOV way. Diligens (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

But I don't think Ad Orientum did say that as it would be an odd approach to make. They pointed out that when discussing sexuality there is a bar that needs to be met - and robust supporting evidence needs to be brought to bear. The NPOV aren't there to prevent the addition of material relating to the issue of sexuality. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem - didn't Diligens just insult you by comparing you to Richard Rich who corruptly betrayed Thomas More? He earlier suggested I "shove something up my carpet". He's also (incorrectly) implied that both I and Martinevans123 have gone against a decision that you apparently ruled on that said we can't question Deckers sexuality unless a quote from her diary makes that clear. And therefore we "are flagrantly being disruptive by directly and in multiple instances going against that decision" (despite any evidence to support that. At what stage does this start to flout rules around assuming GOODFAITH and show lack of courtesy and respect to other editors? Contaldo80 (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Regrettably, I agree.[6] -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

You have already lied about me at the beginning of this and now you lie again. You just fabricated the quote - "shove something up my carpet" which I didn't say. Both Martin and I have used the "under the carpet" in the normal way. You are just looking for being insulted, which I didn't do. As well Ad Orientem clearly stated further up in this conversation that her sexuality should not be question, and both you and Martin¹ went ahead right after that and questioned it multiple times in the article. That's simply a fact, and that is disruptive. Diligens (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

An unfortunate mistake
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Could you kindly provide me with all the diffs for where I "went ahead right after that and questioned it multiple times in the article"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC) For me too please. Thanks. I'm also not clear that Ad Orientum did say that we could not question her sexuality - I understood them to say it's a sensitive subject and material should not be included unless it was particularly robust. I think you should also be careful repeatedly calling me a "liar" as that is a violation and assumes I am not acting in GOODFAITH and goes against guidance about treating other editors with civility. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC) WP:AGF says: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary". Additionally, people can lie while being in good faith. You told gross falsehoods about me here and it is "obvious". Now, if you care about "civility", you will proceed to apologize. Diligens (talk) 08:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens Still awaiting the diffs. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC) Contaldo edits, on the 13th, with no objection from you. Diligens (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens This is now getting quite ridiculous. Kindly strike out that false accusation that you make about me above. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC) The admin on Feb 7 said: "If/when multiple reliable secondary sources make specific statements of fact regarding her alleged sex life and this is covered in enough detail to make mentioning it in the article WP:DUE, we can go there. Until then, we are just dancing in circles. I am moving on." among other similar repetitive statements. Contaldo on the 13th violated this by adding in the article "partner" and that the woman in the article was having trouble reconciling her sexuality with her faith. 1Make your objection now, but WP guidelines state that agreement is presumed, and so far you agree with Contaldo's edits.--Diligens (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens I object totally. Are you going to level the same wholly unjustified accusation against AdOrientem? I'm beginning to think you are not here to improve the article at all. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC) Saying you object and not saying to what/why, is not productive at all.--Diligens (talk) 14:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens Are you here just to argue with other editors? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC) I am discussing according to WP guidelines, and you are refusing to correspond with meaningful rejoinder.--Diligens (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens Diligens if you have a complaint to make against me or other editors then please use the appropriate dispute and complaints procedure. I'm tired of your abuse and accusations. If I get one more then it will be referring you to administrators for disruptive editing. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC) I have made my complaints, as you have, about each others' violations, very clearly here, and no need for either of us to repeat them. Now is the time to return to the Admin's unbiased initial decision about NOT including in an article any claims from an unpublished diary that nobody has access to.--Diligens (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens Nobody has have they?! I am puzzled by what you actually want. Contaldo80 (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC) I totally object to your claim that I "went ahead right after that and questioned it multiple times in the article". You should withdraw that accusation. I made no such edits. What you said was untrue. I'm not here just to indulge your skewed agenda. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC) I've already take care of this, as per your recommendation of strikeout, several edits ago. When can we REALLY get back to the ISSUE here?--Diligens (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens You've done nothing of the kind. What version of this Talk page are you looking at?? Please do it now. You're just causing trouble. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC) Yes, I did. About 15 previous edits ago. It's still on the current page.--Diligens (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens There is nothing struck in this entire thread. You are deluded. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC) No thanks for the insult. About 15 previous edits ago you will see the term "two people" twice attempted to have a strike out. This was due to incorrect legacy WP directions. Those were your problem words you wished to be striked out, which is clear I complied with what you suggested. Get over it. Back to the issue? Diligens (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens I have no idea what issue you keep referring to but I don't have the bandwith to continue with this debate I'm afraid if it's intended to go in circles. Contaldo80 (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC) You and Martin are actually the perpetrators of going in "circles" with this. The admin said way back on Feb 7: "If/when multiple reliable secondary sources make specific statements of fact regarding her alleged sex life and this is covered in enough detail to make mentioning it in the article WP:DUE, we can go there. Until then, we are just dancing in circles. I am moving on." --Diligens (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens Now for the fourth time: "I totally object to your claim that I "went ahead right after that and questioned it multiple times in the article". Will you please strike out that false statement. How much clearer can I put that? You are beyond ridiculous. Is there no Admin watching this? I feel a little advice would be useful. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC) You need to upgrade you understanding of "ridiculous". It is not ridiculous for someone to make a mistake. --Diligens (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

Yes, a mistake. A ridiculous mistake. Now we've finally sorted that mistake out. If you feel there are "incorrect legacy WP directions" that contributed to your ridiculous mistake, then I think you ought to report them, don't you? But no sooner have we got the false accusation struck, you come back, three minutes later with "You and Martin are actually the perpetrators of going in "circles" with this."? Don't you think it might help everyone if you adopted a slightly less combative approach? Meanwhile, we have an open question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography and we are waiting to see what that produces. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

No, there is nothing "ridiculous" in someone trying to take care of something and finding two things in a lengthy bunch of text, and accidentally missing a third. You are actually ridiculous for suggesting otherwise. Yes, I plan to complain about the wrong instructions. Your exaggerated "combative" description only says that you would rather have someone "beat around the bush" in telling you the truth. But nobody is required to do so, and I didn't. Now tell me, when you say "we have an open question", who are the people besides you that are the "we", by name?--Diligens (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

So far we have four contributors to this discussion? I think our four names are all quite plain to see. I'm not quite sure what your recent post at the noticeboard was aiming to achieve. But so glad you can tell us all "the truth" about this. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Did you manage to report those "incorrect legacy WP directions"? Perhaps you could point those out and I will raise the report on your behalf? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I spent my time searching, and then test with my sandbox, and I found that I made a syntax error. I should have had two right-curly brackets, but I only had one. I also realize it is worthwhile to use the "Show preview" button before posting. Diligens (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

Diligens, strikeout is made, very simply, with 7 characters like this: <s>strikeout</s>. Or you can do it with {{strike|strikeout}} as well. I think the former is easier. I thought you had worked this out. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, you don't remember what you just wrote to me 8 hours ago. I don't think you should participate on wikipedia with a flub like that. Diligens (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

Perhaps you would care to remind me. I'm still at a loss to know how curly brackets are involved. What exactly is "a flub"? I guess you could always try to get me blocked indefinitely for willful flubbing. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I think anyone reading this in the future will know exactly why I am not making a further comment, because it is obvious. Diligens (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

Well, if there's anyone actually reading this now, I'd appreciate an explanation of what you're saying. As I have really no idea. If you do ever locate these "incorrect legacy WP directions", please let me know. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Done. People will clearly know. Diligens (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

Diligens your style is combative and aggressive and confrontational. I advise you to take a step back and engage constructively and in a neutral manner or risk a potential block. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

You need to start playing the ball, and not the person. Diligens (talk) 12:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

Playing with the ball". Contaldo80 (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Philips Records artists

User:Diligens, why have you removed this? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

A mistake. It has been returned. Diligens (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

Books

This section has been removed here, for the second time in 6 days, with the edit summary: "This was already added and quickly removed several days ago. Removed once again, now we can talk about it. It is fiction and non-english, and should not be added to the article." The correct procedure is WP:BRD. What is the objection exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

