User talk:Str1977: Difference between revisions

Please click here to leave a message for me.

Welcome to the Wikipedia

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

• Wikipedia:Tutorial
• Wikipedia:Help desk
• M:Foundation issues
• Wikipedia:Policy Library
• Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page

Questions and comments

• Archive1 Str1977 19:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Centre Party

Thanks for working on the Centre Party (Germany) article - it really needed a ton of work, and I'd gotten so frustrated that I had a hard time looking at it anymore. john k 22:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Flamekeeper is a difficult one. I don't know how to deal with him, either. john k 23:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Your interpretation is correct - the quid pro quo was only in 1933, after Hitler came to power. Kaas did not purposely allow Hitler to come to power (the Centre Party had, at any rate, no control over the machinations surrounding Hitler's coming to power, and calling Papen a Centre Party member at that point - he had been expelled from the party months before, and had always been a far right renegade within it - is simply incorrect). So, yeah, it was all in the Concordat negotiations, not before. john k 16:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't have the book anymore, so I can't look to find out for sure. I don't think it said there was an explicit quid pro quo at the time of the Enabling Act, though. It's a very general book, though, so it was not describing the precise sequence of events. john k 17:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pius XII

I salute you. Flamekeeper drove me away from the Pius XII page permanently. I just don't have the time or energy. Lawrence King 09:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. It seems to me that the recent activity around this issue is likely to end for now. The relevant posts probably should remain on the Pius XII talk page for considerable time. Personally, I think the historical problem and its influence on our times have their importance, but all the other issues are best to be ignored. Conf 13:07, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I want to start the Wikipedia:Requests for comments process on Pope Pius XII over the question of Talk:Pope Pius XII#Cornwell in the introduction. Will you join? patsw 04:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I've started the RFC on the article. patsw 22:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

When the RfC resolves (or after mediation if that becomes necessary) the article is going to need a overhaul to separate facts (i.e. what Pius said and did) from the analysis, criticism and speculation (why he did it, what were the consequences of what he did or didn't do, etc.) patsw 22:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Cornwell in the Introduction of Pope Pius XII. Is it time for mediation? Please discuss on my talk page. patsw 14:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

It looks like the article has settled down. It needs an overhaul. I propose a section called "Life" that has the facts not in dispute, and another section called "Analysis" which covers the disputed questions of what he knew, what were his motives, judgments of the consequences of his actions, etc. Do you concur? patsw 23:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

FK

The neutrality of this post is in question. However this post wasn't meant to be neutral.

Hi there Str1977, yesI miss you too . I suggest that our communications that you have archived and the rest that remain on the other page , could be better placed on a special linked page . Our discussion which is so rich in analysis and detailed law could then remain useful towards a settlement of this matter .Just as John Cornwell's analysis is absent from the earlier Pacelli history , none of this is finished withneither us find it as useful ,however, to analyse each others motives , but the above , and your editing history , you evidently wish to keep in question . I agree , there is a question . And, this pompous name I took from a real person - I could revert to a variation of flamekeeper 's macafree-eaten cookie -say fiamekeeper , for ease of tracking my disquiet . Hitler's Pope , didn't you suggest ...Corecticus 21:33, 30 May 2005 (UTC)=Fiamekeeper 21:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

In order to not give you any more ammunition, I withdraw from all two-way discussions with yourself and with others. I will use fair-use copyright extract from hereon, everywhere necessary. Your own actions hereon can speak enough without further human response. My actions hereon shall be limited strictly to references and citation. Goodbye Fiamekeeper 09:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade

Dear Sam, thanks for your welcome message back when I first logged onto Wikipedia.

I see, that my friend Fiamekeeper, once known as Flamekeeper or Correcticus, has already posted here, so I might as well give you the other side of the story.

There is nothing wrong with the Ludwig Kaas entry. I have done an overhaul lately (as I did of the Centre Party (Germany) and of Heinrich Brüning, including many things that weren't there (and in which FK has no interest)). Now he calls this entry disputed, but what he posted on the talk page doesn't warrant this call. He posts all the things he always posts (sorry for the complicated wording, but I'm trying to avoid a word he doesn't like) - the only substantial thing is a quote which he immediately misinterpretes - and which can be dealt with fairly easily. In fact, I have immediately included a sentence which gives the fact to which the quotes is refering.

Please do have a look into the Kaas page and see that there is nothing in need of dispute there. Of course, one could expand it, but then it'd be a replica of the Centre page to which there is a link. I focused on Kaas personally.

Thanks and greetings from Franconia to the Eifel.

Str1977 17:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fascinating user page! Sam Spade 18:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Sam, I didn't have the time and/or energy to create a user page as great as Yours. And I don't have such a famous namesake. Originally it was empty (except for some gibberish some anon user posted there), but as someone gave me a lot of "presents", I started to put them on exhibition. Actually your page is really quite impressive with all these different options. Str1977 19:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Sam, I appreciate your edits on Kaas. It's always better to have more than one person editing - not just because of typos and idiosyncracies. However, I changed some things back, as you can see here. Str1977 19:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You can feel free to copy any of the format or features that you might like from my page, and I'm pretty sure the same holds true for anyone elses (User:Jimbo has a nice page design... ;) What I did was I copied User:Angelas formatt, and then dumped in any links or templates or whatever I found handy. I like Fiamekeeper's descriptions of you quite a bit tho, it was a fascinating read.. In my experience contributers of bulk content tend to have complaints and POV/NPOV. I hardly ever contribute bulk content, and really am more of an editor than a writer. I'd like to see more attention paid to the division of labour on the wikipedia, w people accentuating their strengths, and minimizing their deficits, if you know what I mean ;) Sam Spade 19:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Sam, for the tips. As for bulk content: as I decided to overhaul these pages, I saved the source text to my PC and edited it there. Otherwise I might run into edit conflicts (it took me some time to edit), or crash my PC and lose it (something like this happened anyway) or some other Internet/wiki bug. Of course, I don't like the look of this bulk either (it it very annoying e.g. on the Germany talk page - some users post bulk with their post added. This makes it hard to find out what's new.)

And please don't You believe the things FK said about me (and that was before the bulky editing). And he has decided not to give me anymore ammunition.

I'm not blameless either and our previous discussion became very heated, but I honestly - POV :-) - tried not to attack him personally (apart from any policy) and only criticize his actions.

We all have strong opinions, but I think he is going too far. And I am not the only one who thinks that way. You know better, since you have been at wiki longer than I have.

PS. I have posted an explanation and alternatives on the Kaas talk page - and put in "pushing" as an alternative, at least for the moment. Feel free to improve the wording.

Str1977 20:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Famekeeper Disputes

Good afternoon. Thank you for responding on my talk page. FK is engaging in dialog directly on the Hitler's Pope talk page, which is what it is for.

Could you answer a few questions for me briefly:

1. What was the original thesis that FK was arguing about canon law?

2. Who posted the NPOV banner on the Hitler's Pope page, you or FK? I am assuming that it was you. However, the response that I am getting from FK is the sort of response that I normally get from a reasonable person in a dispute. In other words, he appears to be making an honest but completely ineffectual effort to strive for neutrality of point of view.

