Talk:The Great Scandal/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The factual accuracy of this article or section is disputed. .

Contents 1 Article 2 Article Scope & Expansion 2.1 Unsourced article 3 McClenon editing descriptions 4 The Great Scandals : Naming the Historical Problem(s) 5 Articles for Deletion debate 6 POV 7 Accuracy banner 7.1 Unsourced statements 8 To User:Jmabel 9 Sourceing here 10 Robert McClenon source rquirements and POV tagging 11 Avro Manhattan 12 Continuing attempted edit 13 The Article page 14 Up-date into scandal disputes etc for Jmabel 15 Trying again 16 I'm giving up... 17 Cleanup 18 Title 19 Articles for Deletion debate 20 Unresolved History 21 RfC 21.1 Improvements to Article? 22 I EffK requested Arbitration for the user McClenon 23 Backing down 24 Denialism, Extremism and vatican Agency in Wikipedia

[edit] Article

I opened this page as certain editors find it difficult to associate the various Politicians, Parties and Churches involved . Here they can all develope on-topic . I do suggest that those who would class this as a conspiracy theory to not leap for deletion , but to consider their position . If the name The Great scandal offends you , I did not choose it . The other catch-all would be "The Nazi Pope" which you may deem even worse , but which does not enable this catch-all necessity . EffK 14:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I note within minutes that User:Str1977 takes it upon himself to remove see also linkage to the Weimar republic . I would remind him that I was an accepted bulk contributor to the Wyss rewrite of Weimar history . It were better for these difficulties to resolve trough rational consensus . Should be , in the modern world .EffK 15:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Copied over from Talk: Reichskonkordat:

EffK, I'm not afraid of anyone seeing it. It's not vandalism since I have a reason for it. Your new article "The Great scandal" has IMHO no place in Wikipedia. What's "Great Scandal" supposed to be? "Reichskonkordat", "Pius XI", "tomato" are all clear in their meaning, but what is "Great Scandal"? It is once more a ploy to create a parallel article for your pleasure, to fill with all your half-baked conspiracy theories, just as "Pope's Hitler" and "Catholic Holocaust Conspiracy" (created for you by Robert McClenon, the man you so unjustifiedly eye with burning hate) were before, in fact just like "Hitler's Pope" as you intented it to be. P's H and CHC have received their deserved fate and H's P has stayed only because it is a book which deserved to have an article, which however was not exactly what you intended by creating it. Hence, IMHO "Great Scandal" has no reason to exist. Already the first line of the article is untrue, or in Wiki-speak original research. As for your objective that over there everything is on-topic - that doesn't work out. What is off topic here on RKK might be on-topic on "Enabling Act" and vice versa. That's how an encyclopedia works. You cannot rightfully create an umbrella article just like that. Str1977 20:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

PS. If you wiki-stalk me (to which I'm not objecting now), do it with open eyes. I did not suggest, intend or wish for Hitler's Pope to be deleted. If you look up the AfD for that article, you'll see that I voted in favour of keepíng it. Str1977 20:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you wrote delete after being first to ascribe , then after a strong counter argument, you weakened. You certainly throughout tried to artificiallty limit the scope to Cornwell by technicality . Great help to knowledge ?And, McClenon I don't hate . I distrusted on evidence I specified. McC said have good faith unless otherwise proven, and he was economical with the truth re an important edit , and upon our first contact . He wiggled using mistake on I think 4 occasions but I wish him well.I reject your accusations this is personal to me -I , in the real world ,have nothing to gain or lose . I repeat that you yourself should be the first to expand the Article , and balance as you can source . Editors all , can judge and adjust . can't they - if it is not deleted ? .EffK 11:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article Scope & Expansion

The article's scope should now increase to level full historical culpability , long reported ,of the Rheinish Wesphalian Industrial Magnates ( of that impossibly unwieldy term) . This might prevent further contrdiction between the more or less separation of the RC Church interest in arrangements , with the accusation that also Church attitude was in part influenced by Bernadino Nogara Holy See investments in German Heavy Industry and Weapons Factories . Editors will perhaps know that this is the Rolf Hochhuth scandal .To achieve a proper level of understanding editors should be clear in receipt of historical fact showing that some industrialists were arming both sides, in France and Germany and that there are vastly important accusations made and proved in large part , that transatlantic capital knew of, assisted, connived and continued to profit by links to Hitlerian dictatorship , sharing as they and the Church continued to do, the Hitler desire to beat back the Soviets .I am but the messenger in proclaiming that these American connections are not conspiracy theory but subject of documentation , and have been so since the Nuremburg Trials . Again, it was eventually adjudged beyond the scope of that Trial to include the offence of assisting Hitler to power .There was , i believe , no aquittal as the charge was abandoned .All industrialists went free of penalty or reparations both sides of the Atlantic, including George Bush's grandfather . Prescott Bush , whose businesses were impounded temporarily . This means that in great part , not only the Vatican achieved its aims over 50 years , crushing the Soviets, but western capitalism ( the stock market)is heavily implicated and compromised .All in all The Great Scandal is the but can of modern history and should free us from confusion or hunger for the truth , and which should inform the separate politico-historical articles . An aside-I have seen no source from User:Pjacobi or anyone negating this necessity .) EffK 12:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced article

Most of this article consists of unsourced statements in the passive voice, of the form "it is argued" or "it is alleged". These statements either are unverifiable or are POV or constitute original research. Robert McClenon 20:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

For instance, The term "The Great Scandal" is the term used to characterise alleged Christian Roman Catholic papal and episcopal collusion with the nascent Third Reich in Germany. Who is the term used by?

An end to shooting the messenger might allow him to unfurl the message .EffK 21:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I have never shot the messenger. I repeatedly asked someone who claimed to be the messenger to summarize the facts that were at issue. I was never given readable answers, only lengthy polemics that I did not understand, and personal attacks. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has some disruptive editors. Robert McClenon 15:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] McClenon editing descriptions

I could source an earlier disingenuous edit description of a far more serious nature, one which led to my characterisation of this user as , to lengthen ,contrary to good faith and economical with the truth .. Here it is just pathetic , to say that a heavy punctuation copy edit is the description for one apostrope S and spaces . In following edit actions the user should congratulate himself on error . When the vatican refers to the place it can be a small v , when it refers to the management it has a cpital . For other people it is a source of confusion , as is revealed here . This user has lodged an RfA against me , which will be interesting . Although a lot of people have had reason to categorise my editing as poor in quality , I suggest that this bulk is in this case quite readable . At least it says what it means .

McClenon may have every right to dismiss the assertions and ask for sources . I can only fingd the time to say that if he had stopped this poitical bashing and hounding against me , I'd have remembered more links and had more time for sourcing. His constant suggestion that the whole subject is a form of paranoia-even to his extent now of posting an RfA about it , is retractable and demeans him .

Lastly , I tell Robert McClenon that at present I find it most convenient to search the dicussions I have been invloved in , to re-discover the examples of my sourcing(every one familiar to Str1977, who followed me closely) , whereupon I link directly to them following relevant words in my 500 words RfA , such as 'source' . Thus am I repeating myself. McC is aware of this , and may act in best of faith to prevent me doing so .I categorise my history on wikipedia as someone whose sources are rejected in bad faith , and that this is done by inwikirevert and discussions by the removers (oddly only two users) whom I lately class (on the RfA [[1]] ) as denialists .EffK 22:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Great Scandals : Naming the Historical Problem(s)

In the the case of the title "The Great Scandal", I think the Conversion/Indian writer whose article is thus named has properly defined the issue , and since he has done so publicly for ,is it 4 years , I credit him with the correct title . It may have been seen by zillions of online readers , perhaps in India , maybe , but published nevertheless to humanity at large .In the the case of the title , I think the Conversion/Indian writer whose article is thus named has properly defined the issue , and since he has done so publicly for ,is it 4 years , I credit him with the correct title . It may have been seen by zillions of online readers . Also used online is the word 'scandal' . Hitler's Pope is one used , but McClenon and others restrict it to Cornwell, foolishly . The first I have seen is from Avro manhattan's 1949 book which is the Nazi Pope .were it not for my succeeding suggestion I would say McClenon would have to allow the Nazi Pope , even though there were effectively two nazi popes .

All the early stories and sources are essentially the same, Rosenburg Nuremburg , Wheeler Bennett(Mowrer as journalist) . See the sources the Shirers and Bullocks and Tolands and Lewys used, vast numbers of documents . Generally a historian is judged , and all the names I mention are accorded lasting respect and considered as foundation in following histories , as should happen in WP But for the papal involvement tagging ,Hitler's Pope is one used , but McClenon and others restrict it to Writer:john Cornwell, foolishly . The first I have seen is from Avro Manhattan's 1949 book which is the Nazi Pope .Were it not for my succeeding suggestion I would say McClenon would have to allow the Nazi Pope , even though there were effectively two nazi popes .

I suggest all relevant material be under the name of the certain criminal individual who benefited : Adolf Hitler or Hitler ..

I suggest that the strands of the problem out-standing be noted under Road to Power where it is that now , and then subdivided into the necessary strands which are at least those below. Due to length I suggest as with theology of Pope Benedict XVI that a fork exit ,called The Rise of Hitler .

That, sections sub-divide from these general interlocking areas

• The German Philosphical contribution.

• The Reichswehr in Weimar Germany contribution.

• The Industrialists The Rhenish-Westphalian Magnates' contribution.

• The landed classes-Junker aristocracy- contribution.

• The evangelical Protestant Churches' contribution .

• The Roman Catholic Church policy and its contribution .

• The International finance contribution.

Links should then exit towards later subject such as the history of the Third Reich , Appeasement , Second World War .User:Robert McClenon is good at this thinking. It may take another while , but as presented on Holocaust that Hitler ascended to power following elections , does not cut the mustard .

Equal treatment must also be accorded the German Widerstand and all knowledge which would be as to this , possibly as in the exception that proves the rule , or more ,or however it truly was .

This suggestion I post elsewhere . EffK 21:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Doc ^ask? 11:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I have placed the {{NPOV}} tag on this article. Without trying to describe the issues exhaustively, I believe the POV issues with the following phrases should be obvious. If they are not, I will clarify:

• "Second Reich": a non-neutral term for the German Empire.
• "It is clear from the Nuremburg Trial testimony of Franz von Papen…"
• "…his strikingly vatican connected family…"
• "are named in recent Oxford University Press history" (what the heck kind of citation is that?)
• "Manhattan is remarkable for elucidating extremely murky Weimar political machination…"

Also, the following is incomprehensible:

• "Internal Vatican politics tangential to the very real threat to Roman Catholicism from Russia and from Marxism, had, for some thousand years, a varied policy towards the Russian Orthodox Church, one which has regularly affected papal elections. Such importance remains an undercurrent concerning such as Marianism…"

There are several other sentences in the article that are poorly written to the point where I'm not sure I know what they are trying to say.