You added a section 6 days ago, and I reverted it with a detailed reason. That is the point at which discussion is expected. The WP rules say to discuss and NOT revert it back. Yet you did just that after 6 days of not saying anything on the talk page. You know how to do it, just like you jumped in on a revert of mine regarding Philips Records. I gave you a detailed reason (twice), and it is time you discuss and stop pretending as if I didn't give a reason. Now, what you put up doesn't add anything to this article, it is just an advertisement for a book sold on Amazon, and a book that is a "novel", which means it is fiction derived from the imagination based on snippets of her life. I also fails notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diligens (talk • contribs) 22:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Martinevans I support your earlier edit and would be happy to see it restored. Diligens what argument are you making exactly? Are you saying that we can't include reference to a book about Deckers because it fiction? I think you'll find that many articles allow for the inclusion of such material in the context of "Depictions in popular culture". Incidentally this is not the same as "promotion" or "advertising". I don't understand why one would present an argument that we were promoting or advertising this book for personal gain? Contaldo80 (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Diligens, you seem to be again straying into the realm of personal attack. Please just concentrate on discussing article content. Yes, you made a mistake removing the Philips Records Category. You made another mistake removing the Books section. It's entirely relevant here. By all means look for a better source than Amazon, if you have a problem with that. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

There are a number of serious problems with the paragraph, both in its in initial form and its current form. First, there is no ref for the fact that Van den Berg wrote the screenplay for the 2009 film, and she is not among the three screenwriters credited in the film's article or on IMDb. Second, there is no ref for the fact the film was based on the book, and the book is not mentioned in the film's article or in any other source I could find. Third, there is no ref for the fact that Luc Maddelein researched the film, and he's not in the film's article either. In the (undated) Gaylive interview, Van den Berg says "Luc Maddelein, the man who years ago did the research for the film version that we have written together...", but there is no evidence whatever that that version was the 2009 film, or indeed that that version ever got made. There are several more minor problems. Maddelein, not Van den Berg, is the first author on the book's cover (though they're reversed in the later French version). There is too much puffery in the introduction to Van den Berg; in the end, she's just a writer who co-authored a book. Similarly, the difficulty of obtaining new research material is something that is encountered by the writer of any decent historical novel, and it has no relevance to the topic of this article. I recommend that the Films section be reverted to its previous version, that the Books section be restored, but at the top (books, theatre and films is a more conventional sequence), and that it read as follows:

Soeur Sourire. Zie me graag ("Sister Smile. Please see me") is a 2005 biographical novel by Luc Maddelein and Leen van den Berg [nl], inspired by Deckers' personal diaries and correspondence,^[21] and containing excerpts from the diaries.^[15] It was translated into French as Soeur Sourire. Journal d'une tragédie. ("Sister Smile. Diary of a Tragedy").^[22]

That is the absolute maximum that is required. Scolaire (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

No objections. I don't think we need concern ourselves with problems in previous versions, unless there are copyright issues. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to be BOLD and do it, then. If Contaldo80 or Diligens object, they are free to revert me. Scolaire (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it tends toward WP:UNDUE, but nothing more WP:DUE cannot balance, eventually.Diligens (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

Looking at the plot of the film Sister Smile, I see the article says this: "Rejected by both the monastery and her own family, Deckers returns to Annie and falls in love." This is interesting given that, as you say, the film seems to have no connection to Maddelein or Van den Berg, and had totally different screen-writers. Does a screenplay by three other writers, count as an "independent written source" for Deckers and Pécher's relationship? Or does it have to be wholly discounted, as "a work of fiction"? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Really, that question belongs in the earlier section. I wasn't going to get involved in that discussion, because I thought that there had been a tacit agreement to let it drop, but I'll add my 2c now. I agree 100% with Ad Orientem that any definitive statement concerning a homosexual relationship (consummated or not) would need to be backed by multiple independent reliable secondary sources in order to be included. By "reliable" we mean biographers or historians, not "biographical novelists" or screenwriters. Once a thing like that is suggested in one place, it is taken up by others. That doesn't mean it has become verifiable. It's like authors taking information from Wikipedia: it doesn't mean that that information now has a reliable source. The article as it stands describes their relationship perfectly adequately. If and when new facts are made available by acknowledged experts, they can be added. Scolaire (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Do you Scolaire believe that the mention in the current article of "partner" and, trouble reconciling her faith with her "sexuality", both do not suggest anything homosexual? And, do you believe these two things are "backed by multiple independent reliable secondary sources"? Diligens (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

I believe that the article as it stands describes their relationship perfectly adequately. I have nothing to add to that, and I'm not here to be interrogated. Scolaire (talk) 08:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I am NOT interrogating you. I am trying to understand you by asking you to clarify. I cannot understand what the "multiple independent reliable secondary sources" are that allows this article to say she is here "partner" (naturally implying lesbian) and about her doubting "sexuality". I don't understand; never did because everyone up to now was constantly parrying, as it seems you are now too.Diligens (talk) 11:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

Diligens let it drop will you. You're tiring everyone out. Even if people read the article to suggest that two nuns that are lesbians - it's hardly new is it or that outrageous? You're hostile and abrasive with every editor on this talkpage - I think you should draw a line and move on rather than pushing a particular argument beyond reasonable lengths.Contaldo80 (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes it does. Sorry to pollute this previously clean thread. What you say all seems perfectly sound and reasonable and I think it's very useful to have clarity on this topic. The request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography appears not to have yielded any new usable material yet. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Discography

For an artist who became notable for her singing, the lack of a Discography section is quite an omission. The lists at discogs.com credit her with sole release of 10 albums, 29 singles/EPs and 6 compilations. She also makes an appearance on at least 114 other releases, including 2 videos. Curiously, the album "I Am Not a Star in Heaven", currently mentioned in the text, is not among them. Perhaps reliable sources could be found for most of her own records at least? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Name change

As this is a biography of a real person I am suggesting we change the title of the article to Jeannine Deckers or possibly Jeanne-Paule Marie "Jeannine" Deckers. We can make sure any search for the "The Singing Nun" links to this. It's a bit odd to have her biography covered under a name used only by a few media in some English speaking countries. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support, seems reasonable, for those reasons. Although we do have an article for Plastic Bertrand. Would suggest just "Jeannine Deckers". Martinevans123 (talk) 08:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

To the contrary, this would degrade the notability of the article. It would be like changing the article titles for Cher or Bono to their real names. She only became famous while in the convent when her legal name was Luc-Gabrielle for being the "Singing Nun" to the English-speaking world, having been seen on TV in the Ed Sullivan Show as the Singing Nun, and with the music labeled the same that made her popular.--Diligens (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Not really the same as those two. Cher and Bono are both known to the public exclusively by only those names, worldwide. Deckers was not known as the Singing Nun in Europe but as "Sœur Sourire". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Diligens I can't help feeling this is demeaning a real human being. Some people may have called her the "Singing Nun" but this wasn't universally used. I really can't see also in what way it would impact notability - if you're going to make that argument then you'll have to set it out more clearly? A simple read of the article shows that she was also known as "Sister Smile" in her career and her records and much media. Why is the Singing Nun to be chosen over Sister Smile for example? The simplest thing is to call the article by her real name and link through any alternative names by which she was known. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

This is the "English" Wikipedia. In the "English" world that is what she is known as which made her famous. Nothing demeaning about it; the public thought it was cute and endearing, and girls even joined the convent because of her. Let the French wikipedia use Soeur Sourire because that is what made her famous in Continental Europe. Ask someone about "the Singing Nun" and they know. Mention the word "Decker" and almost nobody knows it. In fact, Deckers herself said she didn't make money for her music because people didn't know her. --Diligens (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

That was after she changed her name again to "Luc Dominique" for copyright reasons. Philips had issued at least three singles by her under the name Sœur Sourire, in 1962 and 1963, before "Dominique" was issued and became the huge hit later in 1963. I think the article ought to at least clarify how she came to be called "The Singing Nun" at all. I suspect that, just like Sœur Sourire, it was a marketing ploy by Philips. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

One of the references of this article already says the Philips marketed her as the Singing Nun for the English world. The Billboard Charts and actual records give testimony to this fact also. --Diligens (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Which one of the references explicitly says that? Why doesn't the article say that also? Why do you insist on using a fictitious promotional name, invented by a record company, as the title of this article? The article opens with "often credited as The Singing Nun in English-speaking countries". Hardly a very sound reason to keep this article name shackled to an invented marketing ploy. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• This was already hashed out and archived here in the talk page. It was decided based on WP:COMMONNAME that it would remain as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diligens (talk • contribs) 10:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Simon Edge

In his 2009 article for the Daily Express here, British journalist, critic and novelist. Simon Edge says:

"She enrolled on a course at university, where she wore lipstick and was even spotted smoking. More dramatically, she fell in love with a novice nun she met there: French-born Annie, who was 11 years her junior.

"Scandalously, as far as the rest of the nuns were concerned, Jeanine left the convent so they could set up home together. Despite the outrage they had caused to strict Catholic morality the two lovers remained deeply religious, building an altar in their flat and taking communion together. But Annie was possessive and one friend was quoted as saying Jeanine had even less freedom than at the convent."

