Talk:Pope Pius XII/Archive 12

message: I have no expertise in this area, but I began to edit this section as it is difficult to read. I tried to pare it down (cutting repeated phrases and unnecessary adjectives, patching up solecisms with idiomatic uses, breaking up paragraphs, and putting logic on some awkward syntax). I only got half-way (gave up at the phrase "virtually universally" - it's not forbidden to simply say, "widely"). There is a lot of pro-Pius POV in here, and it actually muddies the statement of the facts. I'm familiar with some of the talk pages and recognise that there may be an anxiety to compensate for the hateful contributions about Pius that are just waiting to get in, but clarity of expression, where possible, is always best. I'll try to do the rest of the section, if nobody well-meaning has an objection to that. Otherwise, please break up the paragraphs, and divide the section with sub-headings: after all, the article is meant to be read. Personally, I would cut its length in half by farming out certain themes and subjects to their own articles.--shtove 01:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that in the course of trying to rework the edits by shtove, the anonymous editor accidentally reverted them.  I have restored them.  Robert McClenon 19:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: As Churchill said, balls are round and they bounce,. The edits are not WP standard, given the situation. I'm sure they are made in good faith, so they are a reflection of the soft-ware. Whereas of the history,for which they represent an un-sourced speculation, they are a poor reflection, nevertheless they represent a clear and good response, an active esponse within the capacities of the Soft-ware.  Meaning that goodness vitiates truth. A bit like saying, Oh -He didn't die at all, he went to heaven. All very well and good. Systemic Bias .EffK 16:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Intriguing - an anonymous "we" who work in mysterious ways. Are there three of you? I see you kept "ensured" when you must have meant "ensued". It's much better if you log in, because things can be worked out on your user page without clogging up the talk page here. Regards.--shtove 23:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The section is still prolix and confused: some overlong paragraphs, repetition of points, insistence on certain points that looks like special pleading, and a fair amount of non-neutral POV, which - as I said before - muddies the facts. The section isn't there to make a case for or against the subject, but to state the facts clearly and concisely. And Note to every unsigned user: Get a Page! It's not fair to others wishing to edit, when they're kept in the dark about your other Wiki contributions and the prospect of maintaining a debate with you.--shtove 21:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pius XII and the Holocaust 

message: It is a reflection upon us that so many un-attributed apply. EffK 18:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does that mean?  Robert McClenon 20:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It means the Oracle has spoken and left the building.--shtove 21:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since those who are asked questions refuse to answer there is no possible consensual repair to the Article. This is bad faith. Short of looking into the last Archives,which are at least from Archive 8 onwards, the recent questions are gone, so those to whom I addressed them no longer need to answer so obviously. Now the Article and the discussion lollops along to nowhere with unsigned contributions. I don't think I have to mention intellectual dishonesty more clearly than I already have. I can wish this area well as playgound, but certainly without reference to the since repeated conclusions of the 50-Edition Avro Manhattan, little can be expected. This writer is considered as hate literature, and despite the 50 editions sold since 1949, he is disallowed as source even requiring of careful de-POVing by Robert McClenon and Str1977. There will be no proper resolution of any of the interlinked history joining with the political involvements of Eugenio Pacelli here or elsewhere in Wikipedia, so long as balanced sourced history is down-sized by such editorial decision making by Users constrained to the opposite. Here will doubtless follow an opposite view, with a chance that yet anbother archive will be required equally soon. It is play, not serious building, to ignore source and the resulting questions of consensus. EffK 00:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any specific change that you want made to the article?  In particular, exactly what quote by do you want added to the article?  I have never taken issue with adding her words to the quotes.  I have only taken issue with presenting her opinion (which is an opinion) as fact.  Robert McClenon 12:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the benefit of those who have arrived late, I have not tried to exclude statements of opinion that have been unfavorable to Pope Pius XII.  I have tried to prevent their presentation as statements of fact.  There is a difference between saying "Mowrer says that there was a quid pro quo involving the Reichskonkordat and the Enabling Act" (statement of sourced opinion) and saying "There was a quid pro quo involving the Reichskonkordat and the Enabling Act (with a footnote to Mowrer) (statement as fact of what is a valid opinion).  Robert McClenon 12:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You consciously have denied source, and you take it upon yourself to judge verifiabitlity of source. The argument against me is a strawman to prevent various source. Your edit is counter , here, to your itemised behaviour. There is no prospect of consensus whilst you avoid the questions arising, but now hidden in archives. As to your charge of POV to the now eradicated Rhenish-Westphalian Industrial Magnates, that is pure symptom of your denialism. The subject was sourced, twice, and fact as fact. No POV at all. You are a  regrettable editor preventing rational consensus through verifiability, and that is why you are a party to the Arbcom EffK trial.  EffK 12:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can some third party tell me what that means?  Robert McClenon 15:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Continuing Impossibility of consensus upon the Article

message: Listen up guys:I don't hold with un-intentional error any more than with intentional error. The relevant 15 december AHitler/Pius XII  hypocrisy is the best to be studied by Bengalski with particular reference to the Str1977 agreement with JKenney as linked from  Evidence /Effk to 15 December 2005. I do not say this because of the contumate hypocrisy of calling something one has assented to believe to be historical, only to be later a POV of Effk's. That is another issue, that behaviour, I section off following. The behaviour deals with the same subject, but is an issue in itself, now,in WP, very firmly  an Issue.The evidence relates to the revisioist level of admission here in this preceding editing  subject:Pacelli/Pius XI(the papacy) and Hitler.