Robert McClenon 23:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I have posted a Request for Mediation concerning four articles cited by Famekeeper as non-neutral. Maybe a mediator can help him summarize what he thinks needs to be marked as POV and can caution him about soapboxing. Robert McClenon 17:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I am a patient man. I have lost all patience with Famekeeper and have posted a Request for Comment against him for filibustering the talk pages. Whether or not you are planning to try to edit the Church history articles later, could you please at least visit the RfC to sign it? Robert McClenon 19:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I need your help, or that of someone else who has had a problem with Famekeeper.

We disagree as to whether some of the leaders of the Church made moral errors about the Nazis and Hitler. I think we can also agree that responsible scholars disagree about whether there were moral errors. We are in agreement that Famekeeper's assessment of those moral errors is unsubstantiated and extreme and has aspects of a conspiracy theory.

I think that the discussion of the book Hitler's Pope summarizes it erroneously. I don't have the book in my possession, and will have to order another copy to read and assess. In the meantime, I would like, as I think you would, to work to present a neutral presentation of differing points of view. Famekeeper continues to say that he demands mediation or arbitration, and responds to all of my requests for summaries of the issues that he thinks are biased with more ranting.

Famekeeper is making the talk pages of articles with which he has an issue unusable by filling them with his soapboxing. I think that this will just continue and expand unless he can be dealt with. I think that we are in agreement on far more than we are in disagreement with.

I know that Famekeeper is misquoting me, so I assume that he is misquoting Cornwell. I told Famekeeper to drop it about his self-excommunication tirade. He says that he is being told to drop all issues.

Could you please visit Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Famekeeper and either sign it or revise it and sign it or indicate what you think needs to be corrected?

Thank you. Robert McClenon 00:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Dear Robert, thanks for all your efforts trying to find a solution and also for your kind posts.

Though we migh disagree about this and that (and about what is another question - maybe not about that much: we agree that there were moral errors, the disagreement is about which ones) I agree that it is possible to respectfully disagree. I have respectfully disagreed with many people (inside and outside of wiki) and I can and will do the same in your case. I (and others) have also tried to do the same with FK but to no avail. It's hard to even argue with someone who claims his POV is no POV and who claims that his (or rather his sources') interpretation of historical events is no interpretation, but history as such. To rephrase it: We have sources about historical events and we can reconstruct these events (to some extent). These events are dots on a white paper and some historians are connecting these dots this way and other that way and still others a third way. And discussion of these different views is valid and needed. FK draws connections between the dots too, but then he claims that the connecting lines he (or the books he cites, but unfortunately he misquotes them quite often) has drawn was there in the sources.

Yes, we agree about "conspiracy theory". Of course, there were real conspiracies, but there is a reason why we generally are skeptical about those theories. And despite FK's reiterated statement that he is not monocausalistic and only leaves other causes to other people, he definitely overstates his case and he does it everywhere (e.g. on The Holocaust - see his change at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Holocaust&diff=19460820&oldid=19423159 and the following revisions).

I haven't been posting much lately since I'm quite busy on other things, but when I find the time I will look (and write) into the Hitler's Pope entry.

"Famekeeper is making the talk pages of articles with which he has an issue unusable by filling them with his soapboxing."

That's exactly my problem with him. Maybe I never would have run into him if he hadn't posted a section called "The Question of the Law" from the Pius XII talk page over to the Benedict XVI page and the Theology of Benedict XVI page and so on. This post was hardly comprehensible even in its original context, let alone on other pages. After I found out about this cross posting I deleted the post where it was off topic to which FK shouted censorship. If you had witnessed our exchanges you would have noticed that they were hardly on the articles themselves, but on the talk pages and on what they are for and on questions acutally not relating the wiki articles (e.g. the canon law issue).

"I think that this will just continue and expand unless he can be dealt with."

I'm afraid so.

"I think that we are in agreement on far more than we are in disagreement with."

Yes, I think so.

"I know that Famekeeper is misquoting me, so I assume that he is misquoting Cornwell."

He is not only misquoting you, he is also misquoting me, Kaas, Pius XI (encyclical Dilectissima Nobis), wikipedian John Kenney. He also misrepresents some of the books he quotes, e.g. Klemperer, Lewy and even Mowrer.

"I told Famekeeper to drop it about his self-excommunication tirade. He says that he is being told to drop all issues."

Yes, I have experienced that too. He is very liberal in dishing out but very sensitive in receiving. I don't think "It is more blessed to give than to receive." was meant that way.

"Could you please visit Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Famekeeper and either sign it or revise it and sign it or indicate what you think needs to be corrected?"

I agree with your summary as it gives the main problems with him and have signed it.

Thank you.

Str1977 09:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

You signed in the wrong place. The place where you signed is for outside opinions who agree, not for people who have been directly involved in the controversy. Please move your signature to immediately under mine. Thank you. Robert McClenon 11:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Dear Robert, since you started the RfC on FK I want to draw your attention to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Famekeeper&curid=2300712&diff=20140279&oldid=20023902

Is this proper usage of the RfC "rebuttal" space?

As for FK's accusations above (note that he accuses, not me), have a look at my answer to his allegedly "irrefutable proof" at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Famekeeper#Irrefutable_Proof

Thanks, Str1977 22:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear Robert,

I think he's referring to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jimmy_Wales#Yes:The_vatican.27s_Media_Conference_and__the_Wikipedia

and this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=20047180#Old_Media_-_New_Media

Goodnight

Str1977 00:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

No. I do not think that Famekeeper is making a reasonable use of the rebuttal space. However, I am not concerned. It makes it easier for anyone to see what his style is. I don't know if he is saying that he has tried to get a message to Jimbo Wales. If he is trying to say that, he is lying. There is no such message in Jimbo Wales's talk page. I will just leave his extended comments on the RfC. I have not decided whether to leave them on my talk page or archive them.

He is not really doing any harm, because it does not appear that he is editing any article pages. I am willing to let him flame for a while. Robert McClenon 00:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear Robert, it is like this: User:Jimbo Wales is his user page, while Jimmy Wales is a page on the founder of WP. But I also like your distinction paradox. Now, finally, goodnight Str1977 00:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for replying on my talk page. I do see his messages now. It appears that Jimbo Wales has at least two user talk pages. Since he owns Wikipedia, and does not own Wikipedia, he should have at least two talk pages, one where he owns it, one where he does not. I see no proof of anything except dates and anger.

If Pope John Paul II called a conference and mentioned that Internet projects such as Wikipedia should be noted by Catholics as well as by non-Catholics, then I think he was wise. We already knew that. Maybe he should be canonized. We already knew that.

I see no need to respond for a few days. Maybe he will give yet another answer, or maybe he will not. Robert McClenon 00:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I am now confused. Famekeeper had previously put together a timeline of events involving the Centre Party and the end of the Weimar Republic, and had put it in two of the article talk pages. I thought it was an accurate timeline of events. It was only a timeline, and so it did not prove causation. Using a timeline to prove causation is the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Now that timeline appears to have been deleted or moved. Now his argument appears to rely on a meeting between Kaas and Hitler, followed by a meeting between Kaas and Pius XI. We don't know what was said at the meeting unless one of the participants wrote an account or letter about it.