Can all of this material be added to the article? This doesn't seem to quite square up with Pécher being a "friend from her youth"? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't square. So much for the opinion of Simon. --Diligens (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Express is not seen as "a tabloid", as you claim in your edit summary. Edge is a respected author. Your response to a possible contradiction - to throw away the one you don't like. Can you actually explain how, with 11 years between them, Pécher was just "a friend from her youth"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia argues directly against you. You even gave a link to it yourself. When you go to Daily Express here, it says it is a tabloid. And when you click on tabloid, the article here on wikipedia says it is celebrity gossip. Gossip is not a reliable source. --Diligens (talk) 09:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Martinevans123 I'm keen to include this material. I think the best approach is to find a source using Simon Edge that isn't the Express. The sentiment behind it seems totally right to me. You won't get Diligens liking anything that might suggest the woman was a lesbian but that's neither here not there - provided we find robust sources we are entitled to include such material. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I will like anything that is actually true & sourced correctly. Notice that Contaldo considers the Express to not be a reliable source, yet he shows his agenda to find a source that can make her look like a lesbian even though he admits he doesn't currently have one. This is called bias, which WP looks down upon. --Diligens (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Fortunately our criteria when editing on Wikipedia is not find something you personally "like". I agree that Express fails verifiability. However, I don't need to find sources that make Deckers "look like a lesbian". She almost certainly was one. Most of the material I have read suggests strongly that she was in a romantic relationship with Anne Pecheur - illustrated by their joint suicide pact. It is not wishful thinking on my part. I am also warning you now Diligens that if you make one more statement against me that suggests "bias" or an "agenda" without firmly backing that up then I will make a serious and formal complaint against you. Tread carefully. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

BIRTH DATE

The grave stone etched only the year she was born, 1933. This is the most reliable source, and to see it didn't have a day or month is reliable. The current ref I just remove was from homestead.com which is unreliable as a source. Another ref already here is ew.com, which is more reliable than homestead, and it says, "Born circa 1934 (the exact date is unknown)" So, I left it circa 1933 to sum up all of this up. Can anyone find an exact date that the actually grave stone financiers didn't know at the time?

When was the grave stone installed? It gives her date of death as "1985" - are you suggesting we move to that too. instead of using an actual full date?? AllMusic gives her date of birth as 17 October 1933 here, so I have restored it with that source. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course we don't put on ONLY 1985 because of the grave stone, because the newspapers clearly give the date of death. But what newspaper clearly gives the date of birth? Unfortunately, you just ignored the rest of what I wrote. Did you see what ew.com says? - "Born circa 1934 (the exact date is unknown)"

Does it bother you that you rejected findagrave.com but accept allmusic.com as a reliable source? They have both been around just as long, for about 15 years, and the former gets its source from the actual grave stones. While allmusic.com gets its information from the Internet, including from Wikipedia. Does it bother you when a source gets its information FROM wikipedia, and then someone on Wikipedia points to it as a source? That is a illogical, vicious circle going nowhere, and that doesn't bother your intellect? --Diligens (talk) 09:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Diligens - why don't you stop being abusive to everyone? I've told you before that you must abide by guidelines around courtesy or face a complaint and potential blocking. Your tone is consistently aggressive and contemptuous. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

"Dominique" by Sœur Sourire (1982)

Here's the discogs entry: [7] Here's the actual record cover, A-side label and B-side label at 45Cat. How is it possible to pretend this did not exist? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I didn't pretend anything. I simply didn't know about it. Now I do. Apparently, this means that early on she was forbidden to use the name, and later she was allowed to use it again. It's news to me. --Diligens (talk) 09:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

One more example of doubting the motivation of other editors. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Please explain how not being aware of a fact is doubting the motivation of another editor. --Diligens (talk) 00:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Because you didn't assume WP:GOODFAITH - you think that other editors are out to push some sort of biased narrative in the case of Deckers and therefore you automatically discount any edits made until you are forced into a corner to admit you are wrong. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I have to remind you we are in the "Dominque" header of discussion. I never doubted the goodfaith of anyone in regards to the fact about the new album. I simply didn't realize it until I was informed, and then instantly accepted what was provided. I don't even know what you are talking about. Please re-read it. --Diligens (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Stop playing games. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

New section on lesbianism

Diligens you are violating the norms of editing and I will refer you to editors as a complaint if you persist. You should not remove the material relating to Sauvant without proper justification - this is properly referenced and verifiable source. You are interpreting rules in a way that is not consistent with guidance. You need to quote them here in full if you believe you have a case. I have asked also for a full citation to the material you added on Vive la verite - the source you have given is in French with no page numbers. We simply do not know what was said - is this a biography or an autobiography? Without this the source is invalid - the onus is on you to provide this. It is also not consistent with Sauvant who accepts that in 1968 straight out of the convent Deckers is unlikely to have had a sexual relationship, but that she did subsequently. You have also again unilaterally again changed the title of the section to "false" despite the material not coming to that conclusion - this suggesting the pushing of POV (evident through this discussion and contrary to the supporting sources). I have already noted concerns about your aggressive and discourteous editing style. May I remind you that this is not your article to gate-keep. The section as we currently have it is a mess - highly embarrassing.Contaldo80 (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The Independent

Educate yourself Diligens. A tabloid is a newspaper with a compact page size smaller than broadsheet. The term tabloid journalism refers to an emphasis on such topics as sensational crime stories, astrology, celebrity gossip and television, and is not a reference to newspapers printed in this format. If you are arguing that The Independent is not a RELIABLE source then present your arguments more coherently. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Diligens if you can point to Wikipedia guidance that says a newspaper in a tabloid format (distinct from a tabloid newspaper) is automatically disqualified from being a verifiable source then you are welcome to take this out. If however you take this out again without explaining on the talk page why you think the source continues to fail verifiability then I will again refer you to dispute resolution. Thank you ever so much. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Diligens. You show absolutely no interest whatsoever I'm afraid in engaging in constructive discussion. You interpretation of guidance is mistaken on several points. By all means find a dispute resolution mechanism if you believe you have a case but please stop this disruptive and hard-headed behavior. I have been extremely civil on this matter in trying to find a way forward.Contaldo80 (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Third opinion giver here. What exactly is the dispute? I don't see any reverts related to The Independent in the recent history. Sandstein 22:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Diligens has repeatedly removed a quote from The Independent newspaper which says "She also struggled to reconcile her faith with her sexuality" from John Clarke, "Jeanine Deckers' The Singing Nun review" in The Independent published 6 June 2014. I've restored it but suspect Diligens will remove it again. They argue that The Independent is a "tabloid" and so can't be used - they won't discuss the topic on the talk page and so you won't find much of an audit trail I'm afraid. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Sandstein There has been a long running dispute over whether and how to address the subject's alleged sexuality within the article. I think at this point an RfC is probably the best recourse. For now I have locked the article and warned both parties about edit warring. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

When discussing whether to accept The Independent as a source, see the entry in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources which says that "The Independent, a British newspaper, is considered a reliable source for non-specialist information". The most recent discussion of it at RSN, in 2013, was here. EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• In my opinion the section False Rumors of lesbianism should entirely be removed. The subject of the article denied lesbianism. I feel that speculation about lesbianism does not belong in this article. Bus stop (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Bus stop, but with all due respect that is not the opinion being sought. My question was whether The Independent is considered a reliable source. I am grateful to EdJohnston for confirming that it is, and therefore may be included in this article. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Contaldo80—I've responded in the section below. Bus stop (talk) 13:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Restoring material

In the rather confrontational set of recent exchanges I think I number of valuable sentences were lost. These all seem to be to be sourced form reliable sources and phrased in neutral language. I would like to restore them please and ask for thoughts before I do so - specifically where the material cannot be included per wiki guidelines. Thanks.

• She reconnected with a friend from her youth, Annie Pécher, eleven years her junior, with whom she slowly developed a very close relationship. The two would subsequently share an apartment until their deaths.
• She also struggled to reconcile her faith with her sexuality.
• In her biography Sauvat writes that despite this early denial Deckers did go on subsequently to have a sexual relationship with Anne Pecher, but only after several years of life together.

Contaldo80 (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Didn't she deny being a lesbian?

"People at my record company think that two women who live together must be lesbians. They assert even that nuns in convents are in love. I deny these rumors as I testify against every creepy spirit. The answer is still obvious that I am not homosexual. I am loyal and faithful to Annie, but that is a whole other love in the Lord. Anyone who cannot understand this can go to the devil!"

