Talk:Pope Pius XII/Archive 8

Visible 1 1 2006 Impossibility of a Serious Article ?

The contradiction between User 196.40.43.78 edits on 1 january 2006 and those of reverting User 70.21.128.190 illustrate the neverending WP edit war to do with the Roman Catholic Church. I repeat that my proposal towards an a.r.t. placed at talk Vatican Bank is the only solution , for what is, frankly a ridiculous situation. The latter user digs up that which bolsters his edit, as it is possible to do, and removes the evidently sane edits attempting an even-handedness. maybe WP functions somewhere, but it sure doesn't function around this subject. Someone should place a bunch of tags really, as many as possible, simply as a cry for sanity. The a.r.t. should be adopted and allow all sourced POV to build the balance of contradictions. Both users have to be congratulated for their effort, all of which is entirely useless under the present structure. EffK 23:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

What does a.r.t. stand for? Robert McClenon 18:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Can some third party please explain what this means? Robert McClenon 15:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

O dear! You McC are not able to understand. This is a pity, as I have for a very long time tried to suggest inclusivity upon deeply faith disputed pages such as this one. The two anons are in a long line of ridiculous editing action. I have several times attempted to promote, even to McClenon himself, some rational way to achieve balance . But no- all I ever get is this type of reaction, only here, slightly more subtle ad hominem. McClenon pushes the limit, and strikingly defends the contradictions which plague us here. The anons edit war is but minimal reflection of the year I have spent trying to instill source and rationality here . But in particular you, McC, seek to defend this sort of strange contradiction:

The Centre party's existence was on the bargaining table. Pius and Pacelli were willing to acquiesce into the party's demise in return for the concordat. ex[[1]]

'In particular this self-dissolution,in the case of the large and noble Centre Party, was brought about with a classic kick-back scheme in return for Vatican achievement of the subsequent Reichskonkodat negotiations. ex[[2]]

No - there is no contradiction between these statements, only the contradiction lying in the former being written by the remover of the latter, User:Str1977.

No- McC- you don't understand contradiction , or so it appears. I always told you you were going the wrong way. You will see no contradiction here as there is none. The first is the agreement by old/young Str1977 in a discussion edit labelled Wikipedia and Hitler Issues Concerning the Catholic Church, whilst the latter removal from Adolf Hitler he entitled re-sectioning and some minor changes .

You will maybe recognise this by a hesitant and indecisive third-party:

This can surely stand in as a relatively authoritative source. Looking at it, I will admit that the basic substance of Flamekeeper[/EffK]'s accusations seems to be supported by Atkin and Tallett's narrative - Pius XI and Pacelli were willing to acquiesce in the Centre Party's demise as a quid pro quo in return for the Concordat' ex [[3]] .

I, of course, characterise that removal by Str1977, as Denialist removal by editor knowingly in wrong: unlimited bad faith and Str1977 Irrationality, abdication of Intellect, contumate bad-faith all at [[4]], which is the trial I asked you to make for this bad faith. Contumate means that he knew the truth of the multi-sourced statement yet removed it against all WP good faith principles, and in dishonest hypocrisy.

You in your good faith fell into the contradiction of making me the defendant of the trial resulting from this mental abuse of all that is honest good faith, just as you cannot assume now the good faith in this little edit you make here(or you would address me directly instead of insinuating what you always have done-"very badly edited" ).

But then I always recognised your strange behaviour as in this from your little pre-trial Discussion at your "bullying"Rfc-Editing behaviour of user Robert McClenon ... I say that I have found this user to be curiously concerned with what would appear to be the diminution of historically sourced questions -ie history .

I wrote back then exactly what I say now:

If dishonesty rules, there is no point in trying to edit the WP . Famekeeper 18:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Shortly after having you remove this from WP:

Hitler further demanded that the Centre voluntarily dissolve , which completed the voter's dissillusion and drift themselves towards Hitlerism . Catholics in their millions joined the Nazi party , acceeding to apparent papal commendation.