Perhaps the issue is one of cleanup more than POV, but one way or another, this article as it stands is a mess. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Good-so you want to help ? I will deal with your points, if you wish ? Then with necessary clarification of source and changes , we can aim for complete NPOV staus ?

EffK 12:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Your very presence has spurred me to tidy the article, which was shamefully thrown together, and which I have been scared off ever since. if you absolutely require it I could point you to sources re Pacelli and Tindaro and anything, but I request credence due to gd faith ! I used Oxford UP to try and forestall precisely the delete attack . Didnt work . I have to tell you that as I am under attack for all history I broach, I really edit under ginormous pressure and provocation . I hope it is readable and makes sufficient sense now, and am off to read the Indian's (?) Conversion link, which I have not read for ages. Thankyou for signing , and thanks to the copy editor following. EffK 14:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I can't find my way around this mess well enough to be mch help fixing it. Left to my own devices, I would delete it. It is up to the proponents of the article to fix it. Meanwhile, I'm trying to be helpful by pointing up specific problems rather than just slag it.

1. I cannot make coherent sense of " refers to the International Catholic-Jewish Commission; a source to 1933 League of Nations', Pacelli's Nazi awareness; his Holocaust knowledge; Vatican Archives closure from 1923 onwards." Perhaps in part it is just bad punctuation? But what can "Pacelli's Nazi awareness" mean? or "his Holocaust knowledge"?
2. "von Papen's Church(es) priority" is incomprehensible.
3. I would think that the Larouchite Executive Intelligence Review would not be considered a credible citation for anything. Given the number of times that the Larouchite's have been caught in lies and distortions, I would consider them a completely unreliable source.

-- Jmabel | Talk 06:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy banner

This article contains so many statements of the form "it is alleged that" (without saying by whom) that I do not see how it can be easily cleaned up. I have had to add the Accuracy banner to it. Robert McClenon 15:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Late , but really clever . You couldnt knock nothing more than a apostrophe before, clever McC. Well done . Don't whitewash that you don't like . It is petulant and shows the colour of intent. I revert .Now Str1977 is tired out , I have to play ball with you . remarb=kable how few on the team , really. Ill better send all diffs on , hadn't I? Thanks.EffK

[edit] Unsourced statements

There are too many unsourced statements in this article. Since the article survived an Article for Deletion request, I will assume that those who voted to keep it intend to add the sources. Otherwise, I will start deleting the unsourced statements within a few days. Robert McClenon 20:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Good plan. - brenneman^(t)(c) 21:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, if you have the energy for that, I congratulate you. AnnH ^(talk) 21:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The danger of this approach is that the entire article is presently a sequence of unsourced statements. My first choice was to delete the article for that reason. Since it survived AfD, I am assuming that its proponents will source it. Robert McClenon 21:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] To User:Jmabel

The way round this mess is to properly source what is historically soureable into the appropriate pages which are Weimar Republic Nazi Germany Reichskonkordat Pope Pius XI Pope Pius XII Heinrich Brüning Franz von Papen Centre Party Germany Anti-semitism Nuremburg Trials and all possible relevant others, claiming presently a contrary in imbalance. I believe my attempts to do so have seriously clarified many of these pages, and hope that you can accept my good faith attempts at sourceing and repair. So the POV banner isn't as simple to use really.... Are you intersted enough to provide assistance in reaching logical WP concensus between these sources and Wikipedia's need ? This article would then become no more than a history of the scholarship which leads to the proper history . May I ask whether you yourself agree with the Cologne Synagogue request by Abraham Lehrer to the new pope, to open the vatican Archives for this to be effected ?EffK 09:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Now I believe you should be able to remove the NPOV banner , would you be so good as to do so? If you feel that such an article needs completely contrary viewpont, I think some users would simply see that as off-topic. Please consider the good faith , anyway . EffK 16:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sourceing here

2 This event ended negotiations that began after Adolf Hitler became Germany’s chancellor on Jan. 30, 1933. [[2]] & now following [[3]]

Re:Pacelli on WP [his grandfather, who had been a legal adviser to Pius IX, the longest-serving Pope in history] source Cornwell see [[4]] all noteably removed from Wikipedia at Hitler's Pope

[This association of Jewishness with Bolshevism confirms that Pacelli, from his early 40s, nourished a suspicion of and contempt for the Jews for political reasons. But the repeated references to the Jewishness of these individuals, along with the catalogue of stereotypical epithets deploring their physical and moral repulsiveness, betray a scorn and revulsion consistent with anti-Semitism]

Fair use/educational extracts from copyrighted works to source as required for disputed article EffK 11:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robert McClenon source rquirements and POV tagging

I think that should do the sourceing you required. Hopefully you will see that Abraham Lehrer's Cologne request justifies these historical queries, and you might in good faith direct your energies now , after removing the tagging, to satisfying Lehrer's request. Tell u what , I'll save you and remove the tags myself . I hope Jmabel will equally be entirely reassured as to the NPOV presentation . if not and you do revert into the POV tagging, well, perhaps you will require more source. i do not wish to hear any excuses about length or copyright . I also do not here wish to argue the Str1977 concerns as to definitions of source :these will best be determinable at some Wikipedia committee place. EffK 12:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The NPOV banner has been reinserted. There are still far too many passive-voice sections of the form "It is alleged" or "The allegation is". I am willing to remove the NPOV banner if at the same time all of the unsourced sections are also removed. Since the article has been revised by EffK, it now needs heavy copy-editing. Robert McClenon 14:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

NB un-subtle ad hominem insinuation, all against Wikipedia good-faith requirement. If I can find anything to remove now I shall do so. Then I shall someday expand the unfinished section. Your tagging is bordering contrary to all wikipedia sourceing principles, but nothing new there. Ill see what more |I can do . Oh- but when will you answer me the question concerning your wholly un-warranted accusations at the Arbcom requessts. funny, it is the same question that I ask of str1977 :Why do you personalise this history to within my personal POV ? I think you will need to have an answer , even if you do not satisfactorily manage to give it here now . It is your assumption of my bad faith to corral all that exists of history into my supposedPOV. This is a very weak response, as it so reveals the appearance of ad hominem and relies upon denial of sources . but try an answer, sometime ,please. While you are at it ,editor, someone should report you for dreadfully in-wiki , loathsome, juvenile , un-pc, erroneous , bad faith pesonal attacks upon me when I was out of wikipedia. Please , someone recognise this un-wiki editor . EffK 15:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing personal about the NPOV banner, and the NPOV banner is consistent with the assumption of good faith (only of POV through error). It is inappropriate for EffK to lecture anyone about assuming of good faith when he has accused editors of being agents of the Vatican, and has even suggested that an editor was covering up the acts of his grandfather (who died honorably as a soldier). Robert McClenon 19:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I basically concur with R McC here. The article is a mess; it's really hard to sort out how much of that is POV, how much bad sourcing, and how much just plain bad writing, but this thing needs some warning flags, and that is as good as any. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Avro Manhattan

Avro Manhattan is an extremist source. Please provide a reputable source agreeing with his allegations, or I will delete the paragraphs. (It is true that Catholic thinking in the 1919-1933 period was split between those favoring a return of the monarchy and those favoring continuation of the Republic. However, Avro Manhattan is not a reputable source.) Robert McClenon 20:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I know not whether extremist is your personal or WP justifiable epithet for him. He is published since 1949 , and I don't think any association with publishers and promoters is the issue here. He is scholarly source , and I prefer that knockers should refute source with contrary source rather than with pure personal opinion . Where can you find , therefore, contrary exegesis of the source ? Provide or it seems contrary to WP source rule. I do not submit to personal epithet or personal interpretation, and if I did you McClenon would be the first to jump on it, so this is double-standard bias of yours. This is a major issue, one I have raised with Jimbo, and is not to be acceded to at all in the absence of WP guidelines. Show me a guideline that allows for denial of published scholarly source. Take your POV out of the equation .EffK 00:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Please show us all the guideline that allows for removal of source anywhere, Robert McClenon . Or can anyone ... EffK 10:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Robert McClenon 13:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Avro Manhattan? What nonsense! I wouldn't be surprised if this vile article cited Chick Tracts and Alberto Rivera.

[edit] Continuing attempted edit

From the ==Background== section

Internal Vatican politics was tangential to the very real threat to Roman Catholicism from Russia and from Marxism, and had had, for some thousand years, a varied policy towards the Russian Orthodox Church, one which has regularly affected papal elections. A veto upon Mariano Cardinal Rampolla's [5] accession to the papacy from the last Emperor of Austria concerned these relations to the Orthodox East [6]. Such ecclesiastico-political importance remains subject of study, and in faith terms also concerns such as Marianism and the repair and correction of the historic Christian schism. The veto affected the course of Vatican policy in weakening an eastern rapprochement.

I can't fix this myself because I can't really understand it. I have many specific questions, following, but I also don't see how all of this adds up to a coherent statement of anything.

"Internal Vatican politics was tangential to…": tangential to means they had little connection. Is that what this means to say, and if so what is its relevance?

"…the very real threat to Roman Catholicism from Russia and from Marxism…": there was certainly a very real threat from Marxism, but from Russia? The Great Schism was nearly a millennium in the past, and by the 20th century the geographic lines between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy were pretty stable.

"…and had had, for some thousand years, a varied policy towards the Russian Orthodox Church, one which has regularly affected papal elections." For starters, if I parse the first par of this correctly, it amounts to "Internal Vatican politics … had had … a varied policy towards the Russian Orthodox Church…" I'm guessing that you mean to say that the Vatican had a varied policy, not that internal Vatican politics had. Also, "has regularly" rather than "had regularly" means this is still ongoing. Is there any indication that politics toward the Russian Orthodox Church have affected a papal election in living memory?

"A veto upon Mariano Cardinal Rampolla's [7] accession to the papacy from the last Emperor of Austria…" I assume that means 1903. We should say so.

"…concerned these relations to the Orthodox East [8]." OK. Fine. Now why is any of this relevant to events 30 years later? I think the next sentence tries to explain, but I don't understand it

"Such ecclesiastico-political importance remains subject of study…" The importance (and apparently, from this wording, not even the degree of importance) "remains an object of study"?

"…and in faith terms…" I am not sure what this means to say. Perhaps "in terms of faith"?

"…also concerns…" I think that is concerns as a noun, but I cannot work out what verb it goes with.

"…such as Marianism": if there is a relevance here to R.C. attitudes toward the Nazis, I am missing it.

"…and the repair and correction of the historic Christian schism." OK, I guess, but redundant.

"The veto affected the course of Vatican policy in weakening an eastern rapprochement." Franz Josef's veto weakened an ongoing Vatican policy of rapprochement? Or affected an existing Vatican policy of weakening the rapprochement? These two opposite readings are possible, and so no doubt are others.

