Talk:Pope Pius XII/Archive 13

message: Can we try to keep the tone of these talk page discussions civil?  Bengalski:  Please do not be so quick to claim "biased editing".  In articles about controversial figures, it is often difficult to achieve balance.  Disparaging the efforts of others does not help.  
Bengalski has done a lot of work in adding tags to specific statements that need sourcing.  I think, and some other editors agree, that he has requested sourcing for too many minor facts.  Either they should be allowed to stand as not worth disputing, or they should be deleted as unencyclopedic (such as "swift and tireless", unless that is a quote).  However, any discussion of removing the tags should be on this talk page, not done simply by reverting.  
Bengalski says that this article will need an NPOV tag for some time to come.  What exactly does he think needs to be done to restore NPOV?  I can see the need for references, but please state exactly what needs to be done with regard to NPOV.
I do not really want to discuss the anonymous edits because I have an obligation to be civil.  There has not been reasonable discussion of whether there was a basis for undoing most of Bengalski's work.  
Can we please try to be civil and work on the article?
I think that about one-third (guess) of the fact tags should be removed, but not without discussion.  Can we please discuss any changes to the article rather than just reverting?  Undoing Bengalski's work is not appropriate.
Regardless of whether Mowrer did refer to a quid pro quo, the allegation is sufficiently well known and quoted by reputable sources that it should be included.  The question is to whom to attribute it.  I am satisfied with attributing it to Gregory Paul, or someone can provide another source.  
If I see any more unexplained reverts of what Bengalski has done, I will revert to his version, and will point out that reverting unexplained changes is sometimes necessary.  Robert McClenon 10:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Robert - just to be clear my accusation of biased editing applied only to the IP editor. I'll try my best to assume good faith, but it can be a bit difficult when all your work is reversed for no good reason. Also I'll say as I have before that I myself have a POV bias, as I think we all have, but I try to overcome it.Bengalski 13:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you've missed my point - I haven't said there shouldn't be anything about his childhood, only that it should be rather less hagiographic. And I think we need to have this general discussion about sources - Sr. Marchione is at least as partisan as Gregory Paul, but her claims are being reported as simple statements of fact. (Even Catholic reviews don't claim her work is at all objective - she is viewed as unapologetically writing apologetic.[] [])Bengalski 15:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect, 'your point' may unintentionally be part of the problem. It looks like you requested a citation about his stamp collection, not to elicit an actual citation, which has now been provided, but to make a point. It looks like you larded the page with s to make it seem the page was more poorly sourced than it was. Sister Marchione is a perfectly adequete source for information about his childhood. I might say, "If you have a source that says his stamp collection was lousy, go ahead and include that for balance." But I won't say that; because there is plenty of controversy already. I see nothing to be gained by ginning up more about things that aren't disputed. Tom Harrison Talk 16:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be clear, I am disputing a) that Marchione is an adequate source - if she's included at all, it should be made clear that these are partisan claims rather than statements of fact; b) that this kind of gushing praise of his childhood feats is appropriate in an encyclopedia article.Bengalski 16:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest below that the information on his youth be moved into its own article.  Then we can put an NPOV tag on that article without cluttering up this one, and have a one-paragraph summary in this article.  Robert McClenon 17:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually agree with Tom Harrison, as I keep saying, that there should be a section on his childhood on this page - I don't think it necessarily needs a separate article. Just that it needs to be in a much more NPOV style.Bengalski 17:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Bengalski makes 8 numbered points above.  I tried to comment on them, but that reset the numbering, so I did not do that.  I agree with most of the points except point 8, that we need an NPOV tag.  I agree that the quid pro quo allegation, regardless of source, is a necessary part of the article.  So are the allegations of collusion with the Croatian regime (which even disgusted the Nazis because of the randomness and inefficiency of its genocide) and enabling war criminals to escape.  There is too much material on his childhood for a general biographical article.  I would suggest that it be moved into its own article, "Childhood and Youth of Eugenio Pacelli", and a one-paragraph summary be included in this article instead.  I disagree with point 8, that the article still needs an NPOV tag.  I agree that it does need such a tag if critical material is being removed without consensus.  However, what we need is not the tag, but an agreement not to remove critical material without discussion.  I agree with Tom Harrison that Bengalski used "fact" tags to request sourcing when sometimes he just wanted the material removed as non-encyclopedic.  The information about his youth is non-encyclopedic in his main biographical article.  It is encyclopedic in an article about his youth.  Robert McClenon 16:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, Bengalski, please try to avoid allegations of POV-pushing.  In an article such as this one, where there are differing POVs, achieving NPOV is both difficult and essential, and involves the mutual assumption of good faith, as well as civility and respect.  You wrote:  A POV war involves escalation of claims on either side like an arms race, a touch of bilateral disarmament wouldn't be amiss.  I agree, and suggest that it also applies to claims of POV-pushing.  Robert McClenon 16:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here We Go Again 