And, in the same excision which emasculated an Article, Hitler's Pope, and the which you mendaciously labelled as:

Removed much biographical material that is copied from Pope Pius XII, very heavy copy-editing of very badly edited article. Much more cleanup is needed'

Oh dear ! McC - what are we going to do with your like ? I agree we should await the feint possibility that a third party- say Bengalski would drop by , or Durova, or someone who is not frightened of your and Str1977's extreme tactics in the prohibition of a historical reality, and that they might explain to you my short note above concerning the two anon users carrying on an abortive and short-lived version of the same edit-warring, and that they who are people driven by rational good will who might take note of my entirely reasonable suggestion in the a.r.t.(article rsolution template). I think I had better alert some third party.

I think really that I should also go against my principle of allowing the Arbcom a little personal life , and add this to what I had considered enough EffK/Arbcom evidence. So I shall place this diff at a date for today, it being so clear and relevant, to the impossibility of editing this and any related articles. I think I had better ask someone to also make sure that your name goes up in lights for inspection, finally. Sorry- WP should not be this way, but what choice is there? Dishonesty? It is very sad to see a grown human being openly disown the truth, and it is sad to see a cabal of users do so. I remind you that you imperill your position and mind as entirely as your conscience extends. For you own sake I suggest you return to a rational path.EffK 01:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I've dropped by on EffK's request. To be clear, I have a POV on this: I support EffK's position, I think this article is skewed to portray Pacelli in a positive light. Also I should say: I am not an expert in Vatican or German history, I can't read German, and I don't have a great deal of access to English books. But I believe I am able to edit with good faith and integrity, and I'm willing to at least have a go at dialogue to help write a better article.

I should point out that I agree with EffK that criticisms of Pope Pius XII need to be given proper coverage. Robert McClenon 18:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll start with EffK's concerns, though I think there are possibly bigger problems with other parts of the article: the early years section reads like simple hagiography; there should be a proper account of allegations of post-war involvement in sheltering and abetting fascist escapees.

As a way of re-opening dialogue I suggest: we work through the disputed sections (on the Reichskonkordat, the Catholic church and Nazi germany) point by point here on the talk page. Both sides can say which we think are the key points that need to be included; we may find that there are some we even agree on; we can then focus in on the specific points of disagreement.

I agree with much of what EffK has written in his 'template'. I would further emphasise his last point: no refusal of sources. We are not going to agree on exactly what happened in 1933, still less how it should be interpreted. What we can and should do is inform readers of all serious versions of events, and provide the sources to allow people to investigate further for themselves. What does a 'serious version of events' mean here? It doesn't mean one that conforms with our own POV. In wikipedia terms it can only mean an account that can be traced to a reputable source. This has to be the touchstone for working on any wikipedia article, particularly where there is controversy.

The only source that I said should be excluded was Avro Manhattan, who has an extreme anti-Catholic agenda. Robert McClenon 18:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

So I'm asking the Pro-Pacelli editors can we have specific sources for all the claims in these sections - e.g., which Swiss newspaper quoted Hitler in 1937, exactly when? Where can I find Pacelli's letter to the bishop of Cologne, or the text of his speech in Lourdes in 1935? etc.

And to EffK: your central claim is that Pacelli himself agreed to the dissolution of the Centre party in negotiations. If there are sources maintaining this it definitely needs to go in the article. Presumably there is not going to be an available minute of the meeting actually recording this, so I suppose you are working from contemporary sources or later historians claiming it. Can you list these precise sources and if possible quote their exact words (probably you did before, but I'd be grateful if you could again for my benefit.) Bengalski 11:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand what Bengalski has written, and largely agree with him. I do not consider it to be an explanation of what EffK had written, which was what I wanted clarified. Robert McClenon 18:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I will certainly co-operate in anything that is based on inclusivity, even, as a.r.t says to the point of including error, of pure belief, wishful thinking (ie religious evaluation) and cultural/religious values. I will start this by considering how to actually arrange the contradictory materials, and, as you say Bengalski, by presenting source refs, possibly by diffs rather than repetition. However I have to note that the particular 'catholic' editors need to accept that this balancing is unavoidable/desirable/achievable. I am entirely happy to have an apparently very clear minded Bengalski act within his evident rational capacity, as mentor-in-effect to me.