That is an awful lot of problems in one paragraph. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The problems with the paragraph have been solved. Robert McClenon 21:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• I assume this refers to the fact that the paragraph was cut. Now can we see if we can fix it so it can be restored? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I congratulate Jmabel in this. Can I begin at the end as we are first, as MCC is rapid to enter in force, as is his right , however I bettr go thru his edits as in the first I immediately have objection that he ignores a source .

• First edit-[[9]] ignores the link to the contemporary brouhaha

WSWS : News & Analysis : Europe : Germany

Denying the real continuity in German history

Why Social Democrat Ludwig Stiegler has infuriated Germany’s Christian Democrats and Liberals By Alexander Boulerian 4 April 2002 Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

see as linked and ignored (?) same link to [[10]]

• Second edit McC deletes what surely is trying to explain...proof is mostly lacking due to vatican archive being shut. In this regard the answer to the question further above re Pacelli is yes,not I , but I have seen allegation that Pacelli as Pope had earlier full knowledge of the Holocaust than others , possibly before all western intelligence outside the Reich machine .Of course he had priests on the ground( large allegation separately accuses the jesuits of being in the know, and actively assisiting in the murder in claimed actual camp We'll have to return to that . Jmabel the other answer from earlier above is that the Commission I referred to has c 6 members, the Jewish scholars have objected to denial of view of the relevant archives, the non-Jewish members have not denied this denial. The situation is widely reported online and of course on paper when economically possible etc. tis commission seems to confirm Abraham Lehrer in that the Archive is closed. Needless to say Lehrer's public intervention is our major pointer as real and public, whereas apologia out there denies that they are shut. This needs to be understood, as far as it can be. The 2nd edit should lead to great expansion, not the reverse.

• Penultimate McClenon edit .No, it refers to Cornwell, easy to fix McC ?

• Remval marianism/schizm Ill accept McC doing so provisional to re-structuring . At least this arrives into WP public notice.I'll Admit to extreme convolution . Here I shall answer, I'm not claiming revalation and own up to hyper-compressive tendency (a defence mechanism?) and accept both editors rightful grip on my heels.

Tangential, taken as you say Jmabel, but I claim it is tangential=important but deriving elsewhere and with a separate track . The very veto was important and affected the vatican foreign policy which is the centre of the issue(My understanding for some months would suggest to me that Pacelli as part of an internal vatican faction prevailed upon Pius XI's inclination. I think it represents a, is it 4th type of German putsch , after the strands contributing to the 30 Jan putsch . Please don't ask for 1-3 clarification, we'll skip that just now) .So the word required is tngential .

Internal Vatican politics was tangential to the very real threat to Roman Catholicism from Russia and from Marxism, and had had, for some thousand years, a varied policy towards the Russian Orthodox Church,

varied policy could come out as it aims to explain the course of the 1000 years in two words.

one which has and regularly affected papal elections. A veto upon Mariano Cardinal Rampolla's [11] accession to the papacy from the last Emperor of Austria concerned these relations to the Orthodox East [12]. Such ecclesiastico-political importance remains subject of study, and in faith terms also concerns such as Marianism and the repair and correction of the historic Christian schism. The veto affected the course of Vatican policy in weakening an eastern rapprochement

The marianism is totally tangential in yr sense, accept removal until I find that to which I aimed to refer. Leaves:

Internal Vatican politics was tangential to the very real threat to Roman Catholicism from Russia and from Marxism, and has regularly affected papal elections. A veto upon Mariano Cardinal Rampolla's [13] accession to the papacy from the last Emperor of Austria concerned these relations to the Orthodox East [14]. The veto affected the course of Vatican policy in weakening an eastern rapprochement .

Fair enough , did I avoid my grovel? I Suggest it's in short version still relevant .Jmabel , back to tangential- it's not parallel, because there is a point of over-lap , nor is it central . int of over-lapsn't suitable .Thanks for being there as i think it could be harder without you and I know you can't be expected to hang around. i'd like you to oversee the problem of POV/NPOV as without sorting that, the page will not exist at all , howevr written . Tindaro is important and provides essential link into historical understanding. I foresee that reason should inform us as to why .

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by EffK (talk • contribs) 27 Nov 2005.

I cannot make head or tail of the above. As far as I can tell, you have not answered my questions, other than agreeing that Marianism is beside the point. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

You see that the highlighted edited paragraph is clear , do you not. Whether necessary or justified , is another matter .I believe I have clearly tried to answer your questions with the succeeding result, actually , but thanks for your patience in a complex matter. EffK 10:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Article page

In catch-up: McC, we won't fight about Cornwell, but as the disproof is closed to the world, it is a bit harsh to not include in the article there at that point that this is the case.

EffK 11:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Up-date into scandal disputes etc for Jmabel

Please Can we get a bit of WP good faith so I don't find constant attack and therefore less ability to concentrate. If this is the way to silence me, it works pretty well. I object strenuously , to little or no avail . Everywhere it is the same, and its un-wikipedia , not bias, it is editing to silence which as here ignores clear source . Why should I be subject to this , well it is obvious, and all I can say to you Jmabel is that you better think how well you can afford to draw this kind of flak should you 'mediate/help' even clarity . I shall understand if you do not wish to, as it happens...

McClenon I found that diff re: your first appearance in the disputes of bias .It's true you didn't say that you had a previous username, what you said was that your notice of my original request for comment re Str1977 disputes, and your entry into pages you had had no previous history upon -explained your paucity of edits! It was by no means an answer to my question as to how a supposed mediator-type could come in like that with c.1 week on WP, offering help and taking such a clear and soon visibly severe line. I'd better tell Jmabel that we have big history on WP you and I, and I was told by you yourself that it was an offence to affirm bad faith without prior proof . Say no more for now. You should redo or allow someone else to reform this as Jmabel agrees, if he does. Or at least stop accusing me of being a lone crazy seeing a vatican conspiracy, and wishing to wrongfully infect WP . But you are hardly going to do a u-turn are you?

Jmabel all I can say is that with str1977 , I came to understand that any limited social values towards political independance and rationalism or whatever i had ,was forced to career in WP thru the over-all churches canons and, began with my constant referral to romans 3, v 8. This I call the question of the law, and I most forcefully deny to you , and through-out, that I am an attacker upon the church . I find that the tenets of christianity seem to have embedded themselves in any libertarianism framework I retain such that the law of Romans not only seems self-apparent like a constitutional precept , but is the basis of the christian divine magisterium. Therefore I actively seek to re-inforce the magisterium . However the contradictions which 30's vatican foreign policy brings us from history towards the present Vatican policies,lays bare contradiction in the Church and the Vatican . The Mowrer report informed me, and Cornwell and Kershaw and Manhattan and all the intervening voices are new or un-known to me. I believe rationally that the final lessons of our history are coming to us, and that these contradictions have to be indubitably settled for the good of all.

Great attempt has been, is being made to silence me and the contradiction because the solution requires abandonment of infallibility, as well as repair to the Church by recognition of error against the magisterium , so, I was pressured when I wrote this poetic up-date on romans 3 ,8 [[15]] Romans chapter 3, verse 8 exegesis concerns the slander upon the Apostle Paul's doctrines of unconditional election, free justification, of the Divinity converting (judging or overturning) man's sins for good, put in a rhetorical attack -

Though our Critics

Attack us,

That we collaborated with Nazis to beat Commies;

They'd be right to if we did.

Actual

and not rather, as we be slanderously reported

and as some affirm: that we say

let us do evil that good may come;

whose damnation is just.

EffK 00:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• What on earth are you talking about? I didn't call you "an attacker of the church" or anything else of the sort. Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you want to complain that someone is attempting to silence you, start an RfC and request arbitration. This isn't an article about you, or at least it shouldn't be, and this page is to discuss writing the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

What on earth I am talking about is this :Please try and understand that which I am trying to tell you ,Jmabel, as I am obviously not referring to you in this over-all matter but to a concert of effort through relevant articles. You will see that it is clearly not your involvement at this stage that I characterise . I am by the way called a slanderer, at the very least .Crazy at the worst. This is now the subject of a Wikipedia religious trial of myself as such a slanderer. I deny this to you Jmabel as information you may benefit in understanding,and as it affects my editing , OK? EffK 10:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trying again

Laying aside that paragraph, which is apparently cut to talk as no one is fixing it, let's go on to the next.

Actually I fixed it for you and you could now replace it in all conscience...

• "Pius XI is not considered an anti-semite…" Fine.
• "…and in fact published strong and clear guidelines which should have prevented any such political error as martial dictatorship." What has "martial dictatorship" got to do with anti-semitism? Did he publish statements against anti-semitism (in which case we should mention that)? Why is "martial dictatorship" an "error"? An "error" in terms of Catholic doctrine? In pragmatic terms? What does this mean to say?

Oh it's completely contradictory of his, Pius XI, own teaching on social behaviour;eventually he did publish such, but not uesing the crucial word Jew;the error was to have contravened the magisterium , which includes romans 3,8(the canonical error results in his automatic excommunication at the offence).FK

Jmabel revisions, questions , 29 Nov 2005

1. Again, what has "martial dictatorship" got to do with anti-semitism?
2. What do you mean by "he did publish such, but not uesing the crucial word Jew"? Is there a published statement by him about anti-semitism or not? Or even if there is just something more general that left the reader to infer "Jew" between the lines, what is the document?
3. I have no idea what you are talking about when you say "automatic excommunication". Who are you saying was (or should have been) excommunicated? Are you saying (I'm really extrapolating here, trying to make sense of what seem to me to be very cryptic remarks) that anyone who sets up a military dictatorship is in contravention of Catholic doctrine and thereby excommunicated? Or that in principle they could be excommunicated? or what? Or are you saying something else entirely? -- Jmabel | Talk 08:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• "Toland alleges that Pius XII was tainted with some personal anti-semitism [16]." Refers to Toland's allegation, then links to a page that does not mention Toland; instead it is to an annotated version of John Cornwell's Vanity Fair excerpt from Hitler’s Pope.

I made it quite plain that this,is McClenon's edit , including Toland as source is incorrect confusion, the source is Cornwell, hence the link. FK

This seems resolved, by changing "Toland" to "Cornwell". -- Jmabel | Talk 08:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

But should this even still be in the article, in light of the fact that Cornwell has recanted the premise of "Hitler's Pope"? Cf. http://www.economist.com/books/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3471137

• "Both are recognised as being primarily driven by desire to create a political bulwark against rising secularist Communism. (Toland)" Seems uncontroversial, though if one is going to cite Toland, page numbers would be nice.