It is my understanding that this is found in "Dominique, Luc (1968). Vivre sa vérité. Paris: Desclée". Bus stop (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Apparently so but I'm not sure that impacts upon the statements above that I am proposing to insert. If she did say this then she said it in 1968 just after she was kicked out of the convent and struggling to deal with life on the outside and adherence to church teaching which continues to be very negative about homosexuality. I think for BLP we are required to be careful about making claims around sexual orientation. However, we are not required to avoid any material that discusses the subject when a subject is dead - provided we are confident that the sources are reliable ones. The sources I've flagged are from strong sources. The Gubin one is hardly objectionable unless you're arguing that the two women weren't in any way close? The quote by Clarke seems to illustrate the statement in 1968 of someone having to deal with no longer being a nun. Sauvat directly addresses the denial and says that she did have a sexual relationship with Pecheur. I don't get this coyness about discussing sexuality - I'd rather we deal with this stuff in a mature and enlightened way. Anything to do with religion and sex seems to get everyone very hot under the collar for some reason. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

You have not provided any source which would serve to override her own assertions concerning her sexuality. You are suggesting the inclusion of 3 points:

* "She reconnected with a friend from her youth, Annie Pécher, eleven years her junior, with whom she slowly developed a very close relationship.[1] The two would subsequently share an apartment until their deaths.[2]"

* "She also struggled to reconcile her faith with her sexuality.[3]"

* "In her biography Sauvat writes that despite this early denial Deckers did go on subsequently to have a sexual relationship with Anne Pecher, but only after several years of life together.[4]"

The first point is acceptable but the second and third are not. She vehemently denies the sexual orientation suggested in points two and three. "Anything to do with religion and sex seems to get everyone very hot under the collar for some reason." You can't contradict the subject of the biography on her sex life. She is verbally explicit: "People at my record company think that two women who live together must be lesbians...I deny these rumors". You say above that the discussion has been about whether or not "The Independent is considered a reliable source". I don't think it matters whether The Independent is a reliable source or not in this particular instance. We become the "tabloid" when we imply that someone was a lesbian when they explicitly deny that they are a lesbian. Also, WP:RS/P writes that The Independent "is considered a reliable source for non-specialist information." How would The Independent know if the subject of our article engaged in lesbian sex? The only "specialist" on her sex-life is herself or a partner or someone else with special knowledge. This is "specialist" information. The Independent should not be relied on for this sort of information. And it is hard to imagine any source being considered "reliable" on a person's sex life (except in extraordinary circumstances) when the person themself denies the sexual orientation supported by the source. Your exhortations for "maturity" and the shedding of "coyness" suggests to me that you are convinced that despite her denials she must be lesbian. I think some people are lesbians and some people are not lesbians. And I consider everybody an authority on their own sexual orientation.

You say "The Gubin one is hardly objectionable unless you're arguing that the two women weren't in any way close". I am definitely not saying "the two women weren't in any way close". I fully accept that they were very close and lived together. But we do not know that these two people had sex. And by the way, would we be asserting that a male and female living together had sex? Jeanne-Paule Marie Deckers says that she is not a lesbian. In this instance we should not include implications that the subject of the biography is a lesbian. I'm unconcerned with the distinction between WP:BLP and someone deceased in this instance. Unless some extraordinary factor applies here I'm inclined to believe the subject as concerns sexual orientation, or in this instance the absence of a particular sexual orientation. Bus stop (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Bus stop - as far as I can see you've not previously contributed in anyway to this article but have suddenly appeared with the single minded determination to resist references in the article to Decker's sexuality. I of course welcome your thoughts and contributions but nothing so far has persuaded me that the material I've suggested restoring is a contravention of wiki guidelines. Contaldo80 (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Contaldo80—given that sex generally takes place in private, how would a supposedly "reliable" source know that Decker's denial of lesbianism was implausible? Bus stop (talk) 04:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• I remain convinced that the question of whether and/or how to address the allegations of her sexuality needs to be handled via a neutrally worded RfC taking into consideration the relevant policies and guidelines that have been linked in the earlier discussions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is probably right. You mean a request for a third opinion or something more formal? Do you mind reminding me of the policies and guidelines you think relevant here please? I think it must be possible to find a way to manage the question of sexuality - rather than a knee-jerk response that automatically fenecs off anything to do with sexuality. Contaldo80 (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Contaldo80, please read WP:RFC. The content being discussed does not state in Wikipedia's voice that these two very close women engaged in lesbian sex acts. Instead, the content reports that a biographer made that assertion, which is a fact. If most reviews of the book scoffed at its assertions and criticized its accuracy, then I do not think that we should mention it. But if the book was positively reviewed, then we are obligated to briefly summarize what it says. Of course, her denial should also be given prominence. So, analysis of the reliability of the source is in order. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Worth noting is that the denial of a lesbian relationship took place in 1968 and the suicides took place in 1985. A lot of things can happen in 17 years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Chadwick (2012)

On page 179 of her 2012 book The Singing Nun Story: The Life and Death of Soeur Sourire, D. A. Chadwick says this:

"Jeannine seemed to have the notion that as long as she did not physically act on her feelings, then she was not a homosexual regardless of her being in love with Annie."

From all that I have read about Deckers and Annie Pécher, I think this sums up their relatoinship quite well. To make out that the couple were just "roommates" is really a little silly. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Diligens, what was the rationale for this revert? None was given. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The first source, The Guardian, plainly describes them as "partners". The second source, the interview with Leen Van Den Berg, obviously describes them as "lovers". I'm not sure what's on page 209 of Van Den Berg's book, but I very much doubt it has "roommate". It's pretty obvious these two women loved each other. That's why they lived together. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Diligens, you have now reverted for a third time here, in less than 24 hours, without any discussion as I requested, with this edit summary: "We have already discussed this. Letting weeks go by and then making you change again won't do". Yes, this has been discussed before, but without any satisfactory outcome. If you think a consensus was reached on this point, anywhere in the preceding discussions, please show us where it was. I am attempting to edit on the basis of the content of the sources given. You are the only editor insisting that we use this clumsy and euphemistic term "roommate". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

On pages 224 and 225 of her 2012 book, Chadwick says this (I think it's worth quoting two paragraphs in full here):

Deckers sought a religious lifestyle with sexual expression. [Jean-Yves] Quellec told her that masturbating violated her body and for this she threatened to stop corresponding with him. She saw no conflict with married ministers enjoying a sex life, but there was no legitimate avenue of expression for Deckers.

Jeannine was Catholic which meant no sex without marriage, no religious life with sex and she could not marry Annie Pecher. To her there was no real solution for twenty-five years except autoeroticism. It appears that the two women may have been lovers only the last few months of their lives, sad when one considers that Deckers had a lifelong fear of the word "homosexual" and endured the label in spite of abstaining from sexual relations with Annie. The poems that Deckers wrote about Annie clearly illustrate a romantic love, a love just as fresh as when they met in 1959.

Again I think this probably sums up their relationship. And this from an author who has gone out of her way to challenge the "lesbian lovers" narrative. The relationship between the two women was undoubtedly the most important aspect of their lives. I think the article deserves a section examining their relationship and that this material, or at least a part of it, belongs there. It seems Deckers is not the only person to have a lifelong fear of the word "homosexual". Martinevans123 (talk) 09:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Martinevans123 I totally agree with you. Diligens is pushing an agenda here. I left this issue for a while as it was becoming frustrating but there is no reason why a sensible reference to her homosexuality isn't valid. If you and I agree then I think we should proceed on that basis. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Request for comments

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a consensus that yes the article should "address the issue of Decker's [sexuality]". There is consensus that the nature of her relationship with Pecheur is discussed in multiple reliable sources (examples raised include a recent biography by Chadwick, and some online sources found by PraiseVivec). Bus stop brought up a 1968 statement from Decker herself denying that she was lesbian, but no policy-based reason has been given why this should preclude discussing her sexuality. Indeed as Serial Number 54129 says, the existence of a public denial suggests that rumours about her sexuality were a significant force in Decker's life. We report what reliable sources say, even when they conflict.