I had reached the limits of goodwill in this whole mess, and am going to try and row back from my present severe conclusions. As I am not confident that a certain grouping will not attempt to treat even Bengalski with the means used against me, I request at Village Pump etc that further minds be brought to over-sight of the actual internal WP controversy present. This non-sense has led me to incessant attempts at logical persuasion, whose failure is apparent, and includes my casting aspersion upon the contrary nature of editors. They have combined to see me banned, and, also, I ask that they be controlled. Therefore for all the confidence that a Bengalski can add to the attempt at a.r.t, we need to hear from the other principle party User:Str1977that he will accept the good faith based upon the sourced material, and not repeat the excision visible at the above link, and that the possibly neutral User:Robert McClenon will also refrain from such, ie that they read the a.r.t and respond concerning their willingness to see all contrary views sourced. Thankyou Bengalski, and I hope that , if possible, over months your work load here will be very limited and tolerable-if I am allowed here at all. If I see a response of ad hominem, I shall revert to severity. I have already wasted, thus far, considerable resources of time and will not suffer a repeat.EffK 12:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Patsw writes this part valid point which is relevant to the questions , relating to Hitler's Pope. I take the liberty of therefore bringing Patsw's question here where it belongs:

This article should not exist. It was a content fork for a person or people who wouldn't accept the editing consensus in the Pope Pius XII article. Critical biographies do not merit the status of their own article. Our current president, the prior impeached president with all the critical biographies written about them, none have their own stand-alone article. patsw 00:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

If this is a reference to me, I reject it out of hand .I am not sure I understand the reference to the Presidents. I did not enter the Pius debate to split it up into forks , so I suggest you sir visit the a.r.t which I suggested-you will find it in my history at VBank. I do not at all reject the point you make but your interpretation of events here is completely off-key, so please amend your understanding and work towards a consensus within the article resolution template as per the contradictory positions regarding the entire history of the Roman Catholic Church and German History. In good will please...or as you see fit. You have entered actively in the situation, so I would ask you, if you wish to remain concerned, that you enter the discussion requested by Robert McClenon and make your points visible along with whoever is allowed/capable/concerned. I answer you here imagine you keep some track of the situation but send a link to yr page , just in case. I do this in even-handedness and refer you to the clear statements made by Str1977 and Johnkenney, the which are centrally relevant to your point. I think a firm discussion has to start at the reasoning I attempted to present in the a.r.t. , otherwise singularity will continue to prevent consensus. etc etc EffK 14:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Patsw:Your rejection is noted and irrelevant as well since your rejection is a matter of personal opinion. It does not refer to Wikipedia policies, guidelines, current practices, or precedent that could possibly persuade anyone to agree with you.

Ypou are consistently ignoring that which occurred when str1977 virtually told me to eff off into a Hitler's Pope article. as I thought this user patsw is putely interested in attack, and not in consensus now with the presennce of a third party. All attempt I make to agree or concede or design a consensus is thrown in my face. This user is not one for source, have you ever quoted anything on these related articles patsw?

Patsw:My comment was then and remains valid: A biographical work does not merit its own article. It will of necessity be a content fork for the subject article.

Oh yes within your definition of Hitler's pope it may be valid, but your interpretation is personal. Hitler's Pope is not the point, the point is the quid pro quo and the preceding and succeeding reality. You do behave as if you wish any ot his to be included in WP. Why don't you get over avoiding the issue itself, wheever it goes-and it cannot all go on pacelli, as he was servant to Pius XI at the time(or whatever you guys call it). I have never had any desire for consensus from this editor. I should have expected change.

Patsw:Your cut and paste from that article into this article is another example of POV-warring and your manifest inability to accept or even recognize that the Wikipedia is not a place to debate the subjects of articles but for editors to summarize and to link to relevant verifiable information about the subject. If you haven't figured that out by now, I doubt you ever will.