Yes , when I can, you'll have them . If it was so uncontroversial I shouldnt have had Str1977 et al wiping him out in WP:It is controversial because Toland's view is evidence towards the proof of internal canonical error, and defence of the vatican figures is cardinal to understanding the editing away with such evidences and source. You may think this unreasonable, but canon law forces this defensive behaviour. I can and have proved this and can again. It is denialism I collect at my trial statement .FK

• I am completely confused by your statement "canon law forces this defensive behaviour". We are not trying, in this article, to gain a Roman Catholic imprimatur. Are you saying that someone here is editing on behalf of the Catholic Church?? -- Jmabel | Talk 08:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

So can someone help me through this thicket? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Jmabel,

maybe I can clear some things up. Yes, EffK is saying that someine here is editing on behalf of the Catholic Church. First and foremost, he accused me of that, of being a Vatican agent etc., but he in fact accuses all Catholic Wikipedians of that by misinterpreting a canon he has dug up that makes it a duty for Catholic to defend the Pope - which he interprets defend against all accusations, whether false or true. He also repeatedly misinterpreted the nature of canon law - that it's not forcing anyone to do anything. It rather appeals to the conscience to do what is right. Catholics are not robots and canon law is not Windows. And as a Catholic, my religion also calls for truthfullness and hence such a deceit would be against it as well. Also, I am not just a Catholic, but also a historian and hence committed to historical facts and proper interpretation. Some of EffK's post are facts, some are valid interpretations and some are way-out-of-bounds interpreations. I for my part think that it's a duty of a Catholic to defend anyone against false accusations, not just the Pope, and I did that. Problem is, EffK considers his interpretation, which - in spite of what he says - is not consensus of historiography (referring to the disputed parts - he's right of course that Hitler was appointed Chancellor on January 30 etc).

The "Pius XII is an anti-semite" passage goes back to Cornwell, though it has been debunked as being based on a flawed reading of one letter. Toland was an erroneous attribution of source by Robert McClenon.

As for "automatic excommunication" - a person can incur excommunication by performing certain acts and EffK claims that Pius XI, Pius XII and Ludwig Kaas did just that and calls on the Church to posthumously proclaim them excommunicated (and dig them up again). One might discuss whether everything the three did was right, but he has not made a conclusive case that they incurred excommunication. He tried this by invoking Romans 3 (which says that one should do bad so that good may come of it), and also the encyclica Humanae Vitae (which is based on that principle) and the debate about pro-abort politicians in the US. But has failed to convince even Robert McClenon, with whom I respectfully disagree on the issue of Pius XII and Cornwell.

The accusations against Pius XI I don't understand at all. He called Christians "spiritual Semites", he published "Mit brennender Sorge" (which was directed against the Nazis' church policy) and he had a "anti-Racism" encyclica prepared which wasn't finished and published because of his death. The ommission of the word "Jew" is the standard complaint to Pius XII's christmas address in 1942 (I think), where he denounced that some are killed solely because of their race (quoting from memory). Now, this referred to the Nazi atrocities, without explictely naming them, and was broadcast around the world. He who had ears could listen. Of course, it is a valid view that it was too general (Germans wihtout knowledge of the Holocaust could easily fail to understand this), but the Nazis did understand and surely this ommission doesn't make Pius XII and anti-semite.

Str1977 10:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Str, the war years and Pius XII are a useful red-herring along with the Cornwell anti-s thing. We went thru canon law and your only dispute was whether it was Kaas or the other two(without Papen) not as to their very clear meaning.canonical wrong is irrespective of whether the three were or were not anti-semitic .

Great ,all your honesty is laudable and a red herring. Theres only one truth and that is that Pius XI was persuaded against his own social policy to go to bed with a tyrant. Who ,why ,when ,wherefore follows and you dispute. We disputed, it is at an end , I think . I see no further dispute and as I finally round all this up for Trials at my page , it is all rather unimportant relative to the Canon laws and declaration now required.

Jmabel isnt the slightest bit interested in this , I don't think , Str, here or elsewhere. I don't think anyone much will be until the declaration required by the church hits the headlines.

My only remaining important question for you is why do you personalise the issue of the Cornwell/Kershaw ?/Nuremburg/Manhattan/Klemperer/Shirer/Toland/Lewy/Tallet accusations within my user name? (as I know you accept the quid pro quo from 9 April 1933,) but all these say more than that. So why me?

Except for this other intricacy : do you canonically owe a duty to defend a deceased pontiff as well ? Please answer both questions wherever you like.

I should have thought the present pontiff will believe and teach that a Catholic is a Catholic is a Catholic. EffK 10:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

EffK,

• I do not personalise the historical issues. I'd debate them with anyone.

I'm afraid you do when you call me slanderer and support the accusation that it is all my POV.FK

• The issues that are personal are the ones of your rather unique style, your accusations outside of the actual editing stuff etc. But if anyone else did the same I would answer the same.

And I make no un-warranted accusation , which is why I still go on repairing, reverting, sourceing, arguing with you.FK

• Please take not what "ad hominem" means. If I said (which I don't), "this is false because Famekeeper posted it", I'd be arguing ad hominem, which is a logical fallacy.

Both you and McC say just this in so far as he said from roght the start I couldn't write the subject, because I refused hid 500 word precis and wanted him to look at the source I posted six inches higher. You constantly excoriate my brain, my writing, consort with .. out there who call me crazy, agree with them . you have rather more personalised this that I. I say you are true to your line and consistent and skilful and first class. Almost un-noticeable to anyone but myself. you have tried everywhere to minimise the damage to your? church from my source. I collect proof, as you used to collect couplets out of my 10,00 word moral pleas . Karma everywhich way-what goes down,comes round.FK

If I say, "Famekeeper is wrong because ....", I am not arguing ad hominem but addressing the issues. If I were to say (which I don't), "Oh, that Famekeeper is a XXXXXXXX", it wouldn't be "ad hominem" either as it wouldn't be trying to be an argument about an issue - it would merely be a personal attack. It'd still be wrong and un-Wiki-like.

Come on you yourself accuse and edit from multiple articles calling them my POVFK

• As for the books you mention: some of these are scholarly historiography which does not mean that the authors don't have view points on this or that. This also influences their writing. Hence some books are, since their finding have not found consensus, POV, e.g. Cornwell. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be included if they are noteworthy in scholarly or public debate, but it has to in such a way that the reader knows that this is a POV and not "the truth". Some works are however unscholarly and the essay from which this article's title is taken certainly is (and the sites that publish it don't increase its credibility). Other works are rather primary sources which have to be considered using Quellenkritik. In our case this applies to Mowrer and Brüning's memoirs. A timeline as such is no source and no historiography (unless they are standard among historians, such the "Ploetz" in Germany is), though it might be based on historiography. Your time line sometimes gives sources, sometimes not. And sometimes it unfortunately gives uselessly broad (and hence meaningless) statements, sometimes factually incorrect ones, sometimes misleadingly onesided. E.g. "The Reichstag gives Hitler full leadership powers" (supposedly on March 20) is both uselessly broad (what are leadership powers) and factually wrong (the Enabling Act was on the 23).

I never sourced any such statement. Where's that?

"Communists (KPD) tries to establish an anti-Nazi coalition with the German Social Democratic Party (SPD)" is misleadingly onesided as it reports one KPD move (internally controversial) without noting that this was a rare deviation from their actual policy of fight as their prime enemies the so-called "Social facists" of the SPD.

• Where this? And yet you say it is true anyway.FK

"Heinrich Bruening succeeds Monsignor Kaas as leader of the Catholic Center Party" is factually wrong in regard to the date April 6). You are not to blame for these shortcomings but I want to ask you to take that into account.

• Did I use that ?
• Your memory of our canon law discussion is mistaken. I did say that there are things which will get you excommunicated automatically. I said that I can't see anything that Pius XI or Pius XII/Pacelli have done that would get them excommunicated - errors notwithstanding.

Yes indeed , but no I do not accept your interpretation however historiographical you say or interptret. You still have not produced any body of source to up-end Shirer's assertions, or Toalnds? No coherent copunter hsitorian saying anything different. You write that it is different. lewy meanwhile apparently claims co-operation as much as Shirer-I don't know, all I do know is that megamemex quotes incriminating dates and says-Lewy. Where's your source saying kaas wasn't close to pacelli(removed by you until I kicked very hard)? Where's your source saying hitler's meeting with Hitler on 2 April was not to do with the reichskonkordat and the final stitch-up? tell us why did Hitler waste his time with kaas if Kaas wasnt a conduit, recently returned from pacelli? You hold to the fact that only with Papen's secret trip (Yes everyone mentions that, as the Italian Press sourced his trousers to the vatican that next day and blew the cover- So show us where that is disproved...)I don't like your condescending tone and this is not the firm answer tothe partcular question I repeat, this is an attempt to rubbish Shirer and Toaland and Klemperer and Mowrer and Lambert ...Source your pparent cleanly history ,Str , please.FK Source your POV. I dont care what you think, I care why you think it, and source would tell me .FK

I especially doubt it in regard to Pius XII who has been declared "venerable". I said that Kaas might have done something to merit that (though he might have been reconciled during his life time). I also stated that your conclusions about the affects of such an automatic excommunication of two popes on the church and the magisterium were wrong.

I say you claim utterly wrong, i quoted the actual canons as to why it is necessary to repair scandal, and how it is done in such case, what post-mortem loss of priveliges happened. you just called me impious, and still do not counter source a single canon. tell me where those measures aren't because I'll stick us back to those sourced discussions and prove you know better, and that you wriggle.

• You also misinterept the canon which supposedly obliges Catholics to defend the Pope and the Church. Now, I haven't read the CIC and if such a canon meant what you claim it would contradict other precepts of Christianity.

I'm glad to hear there may be a check, I saw it say whatever , however necessary or ordered or similar. I sourced another order on Euronews from the Spring 2005 Vatican Media Conference for all catholics to precisely get stuck in exactly as you do, and others I note do, rather note it divided . Strange how I notice areas .FK

But it simply means that a Catholic is not to sit idly while someone falsely accusses the Church or the Pope. But I would add, a Catholic should defend anyone falselly accused.

Defend me from McClenon then, who says it's my one man POV crusade then? Do you or do you not agree with his RFA accusation that it is my lone attempt to besmirch Wikipedia with a conspiracy theory of my own, yes or no? FK

• There is a principle that a Catholic should "sentire cum ecclesia" and to adhering to that I do confess (It is a form of "assuming good faith"). Some people are inimical to the Church, even some historians (Lewy for example, and you can tell it by their writing. They are free to do so and free to always assume the worst of the Church, but that doesn't make their work any better as such. But it's still historiography. Others hate the Church so much (and/or have no qualifications) that their works cannot be considered scholarly. They don't have a place on WP, at least not as sources, only as subjects.

Patronising, and how is it decided where the dividing line is?

• I don't understand your last line. Str1977 11:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I'm giving up...