However, at this point, all that he appers to be doing is taunting me. This is providing time for other Wikipedians to read the RfC. Robert McClenon 12:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear Robert,

"Famekeeper had previously put together a timeline of events"

Yes, I don't know why but has replaced one timeline with another (at the RfC), though they seem to be the same contentwise. Yes, it's accurate on the whole, though unfortunately with some inappropriate language (Nazi police, Nazi trade) and sometimes takings things out of context (Dilectissima Nobis) without any explanations or qualifications (some Hitler Church quotes). I haven't perused it all (and I won't), but they also seems to be a bit to positive to Ernst Thälmann.

Anyway, yes "It was only a timeline, and so it did not prove causation". But that's unfortunately FK's method. He gather some reports about events, quickly draws his conclusions wihout any checking of possible alternative analysis, and then comes out with what "history says" and "history is against you" and "the historians" (which ones? why these? Why not others?) and - and that's the real kernel of the problem - he claims he hasn't got an interpretation, that he only gives facts.

"Now his argument appears to rely on a meeting between Kaas and Hitler, followed by a meeting between Kaas and Pius XI."

I agree with you on that meeting. I never disputed such meetings, in fact I even expanded some of the things on "Centre Party", mainly the second half of 1932. It's his interpretation (which he calls facts) I have a problem with.

"However, at this point, all that he appers to be doing is taunting me."

Yes, he taunts at a lot.

Str1977 12:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, old man ( obsolete term of affection, coll.,Eng,) ! Str, I didn't want in ant way to personalise any of this issue beyond ecclesiatical law . I tell you I'm very sorry I exceeded my exuberant typing and gave you all this ammunition. I am sorry that you must now think me uh uh user . I hope that the little dribbetts (Eng, Poetic licence , FK ) of welcome back always into the fray I gave to you were enough to persuade you that I'm ,somewhere , a human being 'neath all the headstrong ggnashing of teeth . What say we let settlement fall , and good faith reign for a while, at least ?

I judged you harshly by your edits because I let my fear feed on your distrust . My fear was that you represented an evil conspiracy of renegades within ecclesiastical law , desperate to subvert the WP from due recognition of awful mistakes , made even in relatively, but not ecclesiastical , good-faith . My belief does not allow me to avoid continuing to offer advice , simpleton I am .

I may be wrong , but your fear seemed to reside in my being a purely irresponsible interjector (poetic, FK) of innacurate , biased error upon all the articles .

I don't know really how to say this but , uh , the thing that I have noticed all my life , is , that no catholic ever tried to persuade me of anything . Until you . But you didn't do it for catholic faith reasons , I don't think . You did it to somehow just - stop me .

I don't have the time in my life to check on everything , so I don't know what Jimmy Wales thought he was going to achieve with this mega project . I always remember hearing , that some psychiatrist bought himself a mega property in bliss-land , and opened it as a cure centre for disturbed , wealthy , people who then queued up to come along to work there like slaves , and pay hugely to do so .

I realise that the WP is in a tricky position , and needs all the sad souls it can get to somehow level a civilised balance . That is what you thought you were doing with me . Trouble was , I filibustered , according to the accusation or definition . 'Course , I say well , uh , you used ad hominem conterraction .

No . Str , Let's stop this .... if in future you see me posting something , can you do me the good grace to retain the WP ground-rule of imagining good faith  ? Then , let me say , that I will consequently not feel your distrust comes just to smother .

None of this is to say that I don't take it upon myself to question, even though the WP is supposed to state rather than question , -imagine I question in good faith .

I cannot say that I have understood you yet - I don't . I think you have been able to understand me . I saw the question out there - it became apparent . That I am verbose , well , uh , it is a factor in my optimism .

I took it from you that you are a very deep considered person , and I have no pleasure in attacking you personally . I am one of those nasty little lawyery types , who are only too pleased to rake about in the muck , long after the fear and danger has gone . Full of indignation and supercilious superiority entirely divorced from the actual awful choices inherent to the muck ( mess) .

I hope I have learnt from you , and I say that in your part in any questioning and answering , you were the human who tried to explain that which was dependent on the purely human . But my fear leaps whenever someone speaks like that , as my own fear of my own " humanity " assaults me . All this , you , and your human understanding finds irresponsible because self-indulgent . I cannot justify myself further in my excuses against bad taste , WP or other-wise . And I couldn't in my own world , do other than that which I have done in this WP to question .

As far as I am concerned we could simply delete now , or hope it would become separated all the non-relevant and regrettable personal attack I made . But I could be wrong , and separation could be impossible ......we always knew that the essential question would need the answer , and that the answer would be terrible indeed .

Famekeeper 22:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, old Spaniard (I understand that quite well, FK, and I bear you no grudge for the things you said (though some of them were directed at me personally and some are dangerous, given that there are actually “totalitarian liberals” around that want to control). Anyway, Sometimes I even enjoyed your “verbosity”, though in a very “I marvel and can’t shut my mouth again” way. Also please take my “longest link” post not too seriously. I just had to post it, it beat all. But nevertheless, here’s my reply (to be read in parallel to your post): I hope you believe me by now that I am no evil conspiracy, certainly not of renegades in ecclesiastical law. Not in the least do I want to “subvert the WP from due recognition of awful mistakes, made even in … good-faith”. Mistakes are mistakes. Error of judgement is error of judgment, but conspiracy is another thing and that I am denying. No, I estimate you as an honest but easily inflammable editor who unfortunately all too often jumps too quickly and then is, to quote from Dilbert, “emotionally bound to his view.” History not just ‘’is’’ – it needs to be reconstructed. Scholarly historiography is not so unlike natural sciences. You oberseve, you set up hypothesis, you try to prove or falsify them. The result in physics is not “reality” but a “theory” resembling it, explaining it. The same with historiography, only that it’s not about repeatable experiments but about sources. The sources are dots on a scrap of paper – the historian has to connect these and often it is not clear which connections are the correct ones. As in our case, I think. I’m sorry that “catholic ever tried to persuade (you) of anything”. Unfortunately many Catholics are just “formal” Catholics or staying in the closet or try to ignore difficult issues, such as this. Well, we cannot control how we meet up, yes it was to stop something, what I consider inappropriate editing, or bring you to reasonable, NPOVish contribution I know that WP is in a tricky position … but the balancing has to go in both ways. I mean the internet is full of conspiracy stories and half-truths and bad history. You can get Edward Gibbon everywhere for free, but you cannot get any modern, more up-to-date work on the topic for free on the internet. If I really used “Ad hominem” then I’m sorry about that. I always tried to imagine good faith. Sometimes I thought otherwise, but then I took a breather and tried to leave that out of editing and comments. For the times I didn’t I do apologize. Never smother, but add balance. Questioning is good, but question everything and “keep the good” (Paul). You don’t understand me yet, maybe I can help? What exactly do you not understand? What our issue is?