message: Str1977 - you keep removing the 'QPQ para', I take it on the grounds that you don't think Gregory Paul is a satisfactory source even as just an example of someone making a disputed claim. I think we need to have a proper discussion on this. Some questions for you to start off that discussion: Could you explain exactly what's your objection to this source? Why is he less acceptable than for example Sister Marchione? And in general what's your approach to judging acceptability of a source? Why are you only removing this paragraph and not the many other unsourced or questionably sourced claims?Bengalski 17:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will point out one difference between Sister Marchione and Gregory Paul as POV sources.  I am not aware of anyone disupting the accuracy of the facts stated by Sister Marchione, only that her viewpoint is hagiographic.  I think that Str1977 is questioning the accuracy and reliability of Paul.  Are there any other sources for the QpQ claim?  By the way, the QpQ claim is quite different from the argument that Pacelli was not sufficiently distrustful of Hitler, and that his (correct) anti-communism led him to underestimate the menace of Nazism.  Robert McClenon 17:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea if Sister Marchione's claims are accurate or not, and it would be hard to know how to begin to investigate - I suspect for our purposes they are downright unfalsifiable. Yes Str1977 I think questions Paul's accuracy, but that isn't quite the point - there is no claim being made that Paul or the QPQ claim in general is accurate or in any way right. Just that it is a notable allegation. And I really would like him to set out his reasoning for why this source is unacceptable as an example of such an allegation. Other sources - I'll keep looking, as I mentioned above Paul himself cites someone called Klaus Scholder. Yes I understand your last point. I'd also add, I think I remember Str1977 arguing somewhere that there may have been a qpq but it was perhaps justified if Pacelli thought the centre party was doomed anyway (forgive me if I've got this wrong), and maybe that's a reasonable argument.Bengalski 18:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Acceptable sources: call for discussion

message: Tom Harrison, please note the censoring of relevant discussions.  Please take the burden of your office to see that full measures are applied forthwith to deal with the bad faith inherent to the wrongful archiving made. Please report to your ultimate boss in your honorific position , that a reference is made to him here as posted in this wrongly Archive-d. This archiving is purely symptomatic of the bad faith seen throughout. It is a form of harrassment against good will, a harrassment against historical truth and verifiability, and against Wikipedia. I reequst you to either see that the relevant standards are imposed, or to kindly explain your position as representative administrator-by-action . I am entirely of good will in remarking clearly the revisionist motivation of the spurious Users str1977 and Robert McClenon, and in my qualification of their and any position so made by me. I request that Jimbo either through you or in any way he choose, act upon the reckless disregard for the falsity as shown by all thus far involved, which now includes Jimbo Wales himself. I have posted Jimbo such that reckless disregard of falsity concerning 'EffK',or  'theory' cannot be by ignorance but is irrational , and in briefest, anit-social.  In his default declining, thus far, to wish accord with the requisites of provability within his own publishing organ, I yet expect from Jimbo that principles will be enforced. 
Bengalski, the tiniest assumption of good faith still affected me when I last wrote here to you. I should have clearly warned you that the rivisionism is so strong that by anything you attempted, you would inexorably be wrong-footed, and through such efforts you would only, by persistence  end up as another slandered EffK. Here as we see the manipulation of Wikipedia happening before our very eyes, I am forced for the common good to reinforce the suggestions I made from the general to the specific. Failing the Administrator resolving this to where it belongs which is to an immediate Arbitration of its own as Users assisting Clerical Denialist Revisionism, I urge you to place exactly that at Arbcom. Let us give Tom enough time to understand fully the exactitude of the matter, say 24 hours or whatever Tom may request of us. You yourself B will be of no doubt by now as to the matter, and I will ape whatever is necesary of arbitration templating I can, which does not however include the actual lodgement templating. I will help specify the workshop charges and perhaps Tom in good faith will help us both with the relevant principles as to verifiability, good faith etc  etc. that  we may require. I noticed your capacity as to legal consciousness ,B, and suggest that this will be a boon. You will realise by now that Evidence is not a problem.
Alternatively , Bengalski, I suggest you retire and have no further contact with any Articles on Wikipedia to do with, or tangential to, Roman Catholicism. This may be the better course for dealing with the issue, as it will re-inforce the reckless disregard  made against me as representative of rational verifiability and critic of irrational falsification.
To Jimbo, please accord to that which is required by the responsibility you hold, not to publish what is a reckless disregard for falsity at Arbitration.
EffK 11:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bengalski:  If you understand what EffK is saying, can you provide me with a short summary?  Robert McClenon 13:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: EffK:  If you want the ArbCom to consider remedies against Str1977 and Robert McClenon, there is no point in demanding ArbCom action here.  The ArbCom is not reading this page.  What you need to do is to go to WP:AMA and request an advocate who can write a summary of your case for the ArbCom.  The ArbCom is still in voting, and if you can present a concise summary of your case, they should be glad to review it.  Robert McClenon 13:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Robert, I'm not here to speak for anyone else. I think you can understand what EffK is saying. On the other hand, if you really find him so objectionable - and after all you are trying to get him banned, so there's no need to pretend you're interested in further dialogue - just stop reading his posts.Bengalski 14:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the Add to Usenet-style KillFile function available in the Wikipedia menu?  Robert McClenon 16:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Abuse of article talk pages is disruptive because many of us have not figured out how to set up a killfile.  Robert McClenon 16:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I understand that he is saying that Str1977 and I are part of a conspiracy for "denial of source", and that we are also planning to have you (Bengalski) banned.  I am not sure what he is saying is actually being suppressed.  I am not sure what the difference is between the "partial quid pro quo" and the "complete quid pro quo".  Robert McClenon 18:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WP Aministration: Censoring by wrong Archival and irrational behaviour