This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Musicians Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Belgium B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women's History B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies: Person B‑class This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the LGBTQ+ Person task force.

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)

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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.[reply]

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[reply]

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

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]