The Mowrer which is technically, in WP, classed as Primary witness/Source (Robert McClenon kindly left a link to  WP source qualification,) is a Primary source because it is written and published reputably, from a first hand witness to the living claim . Whether Str1977 likes it or not it fits the qualifications by being that and no more nor less. The  P/Source tag is an affront, if it doubts primary source. If it is placed against Mowrer it is a reportable issue, for several reasons. 
Mowrer puts his entire reputation on the line by publishing the precise way he does. The Cardinal wrote that the Pope was worried about the rise of communism in Germany and advised our Party to help make Hitler chancellor. The Zentrums leaders agreed. and From that day the Center[American spelling]regularly supported Hitler
*From this p 209/210 can be seen several things. The date is thus: The May election to the Prussian Landtag brought another communist gain. This set the stage for a second  betrayal, that of the Catholics. This in other words falls into the scheming Camarilla/Hitler/Schleicher  proposition of  the figure head Papen cabinet replacing the Bruning-with-General Groener Republic. Diet elections  were on 29 May- is that the date before the following. 
*Str1977 better remembers his comment to those elections and this May date. However all that can otherwise be deduced is  sometime following those elections- 'set the stage' is indeterminate.political events would place this papal advice as during the period in which von papen was either being proposed , or following his proposal as chancellor. 
*This v complex Bengalski, as Hitler and  Schleicher were both hoping to control the other. What prompted Pacelli to write this to Kaas was the communist gains, and these were long-term fears of Pius XI, long term results, and I don't even know if it is that Diet elections is what were dicussing. i believe that mowrer's takinf a apge to tell the world , following the appearance of the Hochhuth controversy, is respectable in that Mowrer was not going to stake his Pulitzer Prize reputation in all theatres of War and Peace, upon this if it were not his witness as to the subject matter of the Pacelli papal relay.
*This is a blanket instruction or advice, and assent. Papen was not a Centre leader, but a renegade engineering  for himself and his separate threads, notably the industrial side; Hindenberg was within the landed Junker/ aristocracy on top of Papen's threads; Schleicher was attempting to control the SA and thereby weaken Hitler, and himself gain army leaning Dictatorship, hitler was biding his time with his longsstanding experience of the need to win over forces and not make rebellion.
*Pacelli wrote this and it was read out as from him, by Kaas. Str1977 may well be good to qualify what advised means in papal/catholic terms. It needs to be sourced such that the word advised from a Pope can be utterly clear. It is not me advising Str1977,say, after all. 
*Papen was not a Centre leader, but a renegade engineering  for himself and his separate threads, notably the industrial side; Hindenberg was within the landed Junker/ aristocracy on top of Papen's threads; Schleicher was attempting to control the SA and thereby weaken Hitler, and himself gain army leaning Dictatorship, hitler was biding his time with his longsstanding experience of the need to win over forces and not make rebellion.
*We see Mowrer finishing this by saying that the Centre later at the close of the cabinet of Papen's Barons, proposing a Hitler chancellorship to Hindenberg. 
*In fact Mowrer says even when in Febuary [sic/error= March) 1933, the Catholics realised it was too late to hold him [AH] to the Constitution, they voted an Enabling Act doing away with personal freedom, democracy, and law in Germany. This they called "clarifying the situation".
*The catholics. The Pope. Monsignor Kaas. The Secretary at State. Law.
*Mowrer appends results "And see we did. From that day forward..." and includes the Enabling Act,despite knowing they had no guarantee.
*Yes, this primary source makes un-ambiguous accusation against the papacy, Pacelli, Kaas and the Centre as Catholics, and as nothing else. As a Monsignor led, catholic, Pacelli influenced, papally submissive, Party. "...to help make Hitler chancellor."
*Bengalski read it very well and is utterly correct in the sense of his reduction. It is not a POV, but primary source from a Pulitzer Prize winner.
*Shirer is a Secondary Source as sourced at usertalk:Jimbo Wales:Section Shortcut to the brain Re: EffK/Arbcom. 
*Shirer:"Hitler... added- with an eye to the votes of the Catholic Centre Party, which he received- that "we hope to improve our friendly relations with the Holy See". [23 March 1933]
*Shirer:"Monsignor Kaas, the party leader, had demanded a written promise from Hitler that he would repect the President's power of Veto. But though promised before the voting, it was never given. Nevertheless the Centre leader rose to announce that his party would vote for the bill."