EffK. I do not need to debate at all, I cxould do my bit without you guys. The debate is to stop you lot removing my source. This is regrettable.

Patsw:The Wikipedia is not the place to conduct the Pius XII debate. And as long as you are permitted to edit here, and your debating points and your original research remain in Pope Pius XII-related articles, they will be useless as encyclopedic articles. Before your arrival the article contained a readable, concise summary of the Pope Pius XII debate taking place among historians and perhaps one day it will again. patsw 16:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

EffK:Well then I can only ask that Bengalski try to understand enough of my history to stand up to this with me. This is a stitch up. I source whereas you lot do not. I repeat historical view, you lot simply repeat yourselves.I think you go into the realm of WP error here, user Patsw. Is this good faith or is this another diff I need to present? Yhe accusations are very clear and precise, prove yourself, so. Submit yourself to equal rules.

I have to second Pat.

The rule that EffK proposed (accepting all sources) is a rule feasible or rather imperative for historical research. When writing on a certain topic, a historian is not allowed to discard any source or any literature (except those secondary works clearly way out). However, that doesn't mean that he will take all he reads as revelation but he will have to deal with it (Quellenkritik).

EffK:I note you claim to be a historian. That is quite a claim. Can you show published work or references. You were remarkably willing to negate the megamemex quotes of lewy, and retracted. you are both in error and personally aggressive about it. i have produced all the source and proff. your several actions have been enirely negative, and this seems to be purely a religious argument.

Str1977:(If EffK's line were followed, the "Sages of Zion" would have to be included as fact in an article on the Jews, which of course would be preposterous.)tted.

EffK :oh so you did read the a.r.t? well not hat is a wilful misinterpretation-I believe that WP may need to understand this even if you as (historian-?) do not. i believe the error needs to be fully categorised as such, as such do themselves affect the world and its history, plainly. Error and calumny are as much the cultural backgroung as whatever else is significant. This is a will by you not to unserstand the a.r.t. I and Bengalski find these articles all rather preposterous, and we seem to agree that a wider relation of opposing views be fitted. I magnanimously go so far as to allow that religious and therefore factually un-proveable cultural comment be deeply included. I know that you lot have zero historian's source to counter the widespread historical comment. I believe it should be possible to allow this religious cultural interpretations sourced only in RC custom or ecclesiatical apologia, but it is possible that others would not be so lenient. I am heartily sick of Str1977 dismissing historian source and substituting his unsourced opinion and persuasions.

Str1977:However, Wikipedia is not the place for historical research or historical debate (though I have let myself be drawn into the latter). WP is about summing up the "state of the art", giving the consensus and reporting on controversies. Anything else would be original research ...

Str1977especially if literature used in the way some editors are doing it. The section on Hudal and Pacelli above is a prime example of this. EffK has absolutely no evidence (at least he has provided none) for the conncetion he alleges. The only thing he got is three words from Papen's testimony (without doing Quellenkritik - Papen's intentions and Papen's knowledge) - even if his reasoning were imperative, he still would be lacking a identification of that "higher authority". Hence his allegation is unfounded in more than one way.

Str1977The conflict between the two anon editors is nothing new on Wikipedia. This happens all the time and we certainly need no master plan to guard against this (if such a plan worked).

EffK The only reason you may not is that the aim is to remove me , and no one else will be so persistent. Bengalski I would say would not concur, with others such as those who voted to keep Hitler's Pope. This is not good will-is is?

As to other points raised by EffK:

• EffK accuses Robert of arguing ad hominem when he did nothing of the kind. Please, EffK, look up the meaning of that term. Your misuse of it is wearing thin.

Str1977 *There is no substantial contradiction between the two quotes re Centre party (though there are wording issues), but what matters is the context of the two: I posted the former quote in a talk page discussion - it would have its place in an article on the Centre party or related topics. The latter was inserted by EffK into the Adolf Hitler article, singeling out the Centre party while remaining silent on specifics on the other parties that dissolved themselves. This is double-standard and POV editing.

EffK.Nonsense, and I thereofre remain of my contention as to your attempt.