• I agree with you and Robert that there were serious errors comitted by Kaas, many in the Centre Party, and too a lesser extent even by the two Pii (plural of Pius).
• Some of these errors than backfired, e.g. Kaas tried to “save” democracy by forming a coalition with the NS and combating the imminent Papen dictatorship – with the result that Papen fell and Schleicher fell and Hindenburg acquiesced into appointing “that Bohemian private” (and I protest against the President’s insult of all Bohemians, Moravians and Silesians). Hitler tricked him and the March elections dealt the death blow to his policy. Hitler‘s government had the majority and as they did away with the Communists (legal or not) they could do away with the Centre to. From that point onwards it was save what you can. Today we know what happened afterwards, the millions of dead, but a) Kaas and others could not see it then, and b) the question is what they could have done about it. Max Weber, the sociologian, distinsuished between “ethics of conviction” and “ethics of responsibility”. We all would have like to see Kaas, Brüning et al stand up like Wels did and to see Pius XII issue declarations like Gregory VII or Gregory IX. But it’s easy from today’s situation, with a full stomach and a soft bed and computer technology on our hand and really nothing to fear about (assuming now that you are Spanish, I estimate that your life is not in danger anytime in the foreseeable future) to demand that those of the past should have spoken out more vehemently, even if in vain. I don’t want to call on others to risk the lives of themselved and those them in their care.
• I agree that maybe there was too much of focus institutional things. However, I also understand that many clerics (Bertram) still had the Kulturkampf in mind, and Bismarck & Co., despite all their faults, were much much much more “civilized” that the Nazis expected to be.
• However, if I say I don’t want to call on others, that doesn’t mean that issues, like your canonical law suit, shouldn’t be discussed. But in a straightforward way, and one which does not claim more than it can. Unfortunately, I saw your case far from being “proved”. If you want to I can give you a brief outline of where it fails. Just post “yes” and I will provide.
• Even if you suit were substantiated it is another question how important it is to the present. You seem to imply that the Church has to take the actions you demanded in order to gain the right to speak. I, for my part, say that even if what you claimed were true that doesn’t affect her authority (it does affect the standing of the three in question and others). I see today (actually already since thirty years, though I wasn’t born then) policies not so unlike Nazi-policies coming back and almost the lone voice of protest is the Church (and the Italian referendum is just one example). It’s hard to listen to some politicians, especialls here in Germany, denouncing Hitler and at the same advocating plans Mengele would be proud of.
• I never had in mind to blacken those whom you quote. However, please understand, that I cannot take Hochhuth seriouly. His play is not history and he is notorious for smearing others, living or dead, and caring to incite too violence. His play unfortunately has changed the perception of Pius XII. No, not he alone. He had his adherents, usually at the left wing of the political spectrum that were only to happy to use him against the Church. (Compare how Communists in Eastern Germany used what they called “Anti-facism” – Fascists were those that disagreed with them, even there were not Nazis (and I’m not going to dip into the Fascism is not Nazism issue), and Anti-fascists were those that agreed and played along, even if they had been Nazis.)
• What we disagreed about in the historical field is: who did what, when and with what intention? And how important is what they did (once we have agreement) or: does it merit being included (that mainly was behing our minor squibbles about Kaas and Papen on the train, who talked to whom when)

I think I should stop now, before I don’t know anmore what to write and since others are lining up to use this PC. Goodday Str1977 14:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, I suppose the rfc still lives.. listen , it's you against source. Corwell has a history which he tells . That is not a POV , It may be wrong here or there, but it is for you to place contrary source, not remove good faith source. prove he is wrong , not that he has a history to tell . Otherwise return to my last edit please, forthwith . The discussion page is the appropriate place to disprove . When you can do so , do so. Ciau. Famekeeper 00:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Str! I agree we try and delete . I removed church from my rfc defence .

Do Tell me what that is on yr page :non abbiatta paura ?

I don't understand what you mean about religious frredom , nor where I bring it in to play ? Do you by chance mean that there has to be freedom to have an incorrect article...surely not? If I have attacked freedom I'd like to know where, so , let's go there now..

Str- you have to prove where Cornwell is wrong . You can't just say he's POV .I repeat , I simply report him as source . I ask you to be reasoned about PPXII . There is no law in WP (surely ?) that says [some] faithful adherents to [some] religion can have their own version of articles/history . Famekeeper 09:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Str, thanks . Lets try from the start then, I'm happier if you are . I shall certainly call an end to any accusations, remove any reference to you on the Rfc that I can touch or as much as I can do away with any vitriol , whichas it is quite embedded could be a job of work (and I'm in part a lazy uh ). It seemed it was not for me to do more in abolishing the Rfc than to cast the uh your way . It would be better to take it down , then I don't have to go on justifying myself .

I see what youve done on Kaas , and I see that you accept the increased load the poor uh has to bear . it has taken rather along time to arrive at this point and even cost Jimbo a wink of time and dough . A couple of things , tho. I am unsure , whch is embarrassing , whether Hitler spoke of christianity at midday or in the evening, and equally when the actual vote was .

The other thing is that I refer you to Weimar repb's disc. page with Wyss and from there to my reply to McC on the BXVI page . That is self explanatory and I guess not new ,to you .

The other thing is that I refer you back to Cornwell via this abridgement . Tt seems to me to include such a swath of accs and events and quotes pertinent exactly to that which we have confronted, that frankly , I think it needs to enter through the subject as much as any other historian . In the lack -unless you can provide contrary proof, it seems to me that Cornwell classes as a quotable source , as much as any one else . I fear he is of even greater opinion than I was made by mowrer , as to Pacelli's actual subversion of Kaas ,[[1]]

The MegaMemex post the Kaas secretaryship , but surely it comes with the whole effort, that which Cornwell describes , of the German concordats all throughout . Do a search for Ludwig Kaas , and that appears . You can only use the copy of Levy to dispute those guys - if they're wrong I'd be kind of surprised , as they have something to lose too . However- I don't have Lewy nor will .

I would invite you, say ,to undertake the more rigorous inclusion of Cornwell's stuff. It would save well... read the link and just imagine how it could encourage old FK to stutter all over again .

Whatever about you and me , I fear I still believe in the pacelli /pius cock up "theory" , and I am firmly of the opinion which I express there on BXVI and on Reichskonkordat discussion . Whatever about my judgement of you , my judgement of the sources leads me to inescapable conclusions .

Apropos Bruning- yes , it comes from Shirer the treachery etc . I dont think theres much dispute there , but there soon could be with what Cornwell quotes from his memoirs . If you are in germany maybe the sources you have aren't saying to you the same things as what was published outside . W Bennett and Shirer and Toland and Bullock all use Nuremburg affidavits , to the point of analysing the one's that lie because they contradict . Papen is taken generally to lie in his own behalf , whereas Schroder the banker probably did not . Anyway this is where it comes from , except for the Rosenberg (an academic out of Berlin university) Weimar Rep. history which seems to be where guys like Shirer get pointers . WBennettt of course was writing from within Germany / sourcing from , throughout . He is unimpeachable , far as I know .

I would be interested to see how you can blow my latest conclusion out of the water , the chicken come home to roost -Concordat legality . I don't , really don't ,go for AH acceeding legally to nothing except a minority chancellory under article 48 on 30th Jan . As soon as he exceeded the constitution , there is a Putsch against the Reichstag . I see this as quite formal now , and it is a chicken in so far as the concordat is still in force . Fraid to say , the vatican deserve now to regularise their civil contact , or expect the stench to come at them like a freight-train thru their big portal . In other words I understand the illegality to which you existentially refer .