*Now shall we go to the other issue. I note two defamatory personal attacks made aginst me here whilst the usual users, Str1977 and robert McClenon are talking to Bengalski. I repeat to B that he is best advised to go to 15 december EffK Trial evidence by EffK to understand what Str1977(and in fact RMcClenon are or are not prepared to believe, accept as NPOV history , as well as, Str1977, then renounce. B is best advised to withdraw from this Article and from any contact with these two users, as well as with the sevaral other named imlicated users whose defamation of me is specified by me at my Trial. Technically I believe I have proved that a catholic has to obey his church, and thus do not believe it a similar precept to have labelled  Str1977 as I have as to his obedience. I regret the necessity of it.
The clear line , except that he Str1977 forgot it or thought he could nullify it for a spurious reason, at AHitler at 15 dec 2005, is this : The legality of the relationship between AH and the Holy See is unquestionable and begins with the Hitler proposed ( not secret) Papen trip to Rome 8, for the Government of the Third Reich/German Empire/Germany, to negotiate the Reichskonkordat, kaas joining him(not secretly) at Munich is incidental. kaas has no relationship to the negotiations whatever, and was just drafted in to draft the RKKDt at 10 th April. The papal approbation of  the new german government havibg at its head a strong man , at last, to deal un-compromisingly with nihilistic russian communism, is purely diplomatic speak and . does not relate to Deputy,arrest , torture or murder. Because Jkenny confirmed categorically to me FK as was, that it is historically the case that there was a quid pro quo thereafter between the papacy(small P) and the auto dissolution of the Catholic Centre Party Germany as per refernced Secondary Source(Atkin and Tallet), str1977 has once assented to it. EffK sourced the reason why this is so known, as coming as news directly first from the Vatican State(according to the British diplomatic records). however Str1977 undid this assent as it being in some way to single out that party un-fairly(as if other tiny parties were of equal importance or were in some way themselves equally negotiated from inside the vatican. Such is the acceptable version of History, to some. 
Any other version is of course un-historical POV, and slander. Scholars who hold to the earlier quid pro quo, skated by Shirer yet definitely included as received and linked to the Holy See, are all single source, discredited, erroneous, slanderous, retracting, not serious, non-historiographical, bunkum. EffK definitely mis-interprets them. When a Professor published by OUP states that kaas had a hand in the very speech here just referred to, it is mis-interpretion even if the sole words of that Tertiary source themselves are placed. they mis-interpret themselves. If not that, the Scholar is alone. Previous Secondary Source , such as Shirer can be out of date, un-'historiographical'.sign section  EffK 08:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reckless disregard of the Falsity re Pope Pius XII

message: I have made it excessively clear to the publisher of this organ that we are all walking into very dangerous ground. I find the trial made against me an offense against my person, even as pseudonymous. I do not see any recuperation of these offensive users into any meaningful eidting, as their combined intellectual dishonesty is a matter of my knowledge . They are all very capable good writers and brains, but they are concerned with good taste and the interests of revisionism for clerical  denialist document war, here relating to, of course, the historical shattering of the Magisterium or Divine Law. Hence the tangential discussions relating to Articles, which is the true explanation for motive in this particular document war . I do not waste my time Bengalski in acting under normality of good faith by attemting to edit the namespace articles, as I will have no good faith reaction from such revisionism. even when this view is tangential to the content of the articles. I should not try and tell you, Bengalski, what you should or should not do. I am familiar with the routine here. I would suggest you , however, that you bengalski go to Arbitration now as is your right and probable capacity, and place the names of these two editors Str1977 and Robert McClenon up for MY longstanding request for their arbitration. You would be doing Jimbo an enormous service, as the way this clerical revisionism is slipping this will become more damaging. Call it clerical revisionism against verifiable source, whatever. Your time would be better invested in that form of editing, as I for one cannot function as an editor, cannot help the text, and cannot submit to offense against the history and, less important,against my person. The Inmanuel Kant test as to whether I'd expect having this done against me -well- it is being done against me already. I have no hesitation in continuing my call for an outright ban on these two who are disruptive  Users. Suggest? No- you can see the continuous seriousness of this situation, and you can see the rationality of my good faith, and so I urge you most strongly to do this now by way of a review for compliance by WP of WP in WP. If you lose me here, you will have no future guide but my posts to dicussions, and these revisionists will soon get rid of them. I posted for Arbitration a year ago here or very close,so, duty to this WP Article is to act, duty to the Magisterium would be to act, duty to the memory of the Shoah is to act, duty to the War dead is to act, duty to civil society is to act and duty to oneself, is to act. I  await another than you Bengalski, I say save yourself.
Alternatively, we give them more rope, I'd rv to before you tried, just as I did not touch Pius XI.
I'm easy- it's Jimbo. I think Jimbo should do the duty. Reckless disregard of the demonstrably false is against all communities, not simply this one. He knows .
EffK 01:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Duty to the Article etc