The consensus does not support labelling the sexuality of either woman in Wikipedia's voice (nor was this seriously proposed by any participants). Similarly, NickCT raised the categorization guidelines on sexuality but placing this article in Category:Lesbian musicians or similar was never proposed in this RfC. There is no clear consensus about where in the article the information should go or whether an entire section would be WP:UNDUE - a "Personal life" section was suggested, but not widely discussed by participants. Colin M (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

---

Is it acceptable to include a section with the article - or in places within the article - to address the issue of Decker's homosexuality? Contaldo80 (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yes - Her relationship with Pecheur is mentioned in a number of unrelated sources. It was clearly a complex situation and Deckers looks like she was personally troubled by it. However, it is an important part of her life and impacted upon her career and work. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes - I regard her relationship with Annie Pécher (based on what is written in multiple reliable sources) as the most important thing in her life. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
• ? -Is there an issue? What did She say? Manannan67 (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The issue is that one editor here will not allow anyone to suggest that Deckers may have been homosexual or that she had a physical relationship with Annie Pécher, or even that they lived together as a couple.Martinevans123 (talk) 07:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes - Of course. It's also highly relevant to her life and death. People don't just commit suicide with their "roommates" or whatever 50s-era code words the article uses right now. The press might have reported Pecheur as "a female friend" at the time of their death, but that was because it was 1985. 21st Century sources, however, identify the relationship between the two women to be a romantic one. The fact that there are people trying to hide this is hilarious. PraiseVivec (talk) 09:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, and this needs to be put to bed. We go by what the most recent reliable sources say over what they said in 1985 (or 1965, if possible). But it was clearly fundamental to her life, career and her self-perception. I note we had a crappy section ("False rumours", etc): it is worth considering that, whatever she identified as, the suggestion and implications of her sexuality were important enough for her that she publicly denied them. If she didn't ignore the question, I fail to see how we can. ——SerialNumber54129 13:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Fully agree and an excellent summary. I don't see that trying to attribute any label like "homosexual" or "lesbian", to either woman, would be at all useful. But an acknowledgment of their long and very close relationship seems quite essential. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Not an entire section - It's fine to discuss her sexuality in the context of how it relates to important aspects of her personal life or death, but creating an entire section about it would seem a little WP:UNDUE. This person seems primarily notable for having been a singer/songwriter. Did being gay have clear and direct influence on her singing/songwriting, or was it simply incidental? NickCT (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• It seems to be that most biography articles have a dedicated section entitled "Personal life", which is sadly missing in this case. And I'm pretty sure that Deckers struggled most of her adult life to ensure that her sexuality did not have any "clear and direct influence on her singing/songwriting". But to pretend that her relationship with Pécher was "simply incidental" to her life as a whole, and indeed her death, is surely quite wrong. The conflict between her religious faith and her domestic situation must have been the source of a great deal of pain and anxiety. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Martinevans123: - So is the answer to re-title the "Early Years" to "Personal life", then include a short blurb about her relationship with Pecher? NickCT (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• That's one possible approach, although it sounds somewhat novel compared to most other bio articles I've seen, which have both "Early life" for childhood and education, and "Personal life" for adult domestic arrangements. I'm sure we could work through a few iterations. But I think some input might be needed here from User:Diligens before this general RfC is closed and we move on to specific proposals. Perhaps someone would like to invite them to comment? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC) -- p.s. I'd recommend that the existing "Early life" section be expanded with material from the first two chapters of Chadwick's book which suggest, amongst other things, that Deckers may have been sexually abused by her own father.

• @Martinevans123: - re "most other bio articles I've seen, which have both "Early life" for childhood and education, and "Personal life" for adult domestic arrangements" - Seems reasonable. Let's just do that. A short personal life section w/ a description of her relationship. NickCT (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• No objections, naturally. But still open to other suggestions. Of course, I'd also like to see agreement from User:Diligens as soon as possible. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we need specific agreement from Diligens - as there is clear consensus now to go ahead and address the issue within the article. But I agree that it could be helpful to get thoughts to make sure we consider any major concerns when we are drafting amendments to the text. But what worries me is that Diligens has actually ignored this discussion here and is instead insistent on pushing forward his/her own position on the article page itself. This raises concerns to me about disruptive edit-warring. Contaldo80 (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right. That also worries me. I have posted an invitation to User:Diligens here. I'm happy to accept the compromise suggested by User:Willthacheerleader18, over that single word, for the time being. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Willthacheerleader18:, both Contaldo and MartinEvans here have been thru this controversy with me 3 months ago, and are now ignoring it and pushing ahead after letting 3 months go by. They also are aware that it was posted that the subject of this article, in 1968, publicly denied what they allege. Here is the sources quote: "People at my record company think that two women who live together must be lesbians. They assert even that nuns in convents are in love. I deny these rumors as I testify against every creepy spirit. The answer is still obvious that I am not homosexual. I am loyal and faithful to Annie, but that is a whole other love in the Lord. Anyone who not can understand this can go to the devil!" - (Dominique, Luc (1968). Vivre sa vérité. Paris: Desclée.) --Diligens (talk) 10:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Consensus can change, certainly after 3 months. I'd have no objection. in principle, to including some or all of that quote from Deckers in the article. But that was made in 1968? She did not commit suicide, alongside Annie, until 1985 and, as User:Cullen328 has already suggested, a lot can change in 17 years. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Everything is about reliable sources. Public Testimony from the subject is the highest reliable source. In order to say the status is reversed, there must be an equivalent reliable sources, such as counter-testimony from the subject her/himself, or a witness. If you have that, please present it. As well, the suicide note (a reliable source) only cites as a reason for their suicide that their business failed and they were in serious debt with government back taxes. This idea that people are lesbians because they commit suicide together should be dismissed out of hand, as that is refuted by the fact that so many lesbians are alive. --Diligens (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

If you are quoting a Wikipedia policy there, I'm sure we'd all like to know where it is written down. I'm not sure anyone is suggesting that "people are lesbians because they commit suicide". What a very strange claim that is. I wonder have you read Chadwick's book? Do you have a copy to hand? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The Administrator Ad Orientem came in February and knows the rules, and said that to question someone's sexuality there would be needed "multiple high quality reliable sources". This was BEFORE anyone was aware of the 1968 quote where the person of the article testified the rumors about herself were false. The rule for multiple high quality reliable sources still stands. "High quality" has not been defined, but it stands to reason that it must be proportionate to how the facts have developed. All courts use the same reason - if a person publicly denies a lie about herself, the only way a high quality reliable source can trump that is to either have a reversal of testimony by the person of the article, or a reference to a witness publicly testifying that the person either lied, or that she became later what she denied she was earlier. Please provide the multiple high quality sources and then we can move forward. --Diligens (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not trying to claim that Deckers was "homosexual" nor include that claim in this article. I see no value in that label. Other editors may have a different view, of course. This is not "a courtroom" trying to deliver a "final verdict", it's an encyclopedia that draws on various sources in an attempt to describe an individual's life as a whole. But I'd be interested to see that quotation in its original language. Some of the translation there seems a bit odd. I think it might also be useful to clarify how that quote was made - was it in a public announcement, or in a private later, or as a diary entry? etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Is it true that you would like the word "partner" to replace "roommate", but that you are not trying to convey to the public they were sexual partners? --Diligens (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I believe they were partners, not just "roommates". Are you tying to convey to this Talkpage that people must have sex together in order to be partners? I think many here would disagree with you. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I asked whether you want to convey that they were sexual partners by using the word "partner". --Diligens (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

No, not at all. Do you want to convey that they were just randomly lodging together by using the word "roommate"? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay then, let's include: "best friend, roommate and business partner". --Diligens (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• No, of course not. She writes "I am not homosexual". In "Dominique, Luc (1968). Vivre sa vérité. Paris: Desclée" she writes:

  "People at my record company think that two women who live together must be lesbians. They assert even that nuns in convents are in love. I deny these rumors as I testify against every creepy spirit. The answer is still obvious that I am not homosexual. I am loyal and faithful to Annie, but that is a whole other love in the Lord. Anyone who cannot understand this can go to the devil!"

  In my opinion that ends it. She lived with Annie Pécher. I believe that is all we can say. Bus stop (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• I don't see how that 1968 quote "ends" anything. And it's not clear where she said or wrote it. What does "I testify against every creepy spirit" mean? What is meant by "but that is a whole other love in the Lord"? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• Nothing overrides a person's assertions about their sexual orientation. That is axiomatic. Sexuality is first and foremost known to oneself. One can share self-knowledge of one's sexual orientation with others. But no one can ever contradict one's own assertions in this regard. I think that once a person declares or denies a sexual orientation that becomes the final word on the subject unless they revise that declaration. Bus stop (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not trying to contradict anything. I'm trying to describe more accurately the relationship between the two women, based on good sources. This quote may be clearer, taken from Chapter 14 (p. 179) of Chadwick's book. It's from one of Deckers' private diaries, although Chadwick does not indicate the exact date:

"Enticed by lies told by the press (which come from the staff at Philips), that we are lesbians, I am close to believing it. Although our exchanges of affections are nothing of a homosexual nature, at least as far as I understand homosexual relations as being [sic] sex with the same sex. The doubt always lingers." Chadwick says this (p.81) "Whether Deckers was homosexual or not, is not as relevant as the more basic that that she could not accept her sexuality in any form". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