Str1977:*EffK is once again misusing John Kenney's quote. What JK or rather his book agreed with is not EffK's disputed claim. It might not be apparent from his posting here, but EffK does not merely claim that the Centre's dissolution was part of the concordat negotiations but he claimed (or maybe he has relinquished this claim) that Hitler's coming to power and the passing of the Enabling Act was the result of a Vatican conspiracy and that Pacelli actively wanted to see the Centre dissolved (and not just bargained it away). For such claims EffK has no evidence.

EffK: Absolutely not .That reaction is Irrelevant to the quotes, I am allowed to present Jkenney sourced confirmation of shared Str1977 claim, and I and others are forced to see you refute your own acceptance of it. I am well aware there are other claims, by Cornwell et al aplenty supporting the other- and your ad hominem calls it my claim, with willed lack of understanding. This is typical pernickety obfuscation, and is regrettable. the Cornwell accusation has quite enough circumstantial support from the Trials, Shirer and all onwards, and this is symptomatic of the impossibility here. NB

Str1977:Whether the actual bargaining should be included is another matter, as Pacelli did not negotiate himself and all the conditions would need to be included (and not just what someone thinks is "key"). This however would exceed the limits of this article.

• In the passage Hitler further demanded that the Centre voluntarily dissolve , which completed the voter's dissillusion and drift themselves towards Hitlerism . Catholics in their millions joined the Nazi party , acceeding to apparent papal commendation. only the bold part is factual and even that is worded quite strongly. The rest is complete POV conjecture (as the word "apparent" indicates).

EffK Apparent at the time, which is different and sourced per the Telegram,the Kaas quotes, the Pius XI quotes, the Fulda conference, Margaret Lambert, klemperer, Shirer, Wheeler-Bennett, Toland, Mowrer etc etc. Therefore not the reasonable reaction of a Wpedian surely. However it should be noted the editor Str1977 singles out the Hitler insistence as correct. NB

Having said this, I am still willing to cooperate and to assume good faith despite EffK's refusal to good faith and despite his attacks both against my person and my fellow Catholics. Portraying us as mindless robots is no proper way of debating anything. Nonetheless, I will not answer bad with bad.

Goodday, Str1977 18:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• EffK is indeed misusing the quote from "a hesitant and indecisive third party" (i.e. me). My quote was pertaining to one particular part of Flamekeeper/EffK's argument, which I found to be supported by one particular source that I had at hand. There were other parts of his argument which were unsupported. There's also the fact that EffK is a POV pusher, who likes to insert true things in completely out of context ways in order to make the Catholic Church look bad. Can't we just ignore him? john k 19:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

EffKYou both continue to avoid the issue,which is very worrying. It appears you still both deny that I have presented copious relevant supporting sourec, and the rest is a simple adversion by you all three to try and prevent a reflection of the history, and stick to a hagiography. Unless bengalski or someone can persuade me, I see no prospect of anything other than continuing acrimony. I feel entirely vindicated and therefore see no other remark than to put this down to just another attempt by me to act for consensus. Your attitudes are regrettable. I do not believe any of you bothered to see what the template would do , because you are set upon denialist minimising . Personally I am relieved that I do not have to repeat all the effort. Jimbo is correct, you cannot be persuaded, even by Bengalski. let us therefor await the further putrefaction of the pages and the project. Thankyou EffK

What is EffK saying that Jimbo Wales is correct about? I do not recall seeing any post by Jimbo Wales that agreed with any post by EffK. If he is saying that Jimbo is correct about some statement of principle, then of course I agree with Jimbo, but am not convinced that it is being applied correctly here. Robert McClenon 20:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Just two items:

• EffK, your last post doesn't merit any response except this: You might be into beginning your posts with your name, but you still should sign them properly at the end.
• Robert, here is the relevant post by Jimbo: [5].