I don't accept that Kaas wasn't playing a double game , nor that Pacelli is an innocent-I retain my canonical view of him and Pius , absolutely . And they are morally more contumate than Kaas . I am going to give it a rest and hope they get some rapid sense . I suggest you meanwhile take serious note of Cornwell , as true or not , it is reportable , so you may want to try and find balancing material . Fact is , christian dictatorship is an abbreviation of the DNobis encyclical whether you like it or not . And used as such . Ill end in saying that I am tiring of clean up jobs now needed all thru and I am going to concentrate on quoting German philosophy at you ! Famekeeper 16:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

What-say-you to this: You get your strictly ecclesiastical article . We remove controversy out of it completely - but both ways. All Cornwell?Mowrer?Centre whatever OUT.

We remove all defence as exists OUT.

We leave it as strict biographical listing of his life , so it looks like any other Pope. All Concordat politics becomes only v briefest references, with no conclusions whatever either way political . Leaver it Only to cover canon law and that which the Reichskonkordat covered . No refs to Hitler controversy nor Kaas nor no one . No letters of accusation, no defence .

Then we agree between you and me , that you have a [See also: whatever defence page u title it.....

Equally I put a [see also:Hitler's Pope ] link .

Both to be prominently included at the point where the Concordat story is briefly touched upon . Pius X! will need however to have equal see also .How about that ?

Oh-and you get McC to drop the Rfc...

Famekeeper 10:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Hallo Mr Famekeeper, sorry I have been out of Wiki for a couple of days, so I can only answer you now. Here it is:

As for Cornwell. He is valid literature, but he is also controversial and his view, where not universally accepted, must be included as a POV. I have seen that Robert, who agrees with Cornwell's POV, agrees with me on that.

"I see what youve done on Kaas , and I see that you accept the increased load the poor uh has to bear . it has taken rather along time to arrive at this point"

That's what happens when tempers float. If you are now content with my edits on your edits than I'm happy too. I found something on the secretary in 1925 thing and I will post it later. Just quickly the working realtionship started in 1920 and lasted until 1929, when Pacelli returned to Rome. The friendship of course continued. As for the details you talk about, I don't think there's need for conflict on this. If my memory serves me right, there was first Hitler's speech, than the parties withdrew for dicussion, then the parliament meeting resumed and Kaas and Wels (and whoever else from the parties) gave their speeches declaring why they would vote the way they would and then the vote.

"I would invite you, say ,to undertake the more rigorous inclusion of Cornwell's stuff."

My offer still stands though at the moment I really don't have the time.

"Whatever about you and me , I fear I still believe in the pacelli ..."

That's fine and dandy. I'd love to convince you but if I can't then I can't. You are not obliged to give up your POV. It just has to be clear that it's not the sole truth.

"Whatever about my judgement of you , my judgement of the sources leads me to inescapable conclusions."

And that's where we differ. I don't see inescapable conclusions.

"Apropos Bruning- yes , it comes from Shirer the treachery etc . I dont think theres much dispute there , but there soon could be with what Cornwell quotes from his memoirs"

I guess you're right, it comes from his memoirs. That's the point. He wrote his memoirs in exile and generally they are considered to be not entirely trustworthy, especially during this period. As for treachery - granted, Brüning considered Kaas' behaviour in 1933 treachery but he did so when he wrote the book, so it comes from hindsight (he was not the only one to think that way, hence Kaas being shunned by his former fellow party members, as I included in the article (next to homesickness)). However during the EAct discussions there is no accusation of treachery on his part and hence it doesn't belong in a rendering of the event.

"If you are in germany maybe the sources you have aren't saying to you the same things as what was published outside"

Believe me, Germany is no secluded, totalitarian country where you can't get books or other information (that was another thing I objected about, when you off-handedly dismissed all of German historiography).

As for "Concordat legality": I can assure you that the concordat is legally binding, given that it has been tried in our highest court in the 50s. And I see no reason to touch upon it. But if you want I can later comment on the legal issues regarding dormancy, parliament etc (though I'm mo legal scholar)

As for your proposal:

1) I cannot do anything for you in regard to the RfC. I didn't start and I won't stop it. If Robert, who started it is content with your behaviour he will do so himself. And I guess I would acquiesce in this too.

2) I unfortunately cannot accept your proposal. We cannot create one article for your "accusations" and one for my "counter-point" - this would go against all Wiki principles I know: balance, NPOV. Two wrongs (in the sense that they are POV) don't make it right. Accusations should be included in the main article in a depov'ed language and counter-criticism should be next to it. (The same goes for a "Hitler's Pope" page - it covers the book and its accusations pluse a critical treatment of it - to make it NPOV). Apart from the fact that there probably is no fitting name for such a accusation page (Hitler's Pope is about the book, Pope's Hitler is -sorry to say it- nonsense and even "Catholic Holocaust complicity" doesn't actually say what the title suggests - our debate has never been about the Shoa (as I prefer to call it)). And I don't want to have to think of a catchy name for a defense page. Anyway, the main problem is that it'd violate NPOV.

I agree with you that the concordat should be included in Pius XI too (and Dilectissima certainly belong there - but in proper context). After all it was his concordat (like the others), though Pacelli did some negotiating. I though about this for some time. However, let us first settle the dispute on the other pages.

So, I'm afraid I have to say: no.

Str1977 12:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Class action suit against the Vatican Bank and others The user Famekeeper mentioned your name in relation to this stuff he wrote about the Vatican Bank claims, so I figured that you might want to have a look at that page. --Joy [shallot] 22:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I like you Str, because a battle is less boring that righteously bureaucratic farts. However you have given me the run-around too long . It is a waste of the resources all round. As far as my understanding has deepened during this battle, you are to be thanked for being the cause . Now , however , the intellectual denial of reason and sourced truth , so much your stock-in-trade, is un-bearable . I think you should be ashamed of yourself as a mind , because your bad faith is in complete contradiction with your avowed christianity . You have tried to sweetly patronise me to death many times, and you do not mend your ways , such as on the Reichskonkordat at present . You say you accept , now, the existence of the secret Annexe , but yet you even yesterday deny that it is relevant to the man who devised and drafted it,Ludwig Kaas , where you would at first deny , and then exclude it as irrelevant . This is but the latest example of a complete intellectual bad faith . There would seem to me to be no profit whatever anymore in stimulating this your intellectual bad faith . I am forced to preserve my time by abandoning all contributions to the WP , for you now to doubtless reverse and remove the secret annexe (placed by another editor in its Reichskonkordat article). You have throughoput my experience of you done nothing but damage or damage limitation to all associated articles, every one . I am shocked and amazed . I also appear to be alone . You share the mien of other users and you have tricked them into seeing you as benign , whereas in the very rarified field of my interests , no one is informed enough to come to my side. You have throughout capitalised on this one weaknes I have , and you have shown no quarter. Neither have I . But this cannot go on , either you accept the truth as sourced, or you are against the Wikipedia .Famekeeper 10:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Mr FK, if you value my input I am flattered.

However, mere disagreement with you is not "intellectual denial of reason and sourced truth". I have other things I might be ashamed of but that does not belong here. As for avowed christianity - the truth must be the basis for everything and this is were we had our dispute. Hence all further conclusions from them are wrongheaded (and indeed patronising). As for christianity - I am afraid I have to say that you haven't grasped it. You have dug into canon law (though jumped to conclusions from some things) but that christianity is not mere morals but "faith, hope and charity" I have at least not detected in your discourse.

