Talk:Hitler's Pope/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Follow-up 1.1 Sidebar 1.2 One more time 1.2.1 Moral error 1.3 Request for summary 2 An Idea 2.1 You asked for it. You got it. 3 Unsourced argument moved 4 August 2005 5 Take Issue 6 Don't abuse the NPOV tag! 7 Famekeeper Watches 8 Removed questionable phrase

Follow-up

I am not exactly sure that I understand Famekeeper's response about mediation. It appears that he is stating that we should discuss our differences of opinion reasonably, and that there is no need for mediation. If future discussion is reasonable, then there is no need for mediation.

I am willing to try to discuss differences of opinion reasonably, without mediation. I will make a few non-negotiable demands that Wikiquette be followed, or I will conclude that we do need mediation or arbitration. First, assume good faith. Do not imply censorship when an NPOV dispute is in progress. 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.

In particular, please provide a source for the use of the exact phrase "Hitler's Pope" preceding Cornwell. If you do not provide a source for the published use of that exact phrase before Cornwell, then I will have to delete that reference and leave the article only as a discussion of Cornwell's book.

I hope that this is satisfactory.

Well , I have to differ on the general. First , OK the perception in people's (some people's ) minds is excludable as a title . However the generality of books (there are four ) uncovering machination in the vatican connections to power politics coupled with the actual linkage in the histories I 'did cite to Str1977, lost now in the various archives on the various pages I put thr Rfc's upon , these all add up to published reasons for , if nothing else , relating the actual dates of meetings between the players . Thus a part shall have to be admitted upon the Pius XI page including his approbatory words to papen-I think the repetition of these in published sources , if not the Nuremberg trial , verifies them . Equally on his page must come the fact of Papen's being exposed as visiting his State secretly (by the Rome newspaper), the fact of his and his Secretary of State's close understanding of the grman and Silesian regions , his Cornwell analysed attitude strenghtening the latterday authoritarian nature of church rule, with a simple reporting of the facts of Ecclesiastical variation towards nazism, the public recommendation by the leading german Cardinal, Faulhaber , the apparent facts that in a window of 1933 that there were no condemnations of Nazism despite previous inhumanity provoacations, that Hitler angled the church with the concordat into expecting certain respect , enumerating that respect desired, the fact that whilst Hitler was awaiting the papal approbation and international respectability it conferred , he between about the 15 march 1933 and the middle of july , called his own blessings forth upon a christianity he had previously abused , coupled with the rapid and rude re-awakening from this softened line by the leaders in the vatican after the 5 July Concordat ,coupled to the 1936 encyclical suggesting toleration by the church of authoritarian civil rule and a firm analysis and reckoning allowable concerning the fact or otherwise according to proof of Pius XI anti-semitic thinking such as would be relevant to the connections he himself forged directly with Goering and indirectly to Adolf Hitler .

If on Pius XII page a similar section of analysis appears of his part in this apparently historian suggested transaction of interests , an analysis of his continuance of the authoritarian direction , notice of his having himself worked upon the revision of canon or divine(that's a quote from WP) Law is related, if the Cornwell accusations concerning the alleged parallel nature between his and his blood brother in Italy are related. If the nature of continuing jewish and other shock at the comlete lack of reference to the Jews by name is allowed, in conjunction with s thorough an analysis of the four(?) present conspiracy type authors is allowed along with the necessary allegations concerning anti-semitism and conspiracy with Ustashe as in the present federal case is allowed, a relation of the nature and results of that conspiracy (parallel 'rat-line' escapes funded by war gold(teeth) and links thereby to alleged fascist corporations in third countries , such as Argentina , are allowed , if the allies , initially the appeaser type allies of 1940 but then the harder line , no surrender allies , peace -suggestion negotiations are allowed together with the estimation that Pius XII himself represented a potential danger are allowed , if the reports a Mowrer are allowed in full as being from a Pulitzer prize winning respected and truth-ful journalist Then the picture of truth , suggested by the term encyclopedia may be sought . I would add the concern , which evolves from JPII's accusatory but erroneous , comments on democracy when Pius XI and XII themselves appear to have de-stabilised it through their history claims tool Ludwig Kaas , this should be allowed in a separate section of canonical relevance to Pius XII use of infallibilty and his devise of the humanae vitae conformation of a contradictory nature to the actual as shown by the involvement via Kaas and Pacelli , then we might be allowing truth .