What does Chadwick know about Deckers? Does Chadwick have insight into Deckers' mind? A person speaks authoritatively about their own sexuality. It is literally impossible for anyone else's comments to supplant another individual's assertions concerning their sexual orientation. Perhaps at some point in the future it will be possible to experience another person's consciousness from their perspective but that biological capability is still beyond our reach. Bus stop (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Eh? I'd say that Chadwick knows more than most, having had access to Deckers' entire private archive, including her unpublished private diaries written from 1968 to 1985. I'm not sure other Wikipedia bio articles ever aim to rely on gaining a "biological capability" for "experience of another person's consciousness"?? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

No, Chadwick did not have access, and she complained publicly that she was not allowed to have the diaries. And I propose again, let's include: "best friend, roommate and business partner". How about it? --Diligens (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Diligens, you are quite simply wrong there. Yes, she did complain for a long time, as the entire archive had been "borrowed", as she puts it, by Luc Meddelein. But she eventually did get access. You need to read her 2010 preface to the 2012 edition of her book. Regarding your proposal, I do not think the word "roommate" is useful in any way. "Her best friend and business partner" would be a vast improvement on "roommate", but I still contend they were romantically involved partners. In simple terms, I think they were in love. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I wrote to Chadwick 3 months ago; she does NOT have all the diaries. Yes, the word "roommate" means she lived with her. Very useful and something that neither "business partner" nor "best friend" can convey, so it is a good addition. You merely make your own theory about "romantic" love, and that is your own "original research" which is forbidden on WP. She was a religious and had vows, and both she and Pecher were members of the Third Order of St. Dominic, and had an oratory in their house. The 1968 quote reveals that she had a "spiritual" love for Pecher. This is a love all religious have. I also love my brother which is a "familial" love and not romantic. You have no reliable source for this romance, so you need to drop it. --Diligens (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

You really don't need to tell me to "drop it", thanks. That's just my personal view, to explain my own thoughts. I have no intention of suggesting that's added to the article. Alas, any correspondence you may have had with Chadwick is also "your own "original research" which is forbidden on WP." All the quotes I have provided are verbatim as per the book. Are you suggesting Chadwick has just invented them? I also think the translation from the original French must be lacking something, as those two parts I mentioned are quite odd. The term "roommate" is certainly not used in that sense in contemporary British English and strikes me as quite misleading. But let's hear what other editors think of your proposal. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. Self-identification means we can't state as a fact that someone has/had a certain sexuality if they would disagree with it, it doesn't mean we can't discuss it at all. If there were a dedicated section, though there doesn't have to be, it would be mostly about their relationship in general, and could briefly note both the speculation and the denial. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 20:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

June arbitrary break

There is a bizarre point being made here. It implies that when someone says something about themselves then that automatically becomes a truthful fact. Even if the evidence suggests otherwise. The suggestion seems to be that unless Deckers rises from the dead and tells us she was a lesbian then we can't discuss the possibility that she was in fact a lesbian! She made a denial in 1968 just after she came out of a convent. Never again made the same denial despite dying 20 years later. She made the denial at a time at which homosexuality and lesbianism was widely reviled, and utterly rejected by the Catholicism to which she so strongly hung. In any case we need to absolutely pin-point the guidance that governs what we say. Diligens you point to ad orientum making some sort of ruling that stops mention of the issue - I don't think they have done this actually. We have a number of sources that discuss the issue of sexuality and we have cited them several times - the question is whether these can all be regarded as reliable mainstream sources. We don't have to say "she was a lesbian" but we can say that there is a strong belief that she and Pecheur were more than "room-mates". The consenus is in favour of including something. I suggest we put together some appropriate wording. Diligens if you feel this is still a problem then the next step for you is to go to one of the noticeboards to get support for the point you are making about violating some aspect of Wikipedia norms.Contaldo80 (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Contaldo writes: "There is a bizarre point being made here. It implies that when someone says something about themselves then that automatically becomes a truthful fact. Even if the evidence suggests otherwise." Okay, please present the "evidence" that she was a lesbian. You say you have it, then present it. --Diligens (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Contaldo80: - Not bizarre at all. "Gay-ness" is qualitative and subjective.

If you were to say "I find the Mona Lisa beautiful", then the Mona Lisa being beautiful to you automatically becomes a truthful fact, which no one can really contradict.

Similarly, if I say "I am gay", then my being gay automatically becomes a truthful fact. I could be lying about how I feel of course, but it's not really for anyone to second guess me. NickCT (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - Echoing User:Bus stop's comment; if we have a good source showing that the subject in question didn't consider themselves gay (and it seems we do have that source), then this entire conversation is moot. People get to decide whether they're gay or not. We don't. NickCT (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• The above isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of policy (see Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality#Sexuality); such categories should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's sexual orientation is relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. And before one of you Wikilawyers points out we're not debating categorization, the spirit of the rule clearly applies to what we're talking about. NickCT (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• Instead of sexual orientation let us suppose that under discussion was a pain in one's finger. If a subject says they have a pain in their finger (or that they do not have a pain in their finger) can a source come along and contradict them? There is no discussion of whether or not she was homosexual because she adamantly denies that she is homosexual. Bus stop (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• A useful analogy perhaps. Again, not seeing much value in a debate over a hetero/homosexeual dichotomy, that was one statement, written in a private diary, 17 years before when died? It's her relationship with Annie in general that's worth some attention, not whether or not they ever had sex. Then again, if Deckers was really so certain, throughout her entire life, about her sexual status why did she, as Chadwick tells us, undergo five months of "dream therapy" trying to imagine sexual relations with men? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The point here is about the use of the word "partner". A denotation of that word is that a pair of people have sexual relations. You said "not at all" when I asked you if you were trying to convey that she was homosexual. Well, being homosexual means romance between two people of the same gender. And you have promoted here that they had a romance, so your statement of "not at all" is simply not true. --Diligens (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• Martinevans123—we are not having a "debate over a hetero/homosexeual dichotomy". We are discussing the nature of subjective experience. And your notion that "five months of 'dream therapy' trying to imagine sexual relations with men" gives us permission to imply that she is gay would be a violation of our policy of WP:SYNTHESIS. Just say that she underwent that therapy and leave it at that. You can't make the leap to imply something that she explicitly denies. Bus stop (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Diligens, kindly stop tying yourself in knots to prove that other editors' motivations are wrong. We're here simply to decide on what goes in the article. Based on the evidence I have read, in a range of reliable sources, the two women appear to me to have been life partners. I regard the term "roommate" to be euphemistic and too vague, if not slightly archaic. Happy to hear what other editors think. Bus stop, when did I ever advocate that we should "imply she was gay"? I'm suggesting that her sexuality was in some way a challenge and a source of difficulty in here life. Or at least this is what a published biographer seems to say. But your suggested addition to the article looks perfectly reasonable to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

In this discussion I did not even once address anyone's motivation. I just showed you that you contradicted yourself.--Diligens (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

You asked me if I was were trying to convey that she was homosexual. I said "not at all". You then told me hat my statement was simply not true. Please stop. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

When you promote a "romance" between two people of the "same gender", you are conveying they are "homosexual". I am simply making you aware of your mistake.--Diligens (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Why couldn't they be bisexual? I guess because the Roman Catholic church forbids that too. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Martinevans123: - re "that was one statement, written in a private diary," - I think the basic idea is that self-identification trumps pretty much everything else on this matter. If we've got a clear self-identification, we really need an overwhelming reason not to accept it. Undergoing "dream therapy" doesn't seem compelling. NickCT (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, NickCT, I can understand that reasoning. And if that is written down somewhere in policy it might be useful to know where that is. But again, I'm not bringing up details to "prove" anything either way, I'm just saying this was a notable aspect of her life. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Martinevans123: - re "written down somewhere in policy" - You saw my comment above about policy regarding categorizing and sexuality? NickCT (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for reminding me. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
• So whose definition of "homosexual" do we take here? Deckers' own definition, as written in her 1968 diary statement quoted above, seems somewhat narrow: "... at least as far as I understand homosexual relations as being sex with the same sex." Under this definition she could have been in love with Annie, but still free of the damning stain of homosexuality, by keeping to her vow of chastity? If there is no question at all that Deckers and Annie were "romantically attached," why is this article of interest to WP:LGBT? Surely that must be removed, just like all the LGBT Categories have been removed? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• You are asking—why the banner on the Talk page for "WikiProject LGBT studies". Thank you for raising that question. If we are to understand that banner as equating her sexual orientation as gay, then it should be removed. But I'm not all that uptight about indirect implications via banners or categories. They are helping people find articles. There need not be a one-to-one correspondence. We aren't trying to banish research or squelch free thought. Bus stop (talk) 11:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your position. I tend to agree with you. But I'm making a more fundamental point: Deckers' definition of homosexuality, in 1968, was " sex with the same sex". Is that also ours, in 2019? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The 1968 quote clearly shows that she denied being a lesbian. And when the entire content is taken into account, it means no more lesbian than women who live together in convents. --Diligens (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