... on working on this article in the near future. I ask simple editorial questions about particular passages in the text, and I get (now from two opposite directions) either long rambling essays or lengthy rehashings of old disputes to which I was not a party. My only interest here was to try to fix an article parts of which I find literally incomprehensible. It is clear that I will not succeed at this with the amount of effort I am willing to give it. I hope someone else fixes it; I am taking it off of my watchlist. If you want to respond to me personally (but, believe me, it's fine if you don't) leave a note on my talk page, because I will not be watching this one. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It is a complex subject, and thankyou for trying.Your being on two inter-related articles when the other one falls through as it must, should not make you feel this one un-important. And, it is very irksome the way Str1977 and I argue everywhere. There is always a dispute and lenghty reasoning and shoves towards source. Walking away is the best for you perhaps. Personally I regret that no-one reads the links and imports they're due reflection from where it is more properly recounted. EffK 23:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I was one of the voters when this article came up for deletion not long ago. Normally a notice about the vote appears on a talk page. I don't see that here.

The main reason I defended this article was because the original argument gave equal weight to Protestant clergy as well as Roman Catholic clergy regarding their public silence about the excesses of the Nazi regime. While there are notable exceptions and individual acts of heroism among clergy members, the religious establishment as a whole failed to use its moral authority to condemn Hitler. Atheists sometimes cite this as an argument against Christianity in general. My vote also recommended cleanup because the Wikipedia article omits the Protestant half of this argument. While three other Wikipedia articles discuss Roman Catholicism in relation to Nazism, none discusses Germany's large Lutheran church in this light. This one ought to. The problem has not been addressed. I am posting a cleanup tag for this reason. Durova 15:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• I agree, and also think this page needs a serious cleanup for other reasons: I find most of the prose to be startlingly incoherent, some of the tone doesn't feel encyclopedic, there are lots of style inconsistencies and errors and it needs the references and external links split up and listed properly in a consistent way. NicM 16:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC).

For reasons that are quickly evident , I am un-able to function as Article editor.I refer you to my response of a few days ago at 15 December [[17]],http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence#3_December_2005

In answer to Durova, what I would say is that I am not aware that the evangelical or Protestant churches in Weimar had in any way the crucial affect that the vatican had. Also I see no problem in sourceing any of their historical relationship to Nazism , whereas it is the other church which disputes its history . This article is about the facilitation of Nazism -its empowerment, so strictly it is not about Protestant fellow travelling collaboration. I suggest that NicM effect the stylistic changes he notes, and sorts the links . I claim little aptitude for wrapping enormous political forces into short sentences whilst subject to barrage of attacks, and of course would welcome any improvements anywhere I have been . I find it difficult to even prevent the mis-use of one word on WP, let alone style. I refer to 'charismatic' Adolf Hitler, and ask you NicM to advise there on that one word, sometime . EffK 06:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not really know enough about the subject to really do such a large article proper justice. If an editor who does wishes to make a start, I am more than willing to assist with grammar and style (I think this is an important subject). I might take a quick run through if I have time anyway and see what things I can do. NicM 08:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Title

Is the term "The Great Scandal" a real, widespread term? I can't find much evidence beyond the title of one book and an article, witness: [18], [19], [20]. Should this article be moved to something like "Allegations against the Roman Catholic church related to World War II" or "related to Naziism" (this would solve the did-the-Protestants-do-it-too issue as well)? NicM 08:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC).

I called it after 2 . Protestantism is entirely off-topic. This is not to say that Protestants did not embrace Hitlerism, and along with 95 odd per cent of the German people , vote for the NSDAP in Nov 1933 one-party elections. The Great Scandal relates to the inherent hypocritical position of papal subversion of German democracy achieved during the democracy. This is a different subject and involves empowerment and wish for empowerment of Hitler as bulwark for the Pope against Communism. The simple truth is that that which relates to protestantism should there at Protestantism emanate, and from catholicism, from there at Catholicism. Fat chance of that though. Hence the Article which is recent catch all for Nazi Pope(s) Scandal. The word scandal is very commonly associated with the sordid deal. The word great refers to the over-riding consequences to probably even your own family history. Catholic Hitler Axis would be accurate . I believe that complex titles diminuish notice, and the WP . An insistence on protestant parallelism would necessitate an Article with title such as Hitler Christianity Axis . I am not against that, but it is a difference from this here. I repeat that I am so abused and attacked that I am not myself editing anywhere, but only watching and advising. It is too bad , and a pure result of the great scandalous catholic Hitler axis , which is even at the risk of editors appearing hypocrites, classed verboten as shown at 15 December [[21]],http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence#3_December_2005

EffK 10:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Unless you can provide some evidence that the term (or the others you suggest, such as Catholic Hitler Axis) is commonly used as you describe (solely to refer to Roman Catholic attempts to assist Hitler's rise to power), I do not think it is an appropriate title. It is not up to us to assign this title to the subject, nor to restrict its scope as you suggest: remember WP:NOR.

Meaning no offence, your language can be a little difficult to penetrate and the article is quite disorganized so I find it difficult to extract exactly what the allegations were and who has presented and discussed them. In my opinion, the article needs to be reformatted to show:

• precisely what the church is alleged to have done, who made these claims, and what the evidence they presented was,
• how this was hypocritical and "against popular conceptions of Christian doctrine", what were these conceptions, who held them, who claimed there was a hypocritical mismatch, and what evidence they presented

Perhaps you would care to list some online articles and resources regarding this subject so others can reformat it. As far as I can see, the evidence basically seems to be:

• Pius XI and Pius XII were fiercely anti-Communist, and the latter has been alleged to be an anti-semite.
• They signed the Reichskonkordat which some have opinioned helped Hitler's respectability.
• Several people, including Margaret Lambert and Edgar Ansel Mowrer, have alleged the Holy See explicitly assisted Hitler's rise to power through Cardinal Pacelli and Ludwig Kaas, as a bulwark against Communism, although precise details in the article are a little thin on the ground other than some suspicious meetings, weird U-turns on press coverage and "intrigue".
• This cooperation was hypocritical and thus this was a scandal, although this part is not really discussed in the article.

NicM 12:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC).

It seems then that it is going be a question then of de copyrighting what is written out there by mirroring it into alternative English . It seems that it will have to in fact go to Hitler and the Church , by the rules you quote. Im sure you are trying to express good intentions- I refer you to my posts over time , as to repeat them would be idle . This page was put up at the point where it seemed that deletion would remove Hitler's Pope,and all the relevant links-it has been a bloody battle to include them or anything.I really mean a long and abstractedly bloddy battle, that has driven me far into a deep corner . This has been most wrong, and maybe someone without a broad source or sufficient understanding would have allowed the browbeating to win.I do not say this in levity - delete went up here before the re-quired interval, sometimes it is done within 5 minutes, I started one called I think Hitler and Bavaria, and got about 5 lines down. It does not amuse me when the users know I source. The essence was removed everywhere on many pretexts. I don't like being in the position of complainant, and I refer you to Bengalski's take as an outsider after the event, at my talk . I think that your admirable refereeing would be that little bit more admirable if it were to note the revisionism under the rules you quote. I dont specifically wish to get your back up , but I do recommend you actually see what the problem is in WP that is not of my making, but rather the opposite. I refer you as example to Pius XI or to AHitler. I am a bit touchy, as I am considered POV by those who dislike the references, and the sources, and who hypocritically delete them . I ask you to check the line from 15 December and its variance with the admission of 19 July, from the above link I gave you. If you do understand the history I refer you to my last message to User:Durova re cut-off point. I also refer you to my last to Bengalski , which clarifies my position. Lastly , I repeat , even more clearly , that POV opposition has throughout clothed itself in snow-white WP rules. Only your understanding of the 15/19 diffs will show you how partial and un-acceptable such behaviour has been. This is why I continue to have a very jaundiced eye on apparently straight users making relatively easy commentary . OK? And , lets drop it til a newer time ... Thanks tho for even writing. EffK 20:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

In fact I dislike the word allegations altogether. I have provided sources for a year , and shall do as you ask, but because of the very bad behaviour against me, which you have not apparently been concerned to visit , I myself will not directly edit any any any any article . You might, and I might help you or someone else, but I have had it with allegations as a term . I don't need it myself, as I use source. I can report , I have reported, and I'm attcked for presenting such reports . Please try and see the bigger picture -OK? EffK 21:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not interested in your or others past behaviour, I am interested in making the article better and appropriate for Wikipedia and a general audience. If you could provide some online sources for me to read it would be most welcome. NicM 22:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Doc ^ask? 11:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

This was removed in a later edit, I have restored it. NicM 09:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Unresolved History

Maybe you are not interested User NicM....anyway I placed a bunch of online refs at Nazi Accession Question . I have just read another lengthy Cornwell critique. It bears perusal, as it is the fullest critique I have yet seen, and can point to quotation relevant to protestantism and to the German Hierarchy, and to the vatican. It is anti-Cornwell.

I do not expect to find any more sources of the nature of Mowrer's Otto Brok which is there on my talk page (can you be interested to look?) . I have pointed out the 'large ' historians who speak of the Holy See's apparent barter, the apparent short-lived pontifical approbation ( "uncompromisingly strong man" ) of 10 April and this critique gives us further necessary information, at http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/piusxii.html ,[22] . It mostly demolishes Cornwell, and would appear to be just and strong. However the fact that the approbational pontifical barter with Hitlerism , as confirmed by user John Kenney's reading of Atkins and Tallet, and by user Str1977 of the same, was either short-lived or incidental- does not detract from the argument. The argument ansent is that the various approbations made prior to Papen's secret arrival in Rome on 9 April,with Kaas, encouraged the popular drift inside Germany towards the Nazis . It was Avro Manhattan who first mentions the Kaas link, in 1949, un-sourced. The Pulitzer prize winning Mowrer however speaks of a source into the Centre in May 1932. This would be reflected in papal Archives, as there was an actual Pacelli letter. I have shown via K v Klemperer that papal interventions could be entirely verbal for obvious reason in 1939/41 and 1943, and this was also seen (where?) in relation to 1928 re German Monarchism. but Mowrer speaks of an actual letter addressed to Kaas. We should perhaps merely await Abraham Lehrer's pontifical request to be accorded ? (Archives' opening, presumably the closed years between 1922 and 1939).

The point of this is that in the linked critique, the defence rests centrally on the fact that there was no direct meeting between Pacelli and Hitler, and that any negotiations were through Papen. Kaas however did have a private (NB) Hitler meeting on 2 April, having returned from a week spent in the vatican after the Enabling Act. This is conveniently not mentioned, and here on WP it was actually fought against as an occurrence. I have been aware that as the critique shows, the Centre would not of itself have been able to prevent the/ an Enabling Act, and I have been constantly told by Str1977 that it was purely a question of selling the party to the would-be thief Hitler for some advantage (maybe the Concordat but certainly the other catholic guarantees). This critique shows how the Centre voters were only some 4 million at 5 march 1933 Elections(and to me confirms perhaps that more attention should be placed on the BVP as willing collaborators but my Hitler and Bavaria Artcile lasted 5 minutes)) and the critique says that this 4 million was only a third of the total of catholics- men women and children, but neglects to say that the Centre vote held relatively steady. There is side issue as to the weakness of the Centre, including a perversely Papal desire for weakness echoing the Pacelli brother's Italian Centre-equivalent history. However this apart, it is the case that the pontiff gave his approbation in the terms he did on 10 April, Hitler gave his earlier on 23 March. and Kaas gave his from the vatican with the full force of the Vatican on 23 April. The German hierarchy collapsed its dis-approbation from 28 march, and Kaas met Hitler on 2 April. All this is apart from the mysterious 23 Kaas vote(mysterious because lacking the crucial guarantee).