This is what I have been attempting to achieve , along with the same on the Centre Party page and here on Kaas . Are you Robert McClenon able to countenance this , because I do believe that Str1997 is ready . In anticipation of your reason saying yes, I would make every effort to do as I have suggested and simply link citations and strict reported published fact , dates or speech together with the various conclusions made by separate historians . If this is the WP , then it is goodwill , the canonical I will leave as I have effectively proved the self excommunication of two popes . let them repair their damage themselves in there now in the vatican . The vatican by this history has been more nihilistic than any Russian Jew they accused of such . Your church history , men, stinks and you can take that in good faith . I will not remove any of the apologious text I find but write a true view from sources . Will you allow this truth  ? Will you Robert McClenon be prepared to visit the several pages over time to oversee and then I can work undisturbed by reverts blocking this all off ? Thankyou . Famekeeper 15:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC) 15:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Robert McClenon 14:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Sidebar

Famekeeper writes: "The only remaining question beyond this I see, is the fascinating one as to whether in fact the wikipedia is controllable? Meaning whether in fact a user can be banned. I gather from an IT type that this is impossible." It is not entirely clear to this "IT type" what he means by "controllable". Users can be banned. It is true that users who are banned do find ways of evading the ban, but it is also true that admins find ways of blocking the IP addresses from which banned users attack. Wikipedia is not Usenet. In Usenet, there are many islands of civility, but if Internet trolls decide that a particular group is their turf, it will be swamped by a sea of incivility. Wikipedia is a landmass of civility with a few swamps of incivility that can sometimes (although not always) be drained.

On the Internet, in any given forum, civility depends on the presence of a benevolent dictator who has a claim to a cyberspace based on some sort of property concept. No one owns Usenet. It is also true that no one owns Wikipedia, but it is also true that Jimbo Wales and the Board of Directors own Wikipedia. If you don't understand that paradox, you don't understand that paradox. But that is the truth. Robert McClenon 14:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

One more time

Famekeeper writes: "Well, I have to differ on the general." Because of the length at which you write, it is not entirely clear to me where you take issue with what I stated. Do you mean, first, that you decline to follow the Wikipedia guideline to assume good faith? Do you mean, second, that you decline to follow the Wikipedia guideline not to use talk pages as soapboxes? I see that you have agreed to cite sources in articles, so I doubt that that is the issue. Do you mean something else? Do you mean that you intend to continue making the case that certain clerics "excommunicated themselves", which I find both irrelevant to the discussion of the articles and faulty? Robert McClenon 22:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Famekeeper writes: "Will you allow this truth? Will you, Robert McClenon, be prepared to visit the several pages over time to oversee and then I can work undisturbed by reverts blocking this all off?" I am not entirely sure, due to the length of his reply, what he means by "this truth". Of course I am prepared to allow progress to be made toward the truth through reason, which can be done by presenting points of view as points of view and citing sources. Robert McClenon 22:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Moral error

You,Famekeeper, claim to have made the case that two Popes self-excommunicated. That is POV, and depends on interpretation of their motives. You have persuaded me that there was moral error by Ludwig Kaas and by Eugenio Pacelli, but not by Pope Pius XI. You have not made any case about self-excommunication. However, that is irrelevant to a discussion of what are proper contents of articles. Drop it. Robert McClenon 08:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

No, in the first case - your counter-claim is not reason , not sense :I have proved that wrong by reporting the expression ,by their speech of motive ,by Pius XI and Kaas... Also I have proved the excommunication , read my posting , see all my user history .... however .... Why you should not accept that is for you to say . ....Which is not to say that they are or are not relevant . I still claim everything that is relevant should be opened , and that I brought the divine or canonical law in under good faith discussions highly relevant to who are the subject of the articles, and in discoursive justification for the inclusion of inflammatory /or restrained ,NPOV modern historians objected to by my opposing POV claimant .

I am plainly in wikiquette fault...... But I came into fault by calling fault , I was and remain deeply shocked and claim that this would be an NPOV shock open to anyone in this subject-you Robert McClenon admitted to shock , but I admit Wquette error claiming wholescale vivid shock at the other editor 's defence and denial (of that shock) of NPOV  : You are not concerned until this very moment in joining in that , but I see a move now and answer 'non sense' , Let me again prove the wrong , the POV in that you here assert ........