As for the annex question: of course you could argue that anything about the concordat should be included in the Kaas article as he had a hand in it (though not he alone) but that means including the entire concordat article into Kaas. Encyclopediae don't work that way. This is why there are links. I never disputed that the secret annex belonged into the concordat article - I only countered your analysis which I see to be onesided. I will certainly not removed it from there and if someone else does will even restore it.

I have tricked no one into thinking me benign. Mere politeness is no trick. Concise statements are no tricks. Believe me, Robert agrees more with you that he agrees with me, but you have done everything you could to gain his antipathy. If this is the weakness you are referring to, you are right. I don't gloat over that. I'm even sorry about that. But that's the way it is.

I gave no quarter since I am defending the truth as I see it. You are doing the same but you don't have a monopoly on the truth. Str1977 08:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Benedict XVI

Hi, glad to see your name appearing again on some of the pages on my watchlist. I had been wondering recently where you were, as the Christianity article has recently got very biased: persecution by Christians at one stage became much longer than persecution against Christians, and the two were balanced against each other as if modern examples of nasty remarks made by ministers could compete with examples of martyrs having their limbs chopped off. (I know there's the inquisition, etc. but the article was expanded to include every conceivable example of harrassment, discrimination, intolerant remarks, and vigilante attacks, as if they were the equivalent of state-ordered imprisonment, torture, and execution.)

Just wondering about your recent change to Pope Benedict XVI. I'm not sure how many popes have visited synagogues, but if it's just two (St Peter and Pope Benedict), then Pope Benedict is the first (not the second) after St Peter (or perhaps since St Peter) to visit one. Was there another pope who visited a synagogue?

Do stay around. We need you here, and I'm sometimes too busy to do much editing! Regards Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 11:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ann, thanks for your post.

I'm glad that you missed me. Well, where have I been? I visited a certain city in the Rhineland - me and one million other people including Benedict XVI.

As for the Synagoge visits: it was always said that JPII was the first pope to visit a synagoge since St. Peter. Which would make Benedict the third after Peter and JP. I don't know if the claim that JP's visit was the first is actually (verifiably) true but it his visit certainly has been the first in a very long time. If the wording I posted seems ambigious to you (since I'm only a German, so non-native speaker), please correct it accordingly.

Don't worry I will stay though I also am quite busy right now. But I will stay.

Str1977 19:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

This article is terribly written and edited. It's barely comprehensible as English as well. A candidate for merge into the main article on Pope Benedict, I'm afraid. I'd support a Vote for Deletion as redundant and it's transparent that the some of the editors are merely seeking to avoid the scrutiny of the editors of the main PB16 page. patsw 23:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Str1977, please see my edit Talk:Pope Benedict XVI about the absurdity of claiming St Peter ever made an official visit to a synagogue in his capacity as Pope. He did not. He would have visited synagogues privately, but never as pope for the simple reason that the office of Pope was unknown in his times. The concept of papacy is a more recent creation, that we have restrospectively extended back to include Peter. In other words, even Peter himself did not know he was the pope, and certainly nobody else knew either, so it is ridiculous to say he made an official visit to a synagogue or did anything else AT ALL in his official capacity as pope. In any event, we have specific dates and places for JP2 and Benedict 16, but there is NO EVIDENCE for Peter. Please revert your recent edit. JackofOz 07:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Jack, there is a problem with the word "official", but that Peter visited synagogues is a fact, even if we don't have the dates (as we don't have dates for a lot of things). But read Acts and you will find some occasions. Furthermore your statement on my talk page, that "the office of Pope was unknown in his times", that the "concept of papacy is a more recent creation" and that "Peter himself did not know he was the pope, and certainly nobody else knew either" is just plainly POV (notwithstanding development in form and name of that position).

However, I want to suggest a compromise: what about saying B16 was the second pope (after JP2) to visit a synagogue since St. Peter (this is how it is usually reported). Str1977 07:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Bavarian Reaction

Yes I'm familiar with deletes. It's up for a speedy deletion which mean that when an admin sees it, they'll hopefully agree it should be deleted and do so. If an admin or another user thinks that it's not elligible for speedy deletion, they may remove the message, in which case it can be removed by a vote for deletion WP:VFD

Cheers, Cdyson37 13:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

FK's Letters to Jimbo Wales

Dear Robert, have you seen what he who needs not be named has posted today on poor Jimbo wales' page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Today_05_September__2005 Str1977 22:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about Jimbo Wales being flooded by the letters. He has already responded. Robert McClenon 23:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Here is his response, on the RfC page where it should be.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Famekeeper&diff=22666935&oldid=22666235

It appears that he has no idea what Famekeeper is trying to say, and thinks that Famekeeper is probably crazy. I will probably write up an RfAr soon enough. Robert McClenon 02:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

No, Robert, I didn't worry about FK's letter to Jimbo. Firstly, Fk's post are hard to understand in general, as you found out when you were drawn into this muddle and, in fact, this was my first experience when "The Question of the Law" first appeared, without any prior context, on B16. This is were this whole thing began. Secondly, I think Jumbo is a busy man and cannot take care of everything that's being laid on his table.

What is an "RfAr"?

Str1977 08:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

An RfAr is a Request for Arbitration. It is the last step in dispute resolution, and is a request to the Arbitration Committee to block or ban a user. Jimbo Wales said that Famekeeper appears to be determined to get himself banned from Wikipedia. If Jimbo Wales thinks that he needs banning, I will not argue. Robert McClenon 11:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I thought the RfC on Famekeeper was going after the wrong thing (i.e. POV promoting a Catholic conspiracy to support Hitler) but ought to have concerned itself with this editor's inability or unwilliness to create edits which were factual, verifiable, relevant to the topic, well-written and neutrally worded. It doesn't appear to be a matter of an occaisional lapse among many good edits but almost a hubris for other editors to challenge all or almost all of the Famekeeper edits as being non-factual, unverifiable, irrelevant, poorly written or having a point of view. If this goes to arbitration, the low signal-to-noise ratio of the editing process in the articles Famekeeper has inserted himself into should be an issue. It's not a challenge to Str1977 or Robert McClenon, but to the idea that an editor who can't or won't edit according to the policies and guidelines should be held accountable. patsw 03:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear Patsw, the problem with FK is a mixture of both things: his belief in a vast catholic conspiracy and his editing inabilities. He himself said somewhere that he wrote as he thinks, which explains his style quite well. I guess he also jumps to conclusions when listening to stuff and then is "emotionally bound to his opinion" (quote from Dilbert's boss). This is my explanation for the whole conspiracy thing and also for his latest post on Jimbo's page (I mean: the CDU party is "the christian right"? Please!) Also, his complaint about a Ratzinger approach to abortion makes it obvious that he hasn't though the through the issues he posts about or rather that he hasn't managed to integrate all his opinions into a consistent stance. And we already knew his complete unability to see that Communism at one time was a threat.