I long ago concluded that the only clear wrong done was within the church's own canon. Indeed the maximum benefit was taken by the Holy See, who the argument of Cornwell and others goes- wished to collapse the inherently unreliable Centre . The reasons are the subject of the Article-or should be. The only way the Centre could have changed events was to have taken a politically moral stance and opted for arrest of themselves and the obliteration that they saw the Communists suffer. The result would have been a fracture of the Hitlerian legality requisite (vastly important to him, if you don't know). There would have been no Concordat following a purely illegal putsch . Of course Str1977 asserts that this was unrealistic, is unrealistic, but nevertheless it is true . And it was the course of action advocated by Bruning, apparently- but for the guarantee.

Such protest by abstention however, and this the critiques ignore, was overcome by this purely Kaas negotiated letter of constitutional guarantee. You will find it hard to "get it ", but even in WP this letter is wifully (as I do not believe editors to be stupid, however stupid they think me) confused with the Working Committee Hitler and Kaas chaired negotiations of 20-22 ( and if I could source it again) or daily from 17 March (that resulted in Stegerwald assenting to the offers of catholic Civil Servant protections, together with Confessional Schools ). No, NicM , there is meat here. The fact is that the Centre were presented by Kaas alone with a Hitler promise of a full letter of Constitutional guarantee before the EAct vote. He alone swung the Centre on this . He alone visited the coalition on the 6 April to offer solution, he alone in Germany politics was Pacelli's friend and associate .

This critique and others , avoid this as much as they do the personage of Ludwig Kaas, including his nestling into the cosiest possible vatican position himself as exile( that was a historical mistake, to have allowed him to profit so -typical arrogance). Historians on the other hand all see in the concatenation of events the appearance of the barter/quid pro quo/ kick-back scheme, and they indeed mention it as productive for the Holy See as well as for Hitler. They do not, any more than WP, go off -topic into the whole being a reflection of the Italian precursive experience, of it being directly in line with the centralising faction inside the divided Vatican. It is only relatively recently , except for Manhattan, that Pacelli is himself analysed and shown to represent this faction .

Herein lies the purely WP battle. The line cannot be allowed to splinter by allowance of Kaas into the picture, which is why before my arrival he was non-existent. Without Mowrer, I would not have become involved. You may not be interested, and I cannot account for you and where you place your own limits, but I can show you pure hypocrisy in editing, and the two diffs of AHitler(15 dec) and 19 July Str1977 are precisely and exactly relevant to this subject and its trouble on WP Articles. It is not a question of if you are not interested, as I don't care whether you are interested or not. I would prefer you to show a rational sanity and if you interested yourself enough bone up your knowledge to the point of understanding the case , it would also be preferable. If you are not, this to you may serve some others. I have to wonder though , what point you are trying to make... EffK 11:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I have to go and do family Christmas things now but I will take a closer look in a week or so when it is over. NicM 11:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC).

[edit] RfC

More than a month after my last comment and two months after AfD this article still misrepresents Gregory S. Paul's thesis from start to finish. His thesis gave this article its title. If this continues to exist as a separate article, then it should rely on his definitions and related secular humanist arguments. I've added some links to relevant sources.

To summarize for others responding to RfC, some secular humanists point to the failure of German churches to oppose the Holocaust as an argument against the moral foundation of Christianity. This argument accuses Protestant and Catholic clergy equally.

Wikipedia already has several articles that address the Roman Catholic Church's actions during the Nazi era but no articles that discuss Protestant clergy. Germany is both a Catholic and a Protestant country. This article ought to address that imbalance. It doesn't and it's biased.

I propose changing the title to The Great Scandal (Hitler) and a radical rewrite to bring this article into accord with its title. I'll wait a few days before proceeding. Please respond. Durova 03:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Durova, thanks for the heads up and thanks for your effort.

However, as for your proposal, I think an article called "The Great Scandal" is only valid if it renders the contents of a book or article of that name, in NPOV language and with analysis. Given the obscurity of the title it might also need a disclaimer, maybe not "Hitler" but the author's name. But the existence of such an article is already disputed with "Hitler's Pope", which is a much more famous piece of writing and has a much more distinct title. Hence, I always thought this article should not be and have never edited it.

On the other hand, an article looking at Nazism and the two major churches in Germany has its merit, but it shouldn't run under a title like "The Great Scandal" but something like "Hitler and the churches" or the like.

Str1977 10:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Str1977 regarding potential titles but otherwise, knock yourself out. Something needs to be done about this article; I was hoping to try and fix it myself but I just do not have the time. NicM 10:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC).

You of good faith will be sorry when I'm pushed out through the malignity of the POV pusher cabal in Wikipedia . I quote Bonhoeffer - "There can only be a community of peace when it does not rest on lies and on injustice."

I repeat the article was put up from memory as HPope was going under, and everywhere it has been the same. All effort made against me is lies and denial of verifiability , and this ignoral of the editing reality is to question my probity. I borrowed the expression gt Scandal, but source scandal to Pope John Paul II, and the title is not important-what is important is the truth. Anyway it is not written as POV. I denounce Str1977 and all who join with him, and warn others that this response is typical apparent good faith. To ignore his hypocrisy at Adolf Hitler on 15 december is to accept the lie. All tinkering is now worthless, and I clearly state where the corrections lie waiting on all interelated articles. My effort to present verifiability is ignored by you all . So be it, but remember it was also Bonhoeffer who said- "Then they came after me , and there was no one left to object." EffK 11:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Come on, without getting into the accuracy of your views, surely you can see there are major problems with the article aside from verifiability. It is poorly structured, somewhat incoherent, confusing and unfocused; it is very unclear to the non-expert what precisely it is asserting, and how it is different from other articles which cover the same topic, such as Hitler's Pope (an article also with problems), Pope Pius XI and Ludwig Kaas. You may care to visit WP:FA for comparison. If you truly feel you have something to contribute that is currently missing, I suggest you drop all this offensive and paranoid cabal nonsense and work to convince others and to express your issues and ideas in a succint, clear and well-mannered fashion. NicM 12:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC).

EffK, you can spare your potrayal of yourself as the Knight shining armour and of myself as the bête noire. Putting up from memory is no excuse for a lack of accuracy - if you did that it is your duty to right the wrongs you put in ASAP. That you consider the title unimportant clearly points out that you still don't understand the issue of topic boundaries. Next time you will set up an article called .. well ... truth. My edits on Hitler were not hypocritical - why do you think no one except you objected? I agree with Bonhoeffer's quote but also say: "There can never be a community of peace as long some consider hatred of one group part of the basic agreement". PS. The "First they came ..." quote is not from Bonhoeffer but from Niemöller, who is unfortunately much less a role model than Bonhoeffer. Str1977 12:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's gone now to Arbitration. The article attempted to portray the NPOV in good faith. The tag as POv/biased is bad faith. The Hitler extraction is clear bad faith and clearly relevant to this Article. I am not anti-catholic, and that is a variation on the bad faith straw man argument. I am clearly treated with bad faith despite adhering, even over adhering, to verifiable source. My probity is not only under constant attack- I am about to be judged. I am in no position myself to improve Wikipedia, any longer. My commentary revealing the clear de-linking, dismissal of sources, and revisionism of the Nuremberg findings and everything else is sourced/evidenced, and clearly so. My findings of contumate hypocrisy of several users is Evidence.I have said for ages that someone could clearly import more of the Gregory Paul/or re-write the Cornwell abbreviation at Hitler's Pope. The last Str1977 contentions are an assumption of bad faith-and-hatred, and, Niemoller it was. From Time, 2 mar ,1981, quoted in Ruth Zerner, German protestant response to Nazi Persecution of the Jews, in Randolph L. Braham)ed_, perspectives on the Holocaust (Boston mass, 1983,) 66. So saith Kvklemperer. You know ,being attacked puts one into a hurry-as with the article here.

I have previously said I accept that it ( the full collaboration accusations/facts and the quid pro quo reality) could all go under Hitler and the Church, parallel to Protestantism, and rightly , but I have zero trust that the cabal will allow good will linkage from such. At present and hitherto they do not. Hitler did/not make a bargain with the papacy, and the papacy did/not not make a bargain with Hitler. Str1977 does/not remove the bargain, and pigs might/not fly. I sourced, there was confirmation from Str1977 and from JKenney that a bargaining was undertaken in the Vatican and I included precisely that which was accepted there at Hitler, no more, no Manhattan/Cornwell/Kershaw? etc.The result was excision with ten minutes or so. Paranoid? Offensive?

The source from Nuremberg onwards refers to something like the maneuver intended to deceive , and Papen defended this unto Pacelli and Kaas ( and used also Alois Hudal). The bargain, everything was first understood and published in 50 editions by Avro Manhattan, verifiably, and all subsequent is reflection and confirmation. Here in Wkipedida I have sourced the NPOV documents and provided the impetus towards the correction of the real hagiography dominating here still. I have presented these in clear NPOV, hence the alleged word. It has been disallowed, is tagged or disallowed/called my POV. I am abused. It goes to trial in my person. I evidence contumate hypocritical POV bias by concert- a revisionist cabal. I evidence my good faith and continuous NPOV verifiability. I do not go to court because I cannot write under pressure from a group/concert/cabal . I remind you that this cabal do not await the allotted time of one week to call VfD. They thereby prevent my good faith completion, so all arguments made against my composition are secondary to that cleasr Wikipedia rule-breaking by others, actually.

But good luck Durova-by all means ignore the past Wikipedia history, don't concern yourself with the sources I have everywhere presented, nor the Papen testimony, the Manhattan, the Mowrer, the Shirer,etc etc -do as you like. By trying not to comment on the removals of 15 December from the Hitler Article, you assume that all I have done is un-important and personal to me, which is one step behind NicM here- it is ignorable. Thanks, but no thanks for cutting me down to size.