I repeat that a perfect example in representation of the the POV editing which called forth my transgression ,is that of today's present article about Monsignor Ludwig Kaas , which is against NPOV : by eradication of (my, but that is not relevant) sourced material . The effect is plain to see when compared to a previous version or to the relevant articles and their discussions of proof which I have had to try and deal with . I do now go to mediation on these, which include :

• Hitler's Pope article for its retention , recognition as NPOV as is , and unlimited expansion of sourced accusations as NPOV in addition , related user denials in discussion ( see also 'archives[ relating to all these *'d articles under Pope Benedict XVI , Theology of Pope benedict XVI ,Pope John Paul II , Pope Pius XII re- editorial conflict-discussion

• Centre Party Germany article for re-inclusion of the section obscured by rv's & source denial, concerning the quid pro quo , related user denials in discussion, and completion of historical NPOV now in rv

• Ludwig Kaas for analysis as deeply POV , for prevention of the rv and censure for denial of sources , judgement for POV editing etc , related user conflict-discussion ,and continuous expansion to re-establish NPOV

As a user I reasonably ask that this be achieved , and that despite my culpable wikiquette behaviour , that my good faith be recognised and justified as NPOV -or not. I have apologised to Str1977 for impugning him , but in my NPOV I deny that his editing is allowing NPOV in the above . A concern for the quality of motive is determinable by the strict level of POV / NPOV in the outcome . I will supply my side as summary . I will not happily accept a determinant based upon the culpability alone of my assumption of bad faith . I own up , just as I have all along recognised it , and I feel justified by today's perfect example , at : Monsignor Ludwig Kaas .

If mediation does not achieve the NPOV , then we will go to arbitration . I note that questions remain un-answered , which can all be dealt with under mediation . I try for mediation on the asterisked pages and hope for NPOV , hope the basis is that all integrity questions are answered thereby, admit my transgression of WQ (thus enable you-all more time to study the intervening facts and citations) .

OK- I,FameKeeper transgressed WQ- I am sorry , I suffered unwiki provocation(denial) , and civil shock (as in holocaust/ excommunication discourse).Other's can ask or answer the questions they wish to :

But ,let's see, does .....FK prove POV on WP : yes...../no.....?-

Does FK exhibit POV and fail in providing NPOV ... yes..../no......?

Famekeeper

Request for summary

Famekeeper appears to be requesting a poll or vote on something. It is not clear to me what he is requesting a vote on.

The self-excommunication talk is not only POV, but is irrelevant to these talk pages because it is unrelated to any proposed content of the articles. It therefore is using Wikipedia as a soapbox. See the official policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

Famekeeper was entirely reasonable in putting an NPOV banner on the Ludwig Kaas page. Robert McClenon 16:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I do not follow. I put a POV banner - I object , still .

It is not a soap-box -I just find the info treated un-reasonably , therefore I cavil . It is reasonable to cavil at the exclusions , and the opposition accounts for the necessity to explain . Soap is what the church pages smell of , and Kaas . I shall try and summarize , with mediation . Famekeeper 18:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

You had written:

But ,let's see, does .....FK prove POV on WP : yes...../no.....?-

Does FK exhibit POV and fail in providing NPOV ... yes..../no......?

Was that a request for a vote, or only a statement of the issue that you wanted mediated? Robert McClenon 18:5q, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

An Idea

I have an idea. Famekeeper thinks that the historical articles, which are largely chronological, neglect to present the POV of Catholic Church complicity in the rise of Adolf Hitler to power and therefore in the Holocaust. Why doesn't someone create an article summarizing published points of view that criticize the Church and those that defend the Church? It could be called something like Catholic Holocaust Complicity Views. The historical articles can then simply link to that article. Robert McClenon 18:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

All I famekeeping know is that after writing a close exegesis for you of my objection to the Kaas article , I received a microsoft pop up, which when you click on the don't send error report or send, it eats the already locked up article . My patience is getting severely strained . I don't care whether somebody does put up such a page or not, I expect no good to come from this as I have received no good dealing here . I expect before long to have to put up another wiki mirror and rob all I can out of here , and get it into Google (which is what the church are really trying to stop ). This aint a wiki conspiracy , it is church policy , on a par with jihad . I'm messed about and I am most unhappy , but they are messing with your minds and your bodies too .