It's impossible to nail down definitions, whether in 1968 or 2019. A person is an authority on matters relating to their own sexuality. This is the case no matter how the subject of an article defines terms. Bus stop (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

If it's "impossible to nail down definitions" then I'm really not sure how much weight can be attached to any self-description, no matter when it was made. I read that statement as saying quite categorically "I do not have sex with Annie". No more and no less. Regarding "no more lesbian than women who live together in convents", we seem to be casting the net a bit wide here? Or are we all agreed there are no lesbians living in any convents anywhere in the world? Do we all agree that, when Deckers wrote, "I am loyal and faithful to Annie, but that is a whole other love in the Lord" what she meant was "I love Annie in a non-sexual way"? It seems that Annie was the one who wanted their relationship to be consummated sexually; it seems very unlikely that anyone will ever know if that happened or not. And that doesn't matter, of course. What does matter, and what the article should make clear, is the commitment the two women showed to each other, over very many years. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Anyone who knows Catholicism, and reads the 1968 quote, knows that she has a horror for lesbianism, and saying she has a spiritual love for Pecher. It's absolutely clear what she is saying. --Diligens (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, very sorry, it's not absolutely clear to me. Nor am I sure we should assume that all readers or editors "know Catholicism." Does anyone have access the original French phrasing? Or perhaps that has never been published. But I'd have no objection to adding her "horror for lesbianism" to the article. That seems a fair appraisal. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

On second thought, I don't think anyone has to know about Catholicism. That quote very clearly conveys that she is denying outright that she is a lesbian, and stating outright that nobody should judge nuns to be lesbians just because they live together. Her mention of hell shows just how strong she means it. --Diligens (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of nuns or convents. Perhaps it's a little surprising that a Christian woman should wish eternal damnation on those who simply misunderstand her lifestyle choices. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I was hoping for some consensus, from all Talk page parties, before an edit was made to the article. But I see that Diligens has just gone ahead and made a unilateral edit anyway here. I have no objection. I think it's a definite improvement. I still think that more biographical detail, about their relationship, could be usefully added. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

It would not be "useful" to violate WP:UNDUE and WP:COAT. --Diligens (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh well, it was a nice 24 minutes. Have you read Chadwick's book or not? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Martinevans123—you write "Do we all agree that, when Deckers wrote, 'I am loyal and faithful to Annie, but that is a whole other love in the Lord' what she meant was 'I love Annie in a non-sexual way'?" No, we don't all agree. Deckers is saying that the two women share an interest and that interest is a religious one, specifically, it is "love in the Lord" which is a Christian precept. It is farfetched to suggest that the reference is to sex. Bus stop (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I thought I had just said it was a reference to non-sexual love? But I think your interpretation of that phrase is perfectly reasonable. The quote might be usefully added to the article, don't you think? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Martinevans123—why should we characterize the fact that they lived together in any way? Can't we just say that they "lived together", or "cohabited"? These are more ambiguous verbal formulations than saying that they were "partners" because "partners" implies a romantic relationship which in turn implies a sexual relationship. Bus stop (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

We shouldn't be using any word that suggests a romantic or sexual relationship. "Cohabited" and "living together" suggest that in the U.S.. For some Reason "roommate", for Brits, doesn't sound right to them, which is fine. We should say they were - "best friends and business partners, and shared a residence together".--Diligens (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, "lived together", or "cohabited" seems 100 times better than "roommate". A good proposal. I don't agree that "partners" necessarily implies a sexual relationship. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

So are there are objections to changing: "Citing their financial difficulties in a note, she and Annie Pécher committed suicide by taking overdoses ..." to read: "Citing their financial difficulties in a note, she and Annie Pécher, committed suicide, in the home they shared together, by taking overdoses..."? We can move on to include more detail about their life together, but this would at least be a start.Martinevans123 (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

This is an article about a one-hit-wonder, particularly a nun, who became famous for the song Dominique in 1963. Her best friend had nothing to do with her music or fame, so considering it a "start" to adding personal information about her friend is certainly starting to go against WP:UNDUE and even WP:COAT. --Diligens (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you agree with this addition or not? Thanks. The subject of this thread is this: "Is it acceptable to include a section with the article - or in places within the article - to address the issue of Decker's homosexuality?" I'm not sure how that could be done without any mention of Annie. But I'm guessing your answer to the main question is no (although you haven't yet added that?) Yes, you might see Deckers as a "one hit wonder", but she's had films and books made about her life. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

You asked me "So whose definition of 'homosexual' do we take here?" What two definitions are you talking about? You also said "I'm making a more fundamental point: Deckers' definition of homosexuality, in 1968, was 'sex with the same sex'. Is that also ours, in 2019?" I don't know. Please describe for me the two differing definitions that you believe are under consideration. Bus stop (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought the definition provided by Deckers herself was pretty clear. To reiterate yet again: "... at least as far as I understand homosexual relations as being sex with the same sex." I'm not sure we have formulated a second but, just guessing, it might go along the lines of "one who is sexually attracted to someone of the same sex". But I'm not sure there will be just two. Who knows, we might even find an encylopedia article about it. Judging from Diligens' contributions I suspect a third might be simply "one who is attracted to someone of the same sex". But I'm sure he could tell us. I'm getting a little weary of repeating that I don't find this kind of categorical labelling particularly useful for this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

You say "I'm not sure we have formulated a second but, just guessing, it might go along the lines of 'one who is sexually attracted to someone of the same sex'." How would you know if Deckers was "sexually attracted to someone of the same sex"? So far you have only adduced her statement that "I am loyal and faithful to Annie, but that is a whole other love in the Lord". Are you saying that there is a reference to sexual attraction in that statement? I think "a whole other love in the Lord" is a religious reference. You are unreasonably reading into it to determine it to be a reference to sexual attraction. Bus stop (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you've already made it quite clear you think that's a religious reference. Deckers' definition of homosexuality involves having sex. The definition held by many others does not. Getting back to the subject of the RfC I'd argue that, quite regardless of Deckers' personal outlook, there is still an "issue of Decker's homosexuality" because many people assumed then and may still assume now, perhaps wholly wrongly, that she was gay. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The issue is with the people who are doing the assuming. It's not an issue with Deckers.--Diligens (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Reading Chadwick's book, I'd very much disagree. It looks more like it was a lifelong battle for her. The reason I came back to this issue, after 3 months, was that, after reading her book, I could readily understand why Chadwick thinks that Deckers was simply in love with Annie (see the quote I added at the start of the previous thread). Whether that makes Decker's "a lesbian" or "a homosexual" or anything else, I'm really not interested. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Deckers is responding to the comments made by others. She says "People at my record company think that two women who live together must be lesbians. They assert even that nuns in convents are in love. I deny these rumors as I testify against every creepy spirit. The answer is still obvious that I am not homosexual. I am loyal and faithful to Annie, but that is a whole other love in the Lord. Anyone who cannot understand this can go to the devil!" Let us go through this sentence-by-sentence. In sentence number one she is saying others are making mistaken comments about her. In sentence number two she is asserting that the general conception of nuns in convents does not include the element of homosexuality. In sentence number three she categorically contradicts what has been said about her. In sentence number four she explicitly states that she is not homosexual. In sentence number five she makes clear that although she is close with Annie the interest that they share is an interest in religion. In sentence number six she asserts that anyone who doesn't understand what she has just said can stick it where the sun doesn't shine. Bus stop (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that was a phase ever used by the Spanish Inquisition to describe eternal damnation, but I think I know what you mean. What exactly do you think "I testify against every creepy spirit" means? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

A reasonable alternative wording for "I testify against every creepy spirit" is "I denounce lies". Bus stop (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd have to take your word for that. I'd still like to see the original French from that book by Luc Dominique, which I do not have. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

She denies these rumors just as she would testify against any other creepy spirit. This is a religious person. She believes God watches everything she says and does. She does not want to tell a lie. She testifies against creepy spirits. She lives her life in accordance with good and holy spirits and she lives her life in opposition to bad and creepy spirits. Bus stop (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

This entire conversation is exhausting. But I think it is important to note that we should not be projecting our own opinions onto the subject, or use our own personal beliefs in our arguments for what should exist in a neutral article. As a person of Catholic faith who is also a part of the LGBTQIA community and, more importantly in regards to this situation, as an editor on Wikipedia, I believe we should do our best to portray the facts while maintaining an open mind. This does not to be a critique of sexual orientation nor of religion, and it does not need to be an analysis of a person. I do think it is note worthy to mention the amount of press given to the subject as a perceived lesbian women, but also include that she never identified, at least publicly, that way (in fact she seemed rather offended by the assumption). -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree with that, Willthacheerleader18. Do we now need a separate RfC to agree inclusion of that addition that Diligens made and which you reverted 24 minutes later?