Goodnight, Str1977 00:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

EffK:Note: re Str1977 defence of his removals from Adolf Hitler on 15 december, to which we both refer, being my singling out the kickback scheme(here's Str again):The Holy See did acquiesce into the Centre's demise – there was a "quid pro quo" – but the Centre was finished anyway and Pacelli disapproved of the Centre's "early" self-dissolution. and IMHO that is unfairly putting the "blame" (blame only if you think a concordat to be something worth working for, for laicist and atheists it should probably be the opposite) solely on supposedly high demands by Pacelli and/or the Holy See. There were many factors involved - the Holy See's demand, disagreements between Pope and Bishops and the MoD on the status of military chaplains (the Minister wanted a military bishop overseeing all military chaplains, while the Bishops wanted to put them under the supervision of the regional bishop, Pacelli was increasingly siding with the government's view - which prevailed in the end and until now), the instability of Weimar governments, opposition of various parties to various topics (schools, military, marriage issues) - especially the SPD and the Liberals were more anti-concordat and the DNVP also was "not very enthusiastic". The only party that always wanted a concordat was of course the Centre.

The other parties that dissolved themselves were the 2 seater Staapartei or Peoples Party , the Catholic Bavarian Peoples Party of 18 that dissolved prior to the Centre. I have not suggested anything about the 2, and I have not particularly suggested that the Bavarian catholic party were part of the kickback. That might require some original research. However the kickback scheme is admitted by Kenny and Str1977. The latter confirms that it was a Hitler requisite. This being so, and it being the case that the British Ambassador Francis D'Arcy Osborne reported the agreement to dissolve the Centre from inside the Vatican I seem to remember on the 3 July, before the Bavarians hari-kirid on the 4, and the Centre itself on the 5 April. Altogether with the preceding history that I have sourced ,and considering the grave result of catholic voter persuasion ,historically known as wholescale drift towards the NSDAP, well, the singling out should be better corrected by a German editor's ability to read source concerning the 4 April and the Bavarians. A proper editor would have expanded rather than taken out his own knowledge. The kick back was ther voter drift-the appearance of legality. And, to add to the source for my long contentions as to WP misrepresentation concerning the legality of Hitler's 23 seizure of dictatorship(yes Ill source that if insisted), old Shirer states rather too shortly : "Thus was parliamentary democracy finally interred in Germany, except for the arrests of the Communists and some of the social democrats deputies, it was done quite legally,though accompanied by terror."page 249, fair use.

So you have it - an illegal government according to Shirer which made an illegal deal-still-heh-in force!. You cannot be part legal, can you? The quid pro quo or (American) classic kick-back scheme, according to the pro-Vatican guys here, starts on 9 April 1933. The multiple source relating this to the preceding weeks is erased, in fact the entire connection between Hitler and the Vatican is sanitised out.There is no mention of the word Vatican or Reichskonkordat at Hitler and the second most important figure , the Vatican's prelate Ludwig Kaas is distinctively un-linkedthere. Now, given your own words Str1977, I consider this to be Intellectual Dishonesty as you know better. But,You fought legal, you fought the letter of Guarantee, the Kaas chaired negotiations prior to seizure, the civil servants, the private letter from Hitler, the immediacy of his trip to Rome 24 march, the reason for his return, which you fought on the Kaas meeting with Hitler, with the friendship with Pacelli, with the Lewy-timeline, with Klemperer (whom Kenney asserted to be an out-dated ! fifties historian), you fought the secret annexe to the Reichskonkordat,-everything, and you fight now to the point of contradicting yourself. Now -I don't claim to be a historian- but how does a historian(you?) claim against Kaas meeting Hitler in private on 2 April and all I mention? How does a historian negate himself ? How does a historian who assents here above to.When writing on a certain topic, a historian is not allowed to discard any source or any literature then get to chuck all the vast number of sources I have quoted verbatim? Books that exited around the world, still in print and in endless editions? This is major major misrepresentation what this Str1977 claims about me choosing 'way out stuff'. I characterise this as denialism emanating from what is un-acceptable truth. It is a faith issue putrefying the reality shown by the putrid history. I happen to show it, thus am I attacked. The stink from Pacelli is all me.