Yeah : vote , or don't , who cares ? Mediate-what does the Str1977 say now ?and who cares ? The exact same thing wrong with jihad is what is wrong with the vatican and Judaism  : visit unto the sons the sins of the fathers, hence nothing is innocent . Kill , use Hitler or whomever, but kill them as they are not innocent , they are the polluters in the land and excluded from our tenets of good faith . Perish the Jews , the Commies , the Russians , well chums , now it s perish you . I'll write your famekeepering allegations again , and Ill put up that page and fill it in 3 minutes beyond size if I need a morrow . I have called it Pope Hitler Holocaust Conspiracy , which will especially rile someone . There- its up and should go blue . No -it stays red , means it's vandal proofed . Good idea McClenon , but also wrong , as the church aim is to eradicate unpleasantry of history from the pukka pages , innit ? No, it can't be done . It's Hitler's Pope and from their or nothing remotely Googleable . And whatever about WP good faith ., what about the TV Euronews telling us the vatican was gonna infiltrate the power of the internet ? I mean come on , if I can get in here , they sure as dust blows can get in here. Naive or what?

Are we trying to avoid mediation: I want a deal -truth , but who cares? Pius XI's words, Otto Brok's words , Kaas' words , Hitler's words , Faulhaber's words , Brunings words , Klemperers words , Wheeler-Bennetts , every famekeepering word I want to see , I want mediation and then arbitration and an excuse to mirror an alternative to this avalanche of soap , not soap box . Vote or not because this is as immortal as your words or theirs , say your piece , then we let go as only our words will stay when we all die , in or out of faith , good or bad . We all deserve this which we receive . We allow the injustice , and we allow the corruption , the jewish organisations feel we allowed the murders and we argue about it at length . We are all an an abominatiion of collusion . Good faith : as Pasternak had a character, the driver at the hospital where the Doctor helped the wounded, say, when Lara claimed " but he is a good man" - "God rot good men" . What did the book Dr. Zhivago end on ... the character asks " why you would go to the river to wash your shitty shirt before the battle that will kill you, where did you learn to do that ? " - answer "A pole in the ground in Siberia , called Gulag 405xyz" .This is the first reference to the Gulag . See you there , users or is that paradise that pole ? Famekeeper 23:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

You asked for it. You got it.

Go to Catholic Holocaust Complicity Views. It is a stub. You may post sourced summaries of other authors who have been critical of Pope Pius XII, Ludwig Kaas, or the Catholic Centre Party. Any unsourced arguments will be moved to the article's talk page. Any arguments about self-excommunication will be moved to the talk page and identified to the mediator as issues.

The above post is very difficult for me to understand. It appears to be a rant. Please do not rant. It is likely to cause the mediator to counsel you to be civil.

Please do not post conspiracy theories. Please be civil, even on talk pages. Robert McClenon 00:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Unsourced argument moved

The expression Hitler's Pope has been in use for many decades, certainly in English. The term was adopted as a title by the Catholic writer John Cornwell.

Hitler's Pope generally refers to Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli who became Pope Pius XII, however the previous Pope Pius XI dealt with Adolf Hitler through various intermediaries, and the separation of actions between these two Pope's is difficult. Cardinal Pacelli was in the position of a specialist advisor for several decades before ascending the Throne of St Peter.

The linking of the two names Pope and Hitler succinctly expressed popular conception that the Holy See colluded with the Fuhrer of the Third Reich.

Thanks for that-at least now itl google ....pity tho.Famekeeper 10:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

August 2005

I still think it a pity . I think it is such a pity that this page will have to be corrected off page , by virtue of full sourcing of historical comment relating to the Hitler quid pro quo . A desire to confine this page to Cornwell's book is illogical , given the historians prior to him , and the historical question which connects Pacelli with Hitler from 1933 ( my relevant source goes back to 1932 ) .

Anne Heneghan puts capitalisation which I specifically did not place . There is a difference betwen Catholic and catholic ( plural equally) and vatican is officially small v - I thought . Not just with me - I was trying to adhere to useage . However , it may not matter , certainly not in comparison with what does matter .

Dear FK,

you might think it a pity, but this entry, created by you, is according to its title about either the expression "Hitler's Pope" (which makes for an entry of two lines, maybe three) or about Cornwell's book of that title. You chose to create this page, now accept the consequences.