And to NicM, well, you are trying to have it both ways there- either you take recognition of the 15 December removal or you have no right to contest and effectively call me of bad faith. I tell you in good faith the truth there was eradicated, and the truth was thoroughly sourced and even accepted by the hypocritical editing removing it, and then supported all the way by the cabal. The truth was relevant to this article. But suit yourself, if your mind is happy- it is happier questioning my probity. I cannot thank you for under-mining me openly, and the good faith I have shown all along. In fact you, unlike Durova, assume my bad faith by saying that I am offensive and paranoid. You are not entitled to so accuse, as you have no proof. Come back here and show proof of bad faith in me. I am allowed to formulate an opinion of editorial actions, but I have to prove it verifiably. I object to your statement to me, so come on....put yours in the Trial or do not accuse me of anything, do you hear me ? : I clearly ask for your retraction of your assumption of my bad faith.User:NicM ? And which is a personal attack. EffK 13:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improvements to Article?

Article talk pages are for the purpose of discussing changes or improvements to articles. It appears that NicM and Durova are trying to do exactly that, and are trying to work with EffK to discuss improvements to the article that better present a case that needs to be presented, which is that moral errors by the churches were partly responsible for the rise of the Nazi Party. (I would also like to address how German philosophy beginning with Kant provided too little intellectual check against tyranny, but that is another issue.) That is what I was trying to do six months ago when I began editing these articles. If they can persuade EffK can to work with them to improve the articles, rather than using up talk page space with tirades, then they will make a major constructive contribution to Wikipedia. However, it appears that EffK is now treating NicM in the same way as he treated me six months ago by insulting him and refusing his and my advice to focus on article content.

No one is trying to silence NicM or Durova or Bengalski. No one would be trying to take disciplinary action against EffK if, like those editors, he would use article talk pages to discuss changes to articles.

EffK: It isn't too late to stop making enemies of editors who, like NicM, are trying to work with you. Robert McClenon 16:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

---

New articles often have problems. Normally they improve over time. This hasn't happened here. I really don't understand the dispute some editors have had. As far as I'm concerned that's all in the past. I've invited everyone who was part of arbitration to join this discussion because I want everyone to feel included. I don't favor anyone and I don't exclude anyone. I'd just like to present a good article for Wikipedia's readers.

Most of the serious works that refer to "The Great Scandal" in reference to Hitler come from secular humanists who use Nazi Germany as an example to criticize Christianity. There are other uses for the phrase. We should rename this to something more specific. Does anyone have a better suggestion than The Great Scandal (Hitler)? Durova 00:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I would say: call it whatever you intend the article to focus on, perhaps "Nazi Germany and Protestantism" or "The Nazis and Christianity". Unless you can show beyond question that the phrase "The Great Scandal" is widely used to refer to the subject and the term is solely what the article describes, I do not think it is an appropriate title for the article, even with parenthesis. NicM 00:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC).

I agree that we need to find an entirely different title for this article. A scandal is a stumbling-block to belief, that interferes with belief. In its original meaning, it refers to misconduct by a member of the clergy or other religious person. There really is a great scandal for the Catholic Church at this time, which is the incidents of priestly sexual abuse. Since I find EffK's writing to be incomprehensible, I would ask that those who want to expand on this article, such as Durova and NicM, suggest a better title. I suggest Nazi Germany and Christianity, but I am sure that EffK will insist that the fault was only that of the Catholic Church, and that the Lutheran Church did what they could. I disagree, but I think that EffK is sure that he knows the truth. I would like him to state it in clear English. Robert McClenon 02:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I had intended to focus on the humanist critique that goes by this name. The title was their invention and I only planned to disambiguate this from other uses of the phrase. Wikipedia readers who run searches on this subject will probably use its existing name. If we make a more drastic title change, then how will we (1) still attract the attention of these readers and (2) maintain article focus? Durova 21:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I second Durova. Her reply instills confidence and shows rational understanding. I do not approve of attempts to water down the clarity of the title, and I do approve re-arranging towards the actual gregory paul article. I think the original thesis comes from Manhattan, and I dispute that his 50 editions make of the knowledge something recent. This is erroneously claimed now at Pius XII, and is just so much effort to diminuish the scandal.I see McC still wishing to get a rise. Good on you DurovaEffK 22:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine, but as it is a relatively little-known term it will be necessary to show in the article where the name came from and that it is an accepted outside label for the subject—something the current article fails to do but looks like it may be possible for your ideas. IMO there is no need to disambiguate unless there is something else to disambiguate from: when somebody proposes another article with the same title, then discussions on disambiguation can begin. NicM 23:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC).

To clarify slightly, explain not necessarily that the term is accepted, but to be neutral and show, basically, that they who propose the theory name it The Great Scandal, not us. NicM 23:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] I EffK requested Arbitration for the user McClenon

I have requested beyond my software capacity for this user Mr McClenon, to stop his irrational contradiction against Verifiability of source.... All other editors are be-smirched by this irrationality ,indeed the whole Wikipedai and Jimbo Wales and above all the Roman Catholic Church is besmirched by this Wikipedia Denialist Clerical Revisionism. Take yourself to trial, with me, and your fellows ...Now.EffK 19:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

One problem with this article is that it makes no mention of the efforts of the Vatican to save Jews and allied POWs and smuggle them into more friendly countries. The movie The Scarlet and the Black is a good start for more information. The Vatican couldn't openly say, "Hitler, stoppit!" because then they would start killing Catholics as well (which they would have anyway, being that they were imprisoning priests in Buchenwald and that Catholics, Slavs, Gays, and Black people were next in line after the Jews were gone). That isn't to say that many German Catholics did not do enough to help the Jews and protest the SS, (though of course some helped them escape as well) but the Vatican itself had to work in secret. That's probably why Pope Pius's Christmas speech did not say the word "Jew", although anyone who knew what was going on at the time would know what he meant.

You are welcome to your view here last, and it is often stated. Please sign your comment. I myself am more concerned with source and knowing everything in some actuality. I don't dispute your reasoning, but it has no sourced bearing in the particular. Please source it as you wish, or see that it is well expressed hitherto elsewhere where it is apt..

[edit] Backing down

For several weeks now I've kept promising myself I'll make good on the vow to create a new draft of this article. I really don't think I'm ready to go through with it anytime soon. It isn't fair to this article, but two edits to Cat have turned into a protracted debate and Joan of Arc has recently emerged from several months of editorial stalemate. I don't want another conflict. If no one else has the stamina to tackle this properly then I'd support a merge/redirect or a deletion. Regards, Durova 02:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

At least if you try to edit this article, the talk page discussion will be readable. EffK has been banned, and you won't have to read his posts. Robert McClenon 06:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Denialism, Extremism and vatican Agency in Wikipedia

Firstly I answer Robert McClenon above dis-allowing Avro Manhattan in Wikipedia. I have read his link into "acceptable source", and I would say that Avro has a clear agenda, based on a close personal proximity to the vatican, through Primary source of vatican contacts and informants . That he had a clear agenda, but that that can be easily dealt with in Wikipedia rules of presentation. He is therefore a highly includable Secondary source for political history relevant to Germany and this particular subject, and is potentially himself a Primary source for the similar preceding political events in Italy. That, he is far from being excludable despite his agenda. I have confirmed his thesis from more than one Primary as opposed to Secondary source, and multiple further Secondary main historical texts and Tertiary sources such as Cornwell and Kershaw et al. I consider therefore that the grounds for objection and omission of Manattan are a spurious attempt to render the Wikipedia useless. I am amused by the voluble recent admission or claim that McClenon has a girlfiend, and that she happens to be able to soon contribute that really Germany took a wrong turn with Kant, especially as I class Kant himself as my principle philosophical base for reason and honesty in Wikipedia. This is a cheerful co-incidence, remarkable even.

I am content and accede to Str1977 agreement that the subject could be dealt with at Hitler and the church meaning the relevant european church of Christianity, whatever denomination. Sadly I have first hand knowledge of this editor's attempt to silence and nullify all source, whatever class, concerning this purely catholic side of the history, and this is why this particular article is rendered such a strange waif as it is here. Such a move would be meaningless under his editorial policy.I have not changed my mind about either this or the other, Robert McClenon, both of whom set out un-ashamedly to whitewash the events, and render Wikipedia useless. It is most irregular to have to openly say such a thing, howsoever true. I make no personal attack, as they try to do this extremly assiduously indeed. As with this following statement, which crowns mearly a year of such non-stop intervention by the principle disputant against source howsoever presented. "I am very sorry to inform you, Lacatosias, that the internet is unfortunately a medium were extermist[sic] activism can achieve very much. It will necessarily infect things like the WP if there aren't those around who are actively guarding a certain standard, at best those with knowledge and qualifications in the respective fields. This is what I am doing in this case. Effk is promoting a extreme theory, no doubt sincerely, but it is still extreme. The sources do not supprt the contentious points he makes (and they have nothing to say on what information should be included in what article and about linguistic problems). He's certainly not fighting the good fight, though I don't question his honest belief." and that was made (archiving complexities)- by User:Str1977|Str1977 circa 10:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC). I put this is here because it confirms for all to see, a position held against the historical matter epitomised in my userdom. It explains the reason for this Article's creation, and it explains the reason for its woeful state, and for the general debasement of the Wikipedia.

Given this clear statement coming after , as I say, a non-stop involvement by this particular editor in my good faith editing here, I feel I now have the right to finally ask this user whether in fact he is a lay member of his church only? I asked him very early if he was paid to do what he does, and he answered in the negative. I ask him- Are you a lay member of your faith or do you hold any formal position to the church you so ably represent throughout Wikipedia ?

To you Str 1977, I will say again that I can trace myself back to Corecticus , and that therefore I own to a deep root myself, one which shared your faith through the millenia. I therefore claim equal right to question the relationship of the laws of this faith to its representative's actions under question here. I say that a canonical resolution of the Magisterium being sundered by the question here is now due to the faithful, as much as to the whole world. That I myself say this within the piety which as a non church-member I can only see revealed in that self-same Divine magisterium and canon law.

Are you not a lay member of your church ?

I was curious about you and McClenon only because you both jumped on me hard, and have continued to do so at every possible step I have taken, even against the rules of Verifiability, and that this risk you have both repeatedly taken, can only bespeak a determinining reason. That which I quote of you hereabove confirms exactly your determination. I do not need to resent its variance with the truth, as I do this bit by bit at the Wikipedia-execution you have both planned for me at Arbcom. Myself, I straight-way saw your Str19977's, English as rather variable between high quality and rather median quality. I therefore asked if you had a helping hand such as a partner/wife who wrote or corrected text for you. It was a question purely based on that variance. McClenon only thought this question was directed at him-he was so eager to butt in between us. I have had little interest in who McClenon may be, and simply see him as your alloted internet -enforcer type. I am of course entirely of the opinion, from my experience, that this is what he is. Your enforcer or whatever, and obviously a habitué of other online organs/ whatever, and brought in here specifically, by virtue of his exact and verifiable appearance in Wikipedia, to provide your stated aim with such supporting administrative capacity as the stated objective requires.