Any reasonable person would certainly see enough sourced connection here in WP, eevn if only where I have put it, now to warrant inclusion at the least where relevant, such as to the major beneficaries. Such a person would include all the semi-bullseyes from Manhattan onwards and see that connection to the Pope Pius XI article would echo the same reality made at Hitler or anywhwere else, here, or Kaas or Hitler and the Church etc etc. These issues would not have to sidelined and exclused via the easily ignored Hitler's Pope or the desperate last chance The Great Scandal. I will agree that only since and increasingly does Manhattan appear to be sourceable, by the later historians and the others now in the Pius Wars. It is hard to understand because the Jewish and Catholic concern has always centred on the later Holocaust effects of the kick-back, whereas the historians deal with the Pius/Pacelli/Hitler precursive issue years earlier. This is of course an artificial distinction- designed to deceive. If there is no attack(and Shirer is very long and who in this age is gonna read lengthy tomes?)- then there is no defence. Someone like Klemperer only nails Kaas en passant, but everyone in history mentions him for his part. No-let's refute Pacelli knowledge or action in the Holocaust(see ICJHC for outstanding issues as to that), not remember the kick-back ....

I say, someone open the Article :Pius Wars, and limit it to that book, what? This is intellecual dihonesty. I think Kenney simply keeps bad company here, and would have to accept the reasoning as reasoning, in the end, if pushed hard. Patsw is simply covert abusive within WP minutiae, seeking solely to hook me on them-presumably as he has no source to back intervention. He is self confessed pro Pope here, and does not hide what is not a hepful attitude to WP. Robert McClenon, seems incidental, and shows it, but is convinced he has something to enforce. All go against verifiable source provided between myself and Str1977. This last is a historian , so when he says that the kick-back existed-on the papal table in the palace, we can believe him. When he assents to the kick-back involving a Hitler demand/requisite, we should believe him. I find Str1977 is often very helpful, inadvertantly. He helped me show Kaas to be in contumacy, which with the Pius XI statement of 10 April and Kaas later big-mouth Hitler approbation, well its all there in the books, I gave the page numbers. I await stil more from Str1977. Trouble is- he only gives it to me alone, so, If I am removed as a POV pusher, you see- he wont give it to you.! And he will remove everything he possibly can, using the new Off-Topic template. The Vatican is sure off the Hitler topic, so he's half way there. I have a Wikipedian's right to speak the truth civilly. The bad faith here is the incivility to the truth. EffK 12:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a short reply to an overly lengthy post:

• Trouble is not that I give it to you alone. Trouble is that I have cooperated with many editors around here, including those with a rather negative view on Pacelli. I have also tried to cooperate with you but unfortunately to no avail.

This is innuendo-one editor confrimed the truth from Atkin and Tallet. You excised it, knowing it to be the truth. You accuse me of singleing out . You subsequently attempt to discredit that which I did not do, against your own good faith. You provoke me by severe and hypocritical refutation of what the single editor confirmedand which you agreed -no more no less. This stinks and is intellectual Dishonesty,no less.EffK 14:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• The Off-topic template is reasonable and will be discussed somewhere else.

You are known to agree and to then refute further on. you accused my good faith, even though I authored the reasonable solution.EffK 14:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Of course there was a give and take in the concordat negotiations just as in any negotiations, as any side has different objectives. How forcefully Hitler explicetely demanded the disolution (let alone self-disolution) of the Centre I don't know. Nonetheless, it was clear that the Party had no future. Believe me, Pacelli would have preferred to keep it alive but, as I said, any negotiating is give and take and the parties anyway were faced only with the alternatives of being dissolved or dissolving themselves.

'off-topic', unsourced speculation, you'd say. I say I don't rate your unsourced explanations and and find your attempts at expanations resultingly weak.EffK 14:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Here is a list taken straight from the "Great Ploetz", 32nd edition, page 895, on the dissolution of the parties

• 2 May - dissolution of trade unions, creation of the "Deutsche Arbeitsfront"
• 10 May - confiscation of the property of SPD and Reichsbanner Schwarz-Rot-Gold
• 22 June - SPD banned
• 26 June - arrest of deputies from BVP, Centre Party, DNVP
• 27 June - DNVP and DVP dissolve themselves
• 28 June - DDP (or rather DStP) dissolves itself
• 4 July - BVP dissolves itself
• 5 July - Centre Party dissolves itself
• 14 July - "law against the creation of new parties" > NSDAP sole party

So we have 5 large parties dissolving themselves (and I guess all the small non-marxist parties, e.g. Wirtschaftspartei or Landbund did the same) and hence your treatment of this clearly was singling out.