Str1977 19:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

It can enter the arbitration, as this is what you push towards. Famekeeper 20:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Take Issue

I happen to agree with most of what Cornwell says, and he is a valid scholarly source. However, he is a POV source, and not a fact. I have restored the NPOV tag. Robert McClenon 04:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry you do not see fit to answer a civilised question, amongst other things. And the exclusion of this source ,makes the PPXII article POV . So much for ettiquette . Who are you to judge an entire source as POV, so make justification , editor .Famekeeper 08:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't abuse the NPOV tag!

Far too many people seem to use the NPOV tag whenever an article describes a subject whose views they disagree with. E.g. a politician, figure, party, country, religion, etc. the editor dislikes. Adding the tag to this article seems like a clear example of NPOV abuse. Cornwell really did write a book that negatively characterized Pius XII; and it (presumably) really did characterize Pius as described. Disagreeing with Cornwell's characterization doesn't make the article POV!

I don't think the article is particularly good, FWIW. It seems to have way too much biographical information that should go in the regular Pius XII article as a link. And it rambles a bit. The article should just say what is unique in Cornwell's thesis, not all the undisputed stuff about Pius. Moreover, I have no opinion on whether Cornwell is right. But those flaws in the article aren't a matter of failing NPOV, but just regular "could be improved" type flaws. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:35, 2005 August 18 (UTC)

Lulu, I'm not aware that I've ever edited the article before tonight. If I have, it has only been minor edits. I have looked at it from time to time. I would be a bit reluctant to arrive as a newcomer to a particular article, and immediately add the NPOV tag, even if I felt that the article was POV (as I certainly felt in this case). I would want to discuss problems on the talk page, get agreement, if possible, propose changes, etc.

However, that tag was already there, and it was obvious from the edit history that it was there because the article didn't make clear that these were Cornwell's views. At least two of the editors seemed to agree that the tag should be there [1] and [2]. (There may have been more; I haven't researched it.)

You arrived six days after the last edit, and removed the tag without making any other changes. Your edit summary [3] suggested that simply because the book exists, the article is not POV. Since I am sure that Robert McClenon and Str1977 were aware of the book's existence, I do not think that their concerns were adequately addressed. Nor do I think that by adding a small clarification [4], you have succeeded in making the article neutral. For the article to be truly neutral, there would have to be no feeling that it is supporting Cornwell's position, or indeed, that of the Pope. Obviously, if there are facts which favour one side rather than another, then they could be inserted without compromising the neutrality; indeed, it would be POV not to insert them. (For example, if it is a historical fact that on a certain date the pope signed a certain document, then it should go in the article, whether it implies that Pius was a Nazi or that he was a heroic saver of Jewish lives.)

Does this pass your standards of neutrality?

Modesty of appearance belied great subtlety and cunning as he inherited his forbears desire for the papacy to once again exert all powerful control over the church through ecclesiastical and international law.

What about this?

Pacelli noticed the repulsiveness of the Jewish leader Eugen Levine and of his followers and thence grew a suspicion and contempt of Jews for political reason.

Or this?

Pacelli as newly crowned Pope was eager to affirm Hitler publicly.

Those kind of things, all of which were in the article when you removed the tag, cannot be made neutral simply by your adding to the top of the page:

The characterizations Cornwell makes of Pius XII, summarized below, are contended by many other observers of the latter's papacy.

My use of the tag was not because the article described "a subject whose views [I disagreed] with." I restored it because it seemed to have been removed without any attempt to address the issues which had led to its original insertion, and because of various flaws I saw myself in the neutrality of the article. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 00:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I take strong exception to the claim of NPOV abuse. I put the NPOV tag on the article. I did not tag the article because I disagreed with Cornwell's thesis, with which I mostly agree. I put it there because the article, as it was when I tagged it, presented Cornwell's views as fact, rather than as his views. I also put it there because the article, as it was when I tagged it, attributed views to Cornwell that were not Cornwell's. I now see that the current version of the article contains a large amount of material that was copied from the biography of Pope Pius XII. That material should simply be deleted.

Most of this article had been the work of a previous editor (at least temporarily not active) who had been the subject of a formal request for comments and did not know how to distinguish POV from NPOV or fact from viewpoint. Robert McClenon 00:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I want to apologize for overstating what I meant, Robert (McClenon). "Abuse" isn't the word I should have used, but simply "misuse." I've seen the tag attached to too many articles where it really reflected underlying opinions about the topic itself, rather than about whether the article was NPOV. Reading through the Talk page and the article itself, I felt that the complaints made on the talk page were not problems with the current article version (which isn't to say the article is good, of course).

