Talk:Karl Adam (theologian)

POV tag
Looking at a book by Robert Anthony Krieg Theologians and Nazi germany -  it is hard to recognise the  kind of things i was reading with the simple anti-nazi  of the article -  "In the summer of 1933, Adam called for a reconciliation betwen the Church and the new govt. ..p.99 the new laws that restrict the involvement of Jews in german society are valid said Adam, because germans have a duty to strngthen their racial identity " p.104 "It is not clear, however, that adam ever acknowledged his own misjudgment about and complicity with the Third Reich  It seems this may be another case of a dishonest conservative Catholic agenda being foisted on articles, its aim to whitewash the catholic Church and to foster a 'myth of conservative Catholic resistance to the Nazis.' Galen, Faulaber, Adam -  Please leave the tag until I have read the krieg book - the tag is a warning in the meantime that right wing distortions and whitewashers may have meddled with the portrait of the subject of the article. Sayerslle (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

S2CIDs
it looks as though you've used Citation bot here to revert this edit of mine. Could you clarify why you think these links are useful? They don't, as far as I can see, point to accessible versions of the article or to any other useful information. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a question for User:Citation bot, which does about 2,100 edits per day, but actually checks about 8,200 articles a day. Users sometimes complain about what look like unhelpful edits, usually to bibliographies. I have put the nobots template in the article. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be much more in the spirit of collaborative and collegial work, in my view, if editors would take responsibility for edits they instruct the bot to make. I appreciate there's a scale problem, and I'm basically prepared to accept the bot as a net positive for the encyclopaedia, but we'd presumably be reluctant to tolerate these unconstructive edits and this unresponsive behaviour from a human editor. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The bot will bypass this article forevermore. I don't know why S2CIDs are a problem for some users nor why they are considered useful by some editors. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)