But I agree with what you posted. Str1977 09:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that Famekeeper may also have some sort of learning disability. It is Wikipedia policy to try to be patient with such people, but only up to a point. I had originally assumed that his difficulties with English reflected the fact that English was not his native language. When Wyss tried to work with him, she also concluded that there might be a language issue. However, more recently, Famekeeper has insisted that English is his native language. If he cannot write and punctuate in anything approaching a standard way, then I wonder whether he has some sort of dysgraphia (writing disability). Robert McClenon 11:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear Robert, it's been a while. I had a look on the Hitler's Pope article recently and it is still in the over-expanded state someone left it in, i.e. it is still basically a parallel bio page to Pius XII and not an article about the book. Since you have read the book, could you please, when you find the time, trim down the article to what the book says? Thanks. Str1977 18:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I had a copy of the book around, and was planning to reread it and summarize what it said. However, I have mislaid it, so I will need to get another copy.

I think that I can anyway cut the article down to eliminate the obvious duplication.

As to what was wrong with FK, someone had a theory that actually makes sense, but I don't have a license to provide the diagnosis. His English is so bad that I assumed he was not a native speaker of the language. Wyss came to the same conclusion. However, he said that he was a native speaker of English. Then I thought that he might have some sort of language disability. However, then another editor said that he seemed paranoid. That would actually explain everything, if by paranoid one really refers to the paranoid form of schizophrenia. Schizophrenia causes various problems in the use of language because it causes the thought to be disordered. He always said that he wrote as he thought. If his thoughts are broken, then his language may be broken too. Jimbo Wales did him a favor by telling him to walk away rather than be blocked. Robert McClenon 19:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear Robert, no immediate reply to your message, but some information. Someone has listed H's P under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hitler's Pope. Could you please comment on this. Str1977 20:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia takes up too much time!

Hi, thanks for your message, and sorry for ignoring it. I was finishing a University project, and then had to fill in some important forms that had a deadline. Then, a big war broke out at Terri Schiavo, which is now locked! I had a look at the persecution section, and I agreed with your edits. But then, I normally do – my very favourite edit (with edit summary) since I joined Wikipedia is this one!

A recent problem with the Christianity article has been the eagerness of some to fill it up with examples of Christians making bigoted remarks or discriminating against atheists in employment offers, and to use these examples to balance the tortures endured by martyrs in the Roman persecutions. However, the article changes so fast that I can hardly keep up with it! I click on the button to compare different versions with each other, and since whole paragraphs have been either rewritten or moved – and I'm not necessarily referring to your edits – it becomes more difficult to see everything that has "slipped in", especially when I'm short of time. (And patsw wants me to have a look at the Pius XII talk page as well, which I'd like to do.)

Thanks for your reply to my last query. I had forgotten (stupidly) about Pope John Paul's visit to a synagogue!

Regards, Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 20:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Herr Ober! Der Tee ist kalt!

Hi Str1977. I hope I'm not violating Wikipedia policy by wasting server space on something not related to how to improve an article. I'm wondering about the politeness/rudeness of calling out "Herr Ober" to a waiter. It's typically found in textbooks for people learning German – in fact, the quotation is from Lesson One of Assimil: German with Ease, which my mother is doing in preparation for a holiday in Munich next Easter. I don't doubt that "Herr Ober!" is a proper translation of "Waiter", and it's quite likely that people learning English might have textbooks that have "Waiter!" in them. However, in practice, I think it would be extremely rare to call out "Waiter". It would seem quite rude and peremptory. If I wanted to attract a waiter's attention, I'd probably call, "Excuse me, could I have some more coffee, please?" So, in a sense, "Excuse me" might be a better translation for "Herr Ober", even though it wouldn't be what you'd find in the dictionary! Also, I'd never say, "That was a lovely meal, waiter." I'd simply say, "That was a lovely meal". Is it rude in German to call out "Herr Ober", when trying to attract a waiter's attention?

By the way, since we keep running into each other in the pages we edit, your interests are as obvious to me as mine must be to you! But have you ever considered having a look at the German article? I think the "writing system" section needs to be updated to reflect recent changes, but I wouldn't feel confident enough to mess around with it. I did German at school, and after school I did a bit of Assimil and Linguaphone and other methods, which were all produced in the early 1990s or before. If I'm not mistaken, modern methods don't use the ß, and that's not clear in the article. (But maybe I am mistaken.) Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 11:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

German Wiki

Hallo Str1977, was ist der Grund für Deinen Revert auf de:Simon Petrus? Du weißt sicher, dass unbegründete Vollreverts bei Wikipedia unzulässig sind. Es geht hier um Verständigung und Zusammenarbeit. Ich habe sorgfältig recherchiert und die Überarbeitung detailliert begründet auf der Disku: Das solltest Du ebenso tun. Bhucks Anfrage hast Du auch nicht beantwortet. Wie soll so Vertrauen entstehen? Jesusfreund 16:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The Holocaust

Sorry that I lumped you and the anonymous user together earlier, I couldn't figure out whether the comments were from someone else or from you not logged in. I apologize for the confusion. --Goodoldpolonius2 20:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Historical persecution by Christians

You might be interested in the Historical persecution by Christians article, and the dispute about the "Modern" section. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Christian Heritage Party of Canada

You may be interested to read this about the CHP from their website:

"The CHP is Canada's only pro-Life federal political party, and the only federal party that endorses the Judeo-Christian principles enshrined in the Canadian Constitution:

'Canada was founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God' - capital 'G': the God of the Bible -'and the rule of law.'"

So I don't think that that the phrase in question in the CHP article is problematic. Regards, Ground Zero | t 19:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Page I'd like you to look at, if you have time

Hi, I'm awfully busy preparing for exams, but I'm not happy with recent changes to Ordination of women. If you get a chance, could you take a look at it? I promise to join in later in the week. Regards. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 18:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message. I'm trying to look up information on this woman. It's incorrectly spelled in the article; her real name is Ludmila Javorova, and, as you can see, there's a Wikipedia article on her, which says, incredibly, that her ordination was officially accepted by the Vatican in 1995! (That would have been a year after the issue of Ordinatio sacerdotalis.)

Obviously, I want to be as accurate as possible. Bishop Davidek died in 1988, and it was after his death that Javorova came forward. I remember reading around the time that the news originally broke that someone from the Vatican had said something to the effect of "if these ordinations really happened, they are of course invalid". I think I may have been incorrect in my recent edit to put that five or six women "claimed" to have been ordained. I know Wikipedia policy isn't very keen on the word "claimed" or "allegedly", though sometimes it's hard to find a better word. However, my research tonight leads me to feel that "it is claimed that five or six women were ordained" would be more accurate, though I accept that Wikipedia doesn't like "it is claimed", either. What I really mean is that Javorova is the only one to have come forward; the other women, if indeed they exist, have remained anonymous.

I'm trying to find a way to change the article so that it doesn't state as a fact that these "ordinations" really happened. Alhough I recognize that it's possible that some liberal bishop would go against constant Church teaching, I still feel that her coming forward after his death means that it's unverified, unless, of course, there are other records – but they haven't been mentioned in the article.

I'll see if I can find any more information.