I am quite clear in my mind, and it only rests for such human beings as inhabit the highest echelon of Wikipedia themselves to consider it, that your aim was always as you state , and for this reason I characterised you as I did, as a vatican agent. Plainly I have to question my sanity, and I have so done, and I find that this is a sane conclusion and one confirmed by my own Primary source to various emanations from the vatican. I sourced this as you both well know, unto the necessary. The question that will be rather interesting, is how this will develope to its logical end. Not mine as a user, as really the argument is over, and the point is made, but, the end which presents itself to the church you represent. Since the reality and the truth of the past is so recognisable, it will not die with me. I confess to thinking that such vast church denialism of such a vastly un-magisterial past presented me with the thought that operatives who could as I see conjure this denialism, could go as far as wishing my elimination. That is why I am rather sensitive as to my self. You Str1977, on the other hand will suffer no such fear from those whom you actively protect, therefore you could safely reveal yourself as the historian (ie that means published or paid) you claim to be. Whovever gives you your professional status certainly does not demand all of your time, and your historical work would appear to be now chiefly upon the Wikipedia. If you are real, why should you avoid openly saying in what history and how? This wikipedia effort of yours may, in fields which I do not understand, be commendable, as is your english when you are not in a great rush, but then so is mine, spelling wise. Well- you do english very well, and natural germanism only appears in the rushed posts, and that could simply show you to be just innocently most assiduous. I do not buy it, as you have proved to me so much bad faith, culminating in your totally unsupportable hypocrisy of 15 December,2005 at Adolf Hitler, and which is subject of my trial now, that I know you are not a straight historian. You may be a lay christian historian, if there is really such a thing. Or you may have been asked to enter the Wikipedia at the entrance of Pope Benedict XVI, which is where your edits enter Wikipedia. Of course I have to assume that you are the online fruit of the Pope John Paul II 21 Febuary 2005 Letter of Injunction or whatever it is called, but which is eminently Googleable for that day. Just as the subsequent meeting of the Pontifical Council For Social Communications is Googleable, for several days later in time. I quoted Euronews, not Google, for Wikipedia.

I could ask you- have you ever had direct contact with anyone associated with that Council body? Do you consciously follow the 21 Febuary Pope John Paul II letter? Did you in fact enter this Wikipedia with instructions to target me specifically by name? If not me, were you or were you not given instructions to focus upon precisely that which I quoted you as now saying above in relation to the thirties? If not, were or were you not aware of my introduction or the introduction of the primary 1932 confirmatory source I presented here in Wikipedia before your arrival? If not, were you aware of the Article Pope PiusII and my comment there before your entry? did you enter with a view to eradicating such as Cornwell and Manhattan from Wikipedia ? Were you or were you not aware at your entry that a team would enterWikipedia from differing corners of the Globe subsequently to provide covert support? Why have you all proved so unable to conclusively squash the Scandal within Wikipedia given that is has been your intention ? If it was not your original Wikipedia intention, when did you formulate your stated policy I quoted? I have every Wikipedia right to ask you to explain yourself, just as you yourself have every wikipedia right not to answer. However you yourself are constained by yourself alone, as I have no right to force any kind of reply. If I don't accept the reply as sufficient I reserve the right to either say so, or indeed send it anywhere I consider relevant. I warn you that I have asked an Arbitrator to see that your statement above quoted, be included as Wikipedia EffK Evidence by substitution. It is relevant to the charge that I falsely accuse you of being a Vatican Agent in Wikipedia. In fact, only hope for more clarity to emerge in answer than emerged before this quoted statement. EffK 00:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

One of the pillars of Wikipedia has always been Assume good faith. EffK accused Str1977 of being an agent of the Vatican with no reason to make that accusation. EffK had a duty to assume that he and Str1977 simply had honest differences of opinion and point of view. He nonetheless accused Str1977 of being an agent of the Vatican, thus failing to assume good faith. He had no right to make that bad-faith accusation, and still has no right to ask that question. Robert McClenon 03:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Noted. Also noted is that the preceding user never answers direct questions or sourced questions or any questions based towards good faith Wikipedia consensus.

I would be glad to answer your questions if you would point me to it or put them before concisely. S.

Is he saying that Str1977 refuses to answer questions, or that Robert McClenon refuses to answer questions? In any case, one has no obgliation to answer personal questions unrelated to article content. On the other hand, EffK does not respond to requests to provide summaries of what he wants to do about article content. Article talk pages are for discussion of article content. Robert McClenon 16:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Source consensus questions, not strawman ad hominem questions . EffK

This user is himself a scurrilous intellectually dishonest user, who has throughout denied the source propitiatiating my good faith.

Over at Hitler you say will suspend good faith (which in itself is totally againt Wikirules) but retain good manners - now you throw good manner out of the window. S.

Scurrilous is correct and not an expletive. Intellectual Dishonesty is unfortunately my experience. You McClenon professed agreement when it suited you to mislead , but by your actions you consider yourself empowered in same fashion as Str1977's recent statement, to actively guard against all such verifiability of that you supposedly professed. In fact you have the problem of never having grasped the overall, and scurrilous relates to both your dismissal of source, and hence Wikipdia rules and your openly vengeful administrative attitude. for third party comment re Robert McClenon, I reccomend Gmaxwell here:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon&diff=29991395&oldid=29610537 [[23]]

Robert McClenon has studied Wikipedia rules, and knows full well that I have followed them . I made assumption of good faith with both Str1977 and himself to the point where this was thrown in my face intellectually, returned as denialist clerical revisionist obstruction.

I cannot confirm this. From day one you have "pestered" Robert with private questions while not adhering to his requests. I agree the two of us had a rocky start but I can't see where I gave you justification for your bad faith.

If this is you Str1977, No I didnt. i found him unacceptable in his response, contradictory both as apparent mediator, and disingenuous as to his user history. I asked him to explain how a recent user could have come in to 'mediate'. His reply was not an admission of being a new user, but a disingenuous response that he had only recently been editing related articles ( perhaps he meant Rf mediations). His behaviour was over simplistic of what anybody else recognises as hyper-complex, and he was too quick to seek to demolish. To boot he presented such abstruse canonical query as to be extraordib=nary. When I was thus forced to seriously consider canonicals, he stomped on my brain again, in bullying fashion http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/User:Robert_McClenon&diff=prev&oldid=21867694,[[24]].However he wrote something useful too: Do not accuse anyone of bad faith unless you have irrefutable proof. Second, do not use talk pages as soapboxes. Drop the discussion of canon law, unless it is applicable to a published source. As far as I can tell, the discussion of canon law is really only a discussion of the fact that moral errors were made, and is basically an issue of attributing evil motives rather than error to the dead. Third, cite sources for any claim that is disputed.

EffK has not followed Wikipedia rules. He has repeatedly made personal attacks against editors and has accused editors of bad faith. He has used article talk pages to present original research not related to article content. Robert McClenon 16:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This is subject of the diffs I present at MY trial at Arbcom.

McClenon knows the rule is that it is not permitted to assume bad faith unless there is user experience showing that bad faith. I continue to avoid one word epithets such as those used against me, like impious, slanderous pusher, shizophrenic, crazy, disability and a few others.

Well, you do use your own one-word or many-words epithets. You even dare to declare one billion human beings robots, clearly misinterpreting the text you quote.

Maybe I was talking money billions here. What is the present day reichskonkordat worth in Euros per year for instance?

I use the correct term when I say that Robert McClenon is a self-appointed Wiki-cop. His job here, and I do not believe he does this as a service to the goodness of mankind out of respect for the Wikipedia, his job was to come in here and study Arbitration , to inveigle himself into Arbitration processes, thereby to effect the removal of me.

IMHO you are overestimating your own importance. No one outside of Wikipedia know about you.

That is interesting. Is EffK claiming that someone sent me to Wikipedia in order to silence him? Robert McClenon 16:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

If not you are a true gift from providence or God, as you came a few days after I suggested Str1977 call for his superior. Yes, I believe that you came to do as I say. I have irrefutable proof of your constant attempt to render the administrative service to the principle oratorical office, Str1977. Whether I am actually spot on that you are all Renato Boccardo boys or not, your combined actions against sourced history prove you to be doing the clerical denialist revisionism job required by the 21 Febuary 2005 papal letter.

Naturally this has entailed his generality of RFComments and VfDeletions, and RfArbitrations, all preceding and separate from my own. His intention throughout his 7 months or so in Wikipedia has been primarily focused not on any factual contributions to Wikipedia but towards this achievement of basic editorial control. This User I have for a very long time openly called ban-worthy. I EffK have a duty to remark in my entire good faith that which I remark, which I do for the good of Wikipedia. I would have preferred to have found Wikipedia the rational digitalised future rather than the school-yard of digital intrigue and dishonesty. Until this preceding user is sufficiently controlled, the Wikipedia is in clear and present intellectual danger. EffK 11:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Can some third party explain what that says? Robert McClenon 16:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I would have preferred to make an edit here and there, or to make bigger contributions and not to bang my head against your wall of conspiracy theories, past or present. Str1977 13:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You continue even here to deny the essence of Verifiability. I note that you choose to neglect my sincere questions. Fair enough, I understand why. I won't push it. Yes you have thoroughly revealed why you have been delayed by me in your statement of active guarding of Wikipedia. I also present your capacity for extreme anti-rational contumate hypocrisy at 15 december at Adolf Hitler as evidence. Because you have not enjoyed the donkey work of boccardoism, don't blame me. If you adhere to anti-rational leadership, it is your loss first. I say you are a clear and present intellectual danger to Wikipedia, and you yourself confirm it. Poor Str1977, I do agree a bit on the loss, as I could say the same, but your guarding job is your guarding job. I'm equally frustrated guarding against your guarding. In fact you have maintained the guarding much more easily than I have defended the Wikipedia from it. You have followed pure bad faith and, again, do not consider the necessary rationality and questions implicit in a good faith arrival at consensus. Since your ripostes and excisions and accusations do not rest on any careful sourceing, their bad faith is rapid to achieve. I think in fact the frustration has been more than divided between us- it has been forced by you upon me. Lacatosias saw you for what you do at Hitler talk, was it?

So would I. I have made an edit here and there, which is more than can be said for EffK. Robert McClenon 16:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop clutching at straws and I aint sorry for you at all, McC, as you are as bad mannered as bureaucratic language will allow you. No, I am too lenient as you both are guys who sunk your rabid little teeth into my departed corpse for all you were worth. You are both actually in very poor standing for that display. Do you want the diffs ?

As to this particular article, you should both leave forever as clearly biased editors, along with the three other implicated denialists I know who accompany you, and then there would be some hope of ordering it as rational beings could conceive. But you won't , and I guess even if you were all banned that you would be quickly replaced . You clearly break verifiability and if you are allowed to get away with it, then no future control of your clerical denialist revisionism will be possible. Unfortunately it comes down to this :the Wikipedia has been colonised by the Vatican, and I at least choose that this should not go unremarked even if it cannot be prevented.

EffK 00:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)