Bus stop, I was really just after the French idiom, but never mind. I think we can all get the gist of your interpretation. We'd all agree, I think, about her piety and religious devotion. Diligens tells us above that the two women "had an oratory in their house", although the article does not currently include this. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, three months ago I added a section "False Rumors of lesbianism" that fulfilled what you say, but it didn't work out. One such version was: Over the two years after leaving the convent, Deckers became exasperated with a public rumor alleging that she and her roommate were lesbians. She experienced that the people at her recording company, Philips, believed that all women who live together, including nuns in convents, must be lesbians. In 1968 Deckers testified in writing that these rumors about herself, and about nuns, were diabolical lies. Despite her testimony, the rumor continued to spread, annoying her throughout her life. --Diligens (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I can work with this proposed paragraph above. I don't want it called "false" rumours - as that uses leading language. "Rumours of lesbianism" is fine. I'd then add a sentence at the end citing Chadwick and other sources that suggest - despite Deckers protestations - the two women were lovers. I'm also fed up with this tedious and long winded debate. There is no guidance that prevents us covering this issue in the article. I think a number of editors are pushing a religious POV to avoid mention of the subject. Oscar Wilde for goodness sake denied being homosexual. You think this is new? Editors are showing a shocking lack of understanding about what is a sensitive subject. The consensus above is to include something so let's work out what is appropriate. Continuing to remove references to the issue can only be regarded now as edit warring. And I advise editors that continue to ignore the consensus that they will be referred to the appropriate noticeboard if they fail to reach out and compromise. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Contaldo80—you have made a similar point before. Further up this page you said "I don't get this coyness about discussing sexuality - I'd rather we deal with this stuff in a mature and enlightened way. Anything to do with religion and sex seems to get everyone very hot under the collar for some reason." I don't think "religion" impinges on this discussion at all. She said she is not homosexual yet you are insistent that this article must imply that she is homosexual. The opinion of a biographer such as Chadwick on a subject that she cannot possibly know anything about should be dismissed. The wording presently in the article is appropriate. It says "Citing their financial difficulties in a note, she and Annie Pécher committed suicide by taking overdoses of barbiturates and alcohol on 29 March 1985." Pécher is also mentioned elsewhere. "In addition to the other financial worries, the autism centre for children started by her and Annie Pécher had to close its doors for financial reasons in 1982." There is an image of their graves with the caption "The grave of Deckers and Pécher at Cheremont Cemetery in Wavre, Brabant, Belgium". There is also "The production featured several musical numbers and followed the renamed character Jeanine Fou's life from her entry into the convent until her death with Pécher." And finally there is "At scout camp in the summer of 1959 she met sixteen-year-old Annie Pécher, who would become her best friend and business partner." The article is already documenting her relationship with Pécher. We should not cross a line of impropriety that implies she is homosexual. She shares a habitation with Pécher and their relationship is lifelong. That is all that we know and that is all we should be saying. A source has to be appropriate for the assertion it supports. Chadwick is incapable of knowing Deckers' sexual orientation. That is axiomatic. Therefore it would be entirely inappropriate of us to imply that Deckers was homosexual. Bus stop (talk) 01:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

"Crossing a line of impropriety". Is it "impropriety" to be homosexual? I have suggested a reasonable compromise. There is nothing in what I have suggested that violates guidance. This is in line with consensus that we include the issue if sensitively handled. If there is then please take me to an administrator's noticeboard. Contaldo80 (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

No, Contaldo80, what I had in mind was an "impropriety" of an implication of a sexual orientation that a subject of an article denied. Thank you for bringing any ambiguity in my post to my attention and thereby allowing me the opportunity to clear it up, and I hope I have done so. Bus stop (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

2nd June arbitrary break

So Willthacheerleader18, while I agree with your comments above, about portraying the facts while maintaining an open mind, do we now need a separate RfC to agree inclusion of that addition that Diligens made and which you reverted 24 minutes later, i.e. "Citing their financial difficulties in a note, she and Annie Pécher, best friends and business partners, committed suicide, in the home they shared together, by taking overdoses"? Because I'm not sure it is really within the domain of the original RfC question here, which was: "Is it acceptable to include a section with the article - or in places within the article - to address the issue of Decker's homosexuality?" Similarly with my more recent addition here, which lasted all of 2 hours, before it was revered by Diligens with the edit summary "This is WP:UNDUE". I don't believe it is undue since, as far we know, there were no other individuals that Deckers ever chose to have as a best fried in this way. But maybe it would be better placed in a new section which just covers their relationship. Again, I'm not sure it is really within the domain of the original RfC question. Or do we need to conclude this general RfC, one way pf the other, before moving on to open separate RfCs for these two, and possibly other, points regarding their relationship? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. Always amazed to see the importance attached to motes. Can't quote policies/guidelines/wikilaws like many can, but really, the question must be how much this other person figured in this person's life. Impact. How much does it mean to the subject of this article?

I hesitate to mention Barbara Jordan as a model, because even there there is a whole lotta titillation going on. Although the mention is made:

Considerable speculation exists as to Jordan's sexuality and the nature of her and Earl's relationship, something that neither Jordan nor Earl are known to have addressed, recorded or shared with others to date.

people just can't stop themselves. Why?

I just don't get the concerted interest in filling in certain details even where moot. And what convinced me this is not a good direction was Agnes_Moorehead#Sexuality. A hater said "she is!" Others said "she isn't!". And so we just have to include the matter? NPOV-style of course. Prurience first, then pooh-poohs second. Foo.

In any case, go back, read the Grauniad column again, and ask yourselves: is what is written from uncited knowledge of the author, or simply repeating what the movie contained/suggested. It is quite unclear to me. I would say the article is uncitable due to that ambiguity. Shenme (talk) 10:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I think this is the sort of sentence we should avoid: "Considerable speculation exists as to Jordan's sexuality and the nature of her and Earl's relationship, something that neither Jordan nor Earl are known to have addressed, recorded or shared with others to date." That sort of "speculation" is probably irrelevant to a responsibly-written biography.

Yup, same silliness at Agnes Moorehead: "Moorehead's sexuality has been the subject of much speculation and dispute." There has to be a good reason for articulating that there has been "speculation". Bus stop (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe Barbara Jordan provides a model of bad practice, maybe not. Sorry, I have no interest in that article, nor in Agnes Moorehead. I'd rather stick here to a discussion of Deckers and Pécher. I don't consider a very general description of their relationship, nor a very brief description of where and when they met, as "motes". Do we need news RfC's to add these simple facts? The subject of the original RfC subject here seems to be preventing the addition of those two details. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry but someone who uses the term "Grauniad" is not engaging in serious debate. Contaldo80 (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Why would the use of the term "Grauniad" suggest that "someone...is not engaging in serious debate"? Bus stop (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Because Private Eye magazine is puerile and not about serious debate. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

7th July arbitrary break

Doe anyone know if this RfC is still open? Are we any closer to agreeing any addition? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question About Singing Nun Article

Hi, I noticed in the article:

From the age of 21, between 1954 and 1959, she taught sculpture to youngsters.

I'm just wondering if one means that she taught 'scripture' instead of 'sculpture.'

I understand she could have taught sculpture to kids. I just thought the word is very close to scripture, and she was in a religious order.

Thank you!

Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themuse1 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Agressive Tone, Was it written by one of the record companies?

The tone used in this article feels biased against Soeur Sourire (Deckers), somewhatharsh and criticizing, as if Deckers herself had been responsible for her own sad and tragic end. It feels like written by someone representing or lawyer of the record company. It should be corrected, and rewritten in a milder tone. 159.146.14.101 (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you could give one or two examples? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I am totally bewildered by that comment. I have read the whole article, and I haven't seen anything remotely like what the comment suggests. JBW (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

p.s. if you've read Chadwick's 2010 book you will realise that this article does not even mention many very unsavoury aspects of Dekker's life story. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

"Committed suicide"

I note this IP edit with the edit summary "Using more compassionate language as recommended by the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention". I see no reason to revert it, although the phrase "died by suicide" is not liked by many editors. I suspect that by 1985 suicide had been decriminalised in Belgium, but I do not know for sure. It was decriminalised in the UK by the Suicide Act 1961. I guess much worse for Dekkers and Pécher, of course, was the view of the Catholic Church that suicide was a mortal sin, so they could not be buried in a churchyard. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)