Thanks again. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 00:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your comments on Ann's page: I clarified the issue on the ordination of women page [2] [3] [4] by adding quotes that claim both papel opposition and papel support for the issue -plue I cited my sources. Cheers.--GordonWatts 06:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Judah/Judaea

Well, personally, I'm not sure we should have any discussion of the post 586 BC Judaea in an article on the Kingdom of Judah. We should note that it was annexed by the Babylonians and that the Persians allowed the exiles to return, but no more than that. The rest should probably be in Judaea. If we are to have this section, it should certainly only refer to Judaea. john k 23:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Christians

I must not be a very good communicator. You have indicated that you could not follow my logic or trail; I will try and do better.

Before stating a group is non-Christian, please define Christian in the article. In doing so, we might illiminate a good deal of confusion that would be engendered by the statement, "Mormons are not Christian". When someone who is not a Christian reads the statement, it is too easy to assume that Mormons do not worship Christ, which is false. I think you will find that the world views Mormons as Christian (it is a little hard not to when the name of the chruch is {{The CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST of latter-day Saints]]), it is only other Christian churches that feel compelled to draw a distinction and redefine the term Christian so as to exclude Mormons.

I think it would also be helpful to document by referencing/linking to at least some of those chruches who have stated that Mormons are not Christians. I know ministers who state it, but only a few churches that go so far as to proclaim it.

When you define Christian, as you use the term, it is then easy to understand that what you mean is Mormons are not part of historical or traditional Christianity. That is completely appropriate because Mormons claim that all the churches were/are in a state of apostasy. Their creeds are the doctrines of men and have nothing to do with God or His teachings.

A compromise would be If you use "Mormons are not viewed as part of traditional Christianity". However, an alternative would be for you to use the same statement you desire and I would then put in a definition and why Mormons agree with the statement based upon the definition. Storm Rider 19:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Constantine Hanging

Why did you remove my details on crucifixion,{Date} hanging, burning at the stake and the shedding of blood and make things so general? Please reply in the discussion page for Constantine the Great. Gave up. User:68.41.141.167 00:25, 25 October 2005

Checkout capital punishment in the Catholic Encyclopedia for burning at the stake. The way I understood it, it was not new in the early Middle Ages. The public execution of a criminal, was of course, to exhibit to the populace there was law and order.(A fun day of educational entertainment with the family.) The ancient Romans were very creative when it came to the executions of criminals. They had many methods. Check out executions in the arena, strangling seems to have been quite popular, etc. I would expect hanging was just one of more humane ones. Thanks a lot for the kind reply. Gave Up 25 Oc5 05

Ordination of women

I edited the article according to what I had entered on the talk page. patsw 01:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "theological reasons" in OOW. If Jesus had included women in the 12, the history of Christianity would have been different, in fact, the history of civilization itself would have been different. There would have been many women bishops, priests, and deacons through the centuries. But Jesus didn't include women in the 12 and that is the central theological reason. patsw 01:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Eucharist

Hi, thanks for your message. I quite agree that bit was problematic. I looked up "symbol" at Merriam-Webster and got (as Meaning Number 2) something that stands for or suggests something else by reason of relationship, association, convention, or accidental resemblance; especially : a visible sign of something invisible <the lion is a symbol of courage>.

I saw the problem the day before, when I was trying to get rid of the excessive use of the word "Bread", but it looked too complicated to fix immediately. I'm not even particularly delighted with my reworking of it. You might like to take another look. I think there is a sense where it's not heretical to use the word "symbol" – even though one drop from the Chalice, or one fragement of the Host would contain the whole Christ, yet, the use of bread is a better representation of the body than the use of wine would be, and the use of wine is a better representation of the blood than the use of bread would be. So it would be wrong to say, for example, "the bread is a symbol of his Body". But it would be okay to say that the choice of bread is a better symbol than the choice of some other food would have been. (And they say that receiving under both kinds is a "fuller sign", even though they don't say it's a fuller reception of Christ.) It's complicated. But it becomes very problematic when "symbolize" is used to suggest that the Host only represents Christ's body; and the Merriam-Webster definition would seem to support that interpretation. Regards, Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 09:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The Catholic Church teaches that in this sacrament the bread is no longer bread in substance, but retains the appearance of bread. It is not symbolically the Body of Christ, but is in reality the Body of Christ patsw 13:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding "form" v. "appearance". The Latin "forma" is not a cognate for the English "form". The sacrament of Holy Eucharist as all sacraments do, has a matter and form.

The matter of the Holy Eucharist is the bread and wine.

The form of the Holy Eucharist are the words of consecration spoken by the priest or bishop in Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. [5]

So to speak of the form of bread is unnecessarily ambiguous and the word "appearance" is word typically used in explanatory texts on the sacrament, and in the context of Terri Schiavo more accurate. In Catholic terminology a "form" is more like a "spoken formula". patsw 14:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

In some of the recent comments in Talk:Terri Schiavo you can now see the ambiguity that I wrote of above. "Form" is taken by Marskell, etal. to be identical to reality, substance, etc. and they strongly believe that "form" and "appearance" have a signficantly different meaning. They find "appearance" to be unacceptable. In Catholic doctrine only the appearances remain, the substance (i.e. the reality, the physical "form", etc.) is no longer bread but the Body of Christ. patsw 19:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Language matters

Hi, Str1977! I was very glad of your appearance at Terri Schiavo. On a completely unrelated matter, I recently started an article on ergative verbs. Well, to be more accurate, I didn't start it: there had been an article there suggesting inaccurately that these verbs were the same as unaccusative verbs (which I know nothing about, but the definition of them didn't match the meaning of ergative verbs); and then someone just created a "redirect". So I wrote a new article and undid the redirect. Someone then suggested on the talk page that examples from other languages would be nice, as it looks at the moment as if these verbs are a special feature of English. I have asked a Dutch Wikipedian to have a look at the article, and, if appropriate, to add one or two examples in Dutch. If you have time, I'd like to make the same request of you, for German, if these verbs exist in German. (I'm sure they do, since English is so close to German.) No need to feel embarrassed if you've never heard of "ergative verbs". I hadn't heard of them myself until earlier this year, when I was doing a university course in linguistics! In any case, if I've written the article well(!), it should make it very clear what they are. If you don't have time, that's fine. Sometimes some of the editing on Wikipedia is urgent, to correct major inaccuracies, whereas this is just a question of adding something that would be helpful, but not necessary.

By the way, I can't understand why you have en-3 on your Babel template instead of en-4. Obviously, I don't know what your accent is like, but that's irrelevant on Wikipedia. From the point of view of your contributions here (for example, phrases like "in the end it boils down to Terri's choice") your English is definitely native-like. I can't find anything that makes me think, "oh, he's foreign." Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 11:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Please place questions or comments here

FK Research

I agree that I am glad he is no longer here. I am interested in the background on his language, and it does appear that he does have a background from India. However, he never had the level of command of written English that I expect of someone who learned the spoken language from his parents and learned the written language from his teachers. When he insisted that he was a native speaker, and presumably writer, I thought that he might instead have some sort of disability. Then someone else said that he seemed paranoid. Clinical paranoia is a form of schizophrenia, and schizophrenia is a thought disorder which manifests itself in difficulty in using language. He really did seem to have a delusion that the Catholic Church was trying to take over Wikipedia, as well as to rewrite history.

He always said that he wrote as he thought. If his thoughts were disordered, his language would be disordered. Maybe he seemed crazy because he was crazy. Robert McClenon 02:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)