Talk:Hitler's Pope/Archive 4

message: 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)
thread_title: Sidebar

message: 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)
thread_title: You asked for it.  You got it.

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unsourced argument moved 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Take Issue

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Removed questionable phrase