I honestly have no real opinion on this article (I just stumbled on it from somewhere else), nor much knowledge of the topic. I'll depart from this topic, and let those more familiar work it out. But I encourage editors to simply trim the excess content, and contextualize the rest as Cornwell's views, but try not to leave a perpetual NPOV tag in it.

All the best. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:06, 2005 August 19 (UTC)

Since Lulu disputes my use of the NPOV tag, I have instead tagged the article with the less commonly used tag for an accuracy dispute. I do not think that its summary of what Cornwell says is what Cornwell says. Robert McClenon 00:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Famekeeper Watches

A certain editor removed whole sections relating to 1937 and the encyclical "The Unity of the Human Race" as discussed by cornwell . This is not removal of duplicated biographical material , as the editor asserts , but is the piecemeal emasculation of Cornwell's apposite historical analysis . This is , to say the least , wrong and unacceptable . I strongly advise editors of good will to reverse this , and to take note of the action by this editor , and of his qualification of the action .

A lot of abuse is being bandied around here , all of which I reject ,I refer readers to the abbreviation from Vanity Fair if they wish to judge . However there are Johhny cum lately's with strange priorities trying to justify their reaction and there has always been argument as to the appropriateness of the history to the WP. I reject all the attack on myself, but anyone reading this page will understand what we are up against : criminally subversive alliance with mass murder and holocaust .

The assertion that these are not Cornwell's views is typical of the efforts to negate all of his findings,those same which are echoed throughout history , and the which I have repeatedly substantiated from other sources. All POV/accuracy/ clean-up argument is designed simply to discredit those who would expect the truth rather than continuance of the 70 years of lies . There is wrong afoot here and there is wrong at the heart of christendom .

Interesting is the Cornwell analysis as to the Pacelli motivation , which would bring us bang up to date with present vatican 'politics' and the direction away from Vatican II taken by Pope John Paul II and the present Pope Benedict XVI .This analysis is the only extra exploration needed in the article .

To enable readers to avail of the relevance of the history to the present I shall repeat below that which was so stealthily (and typically )removed from a discussion page, that of Cormac Murphy O'Connor. If it is removed from here, you will know why. I do not intend at present to edit pages , as the level of abuse is too great , but I am watching . Famekeeper 09:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

This dicussion can be read over there. Here it is off topic. Str1977 10:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I am particularly disturbed by the actions of user McClenon . Having left note upon his editing last that he was removing duplicated biographical material, he actually excised sections relating to 1937 and 1938 which were previously excised from the Pope Pius XII article . These excisions are not therefore in line with his description of removal , and warrant attention as being an exercise of strange faith . This editor was instrumental in trying, through ad hominem, to paint myself into a dunce's corner , however it is clear from this action that user McClenon either does not concentrate on what he removes , or acts with incorrect procedure . I should say that this user should be watched , as if his actions here can be so surreptitious and counter to his avowed listed editing report, what confidence can remain as to the use's worthiness ? Unlike his action against me , I will simply leave this post to alert those of good will . The WP is again under attack as the completeness of Cornwell is being sundered piecemeal . I strongly suggest that this article be reverted to my complete summation of the Vanity Fair abbreviation of Cornwell , and then locked . Famekeeper 10:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Why not insert the material back into the Pope Pius XII biographical article? I was removing what was clearly biographical information that belonged in the biography. I was not comparing the two articles. Unlike Famekeeper, I have been known to make mistakes. Robert McClenon 12:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

The answer to the question that Famekeeper has posted on my talk page is that if any sourced biographical material has been deleted from the Pope Pius XII article and presents POV as POV, it should be re-inserted. However, some of it was deleted by Wyss and dtdirl after they tried to disentangle POV from NPOV. I will note that most of the deletions from Pope Pius XII were not made by me. Robert McClenon 21:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed questionable phrase

I removed the phrase "error in doctrine became tantamount to heresy". It is dubious in that form since actually "error in doctrine" is the definition of "heresy". I don't know what Cornwell wrote - and someone who does might re-include it in a proper wording. Str1977 10:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

We're both back . I have re-inserted , boldly , the necessary link to Cornwell's own abridgement . I am going to go back in and remove these tags, but I shall embolden at the top that this is Cornwell's view . Famekeeper 21:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)