• I will leave it at that, since this refers to edits on another article.

Str1977 12:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I wrote Adolf Hitler on 15 December exactly this: In particular this self-dissolution,in the case of the large and noble Centre Party, was brought about with a classic kick-back scheme in return for Vatican achievement of the subsequent Reichskonkodat negotiations. It is not untrue nor does it make claim disputed by this user. But it is utterly excised and remains so. I object to being made to work so hard. It doess not to single out that which is not sourced as singular. This is gross Intellectual Dishonesty, given the other editor's confirmation to us, and Str1977's own assent: it is nor the case that "in particular" refers to the Centre being in particular sole dissolution. I did not put that. In particular relates to the particularity as sourced and agreed , to the kick-back being relevant to the one party, actually.

You will hate this-but- are you able to handle this language even when it is as simple as the above I quote ? If you are, it is disingenuous to suggest that which you try to do. I wish you wouldn't make these off-topic excuses.EffK 14:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi; I'm new to the discussion, so excuse me if I ask something that has already been discussed. I understand that EffK says the Vatican agreed to the dissolution of the Centre party in exchange for the Reich's agreement to the Reichskonkodat. Is that EffK's position? Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I am not used to seeing it put that way. Str1977 says more that there was a quid pro quo which involved the (important) PR-wise self-dissolution , for the over-all bargaining around the concordat. It is Str1977's . He just won't allow its inclusion , as he claims it un-historically singles out the catholic Zentrumspartei or Centre. This was amalgam with the Bavarian (catholic) Peoples Party. These German acronyms are a pain. Str1977 agreed here[[6]-"This is right insofar the actual Concordat negotiations starting with Papen's arrival in Rome. The Centre party's existence was on the bargaining table. Pius and Pacelli were willing to acquiesce into the party's demise in return for the concordat. The party's demise was not their intention and it is obvious that the party was a dead man at that point."

Mind out -this is very strife-torn history! !f you stay NB 'bargaining table' , here. This [[7]] is where a third party confirmed the bargain. My position is what I have sourced- and is that there is a general historical assertion that such happened. I personally consider all angles, and remark the Letter of Guarantee negotiated by Kaas with Hitler that swung the Enabling Act vote.

I note /source the Shirer/john Toland and various other sources. A private meeting between Kaas and Hitler on 2 April, Kaas' immediate exit from Berlin 24 after the end-cvote , his handing that against promise, his words showing he knew the vote to be bad for their soul, his earlier sole personal visit to Papen(Hitler) to open negotiation for something c 6 march, following elections the 5 day, his close friendship with Pacelli, another source accusing papal interference in May 1932 exactly through Kaas, others saying Kaas devised the Hitler formulae re Hitler's Holy See in his 23 pro christian Enabling Act conciliation, I link, as does the source to the Fulda Conference 28 march, to source showing abrupt policy reversals c 28 March in the freer region of the Saar made as soon as the following year and published in London. I remark what I see sourced and which confirms that a great deal here is avoided. I also fight against this apologist continuously, as my history shows. he has ben against all the \above over an extended period opf time and I adher to not accusing bad faith prior to demonstrable proof. this hads been going on for ayear and all of these things I enumerat have been repeatedly traduced against WP verifiabilty for nearly a year. i am up for Arbcom as a vandal POV pet conspiract theory pusher [[8]], whilst I have been myself begging help, mediation, arbitration and, lately that two obstructive user's join my trial and that Wikipedia awaken to serious harm being forced through by bad faith religionists who indulge in what is in effect GermanSPD/clerical denialism. If you can help settle this one way or another, any source is welcome .EffK 15:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)