Talk:Pope Pius XII/Archive 13

Attempting to move towards NPOV
I have put in a brief para expressing EffK's point that there was a quid pro quo over the concordat / enabling act & centre party dissolution. I have hopefully done it in a NPOV way. It needs proper sourcing, which I will do now. But then there are an awful lot of claims in this article that are completely unsourced, and others with very partisan sources. (I removed one which was something like an article published by the 'Catholic League' reporting an unsubstantiated private conversation in which Pius condemned Hitler. This was not a credible source. I have not deleted all the unsourced claims but tagged them as needing citation - I hope pro-Pacelli editors can have the same courtesy while I work on sourcing for EffK's point.)

I have also inserted a para on Pacelli's controversial reception of Pavelic. I intend to add some more issues which put Pacelli in a not very positive light, because I think a wikipedia article should not be a hagiography. But I will do so with every attempt to manitain NPOV, and using proper sourcing. I will also demand proper citations for the pro-Pacelli bulk of the article.Bengalski 15:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

A succinct version of the 'kickback' claim is in the 'Great Scandal' article by Gregory S. Paul. or. But Paul's own reference is: Klaus Scholder ''The Churches and the Third Reich vols. 1 and 2'' (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979 [English version 1988]). Does anyone have access to this book so that we can confirm the claim made there and cite Scholder as a source?

Note I'm not saying I think Paul isn't himself a notable source for the claim as I've put it in the article - which is just that there are allegations such a deal may have taken place. A 'Council for Secular Humanism' publication is a notable source for an allegation against the church so long as it is clearly labelled as just that - an allegation. Just as a catholic publication could be a source for a claim that supporters of the pope think x. But neither should be presented as representing 'neutral' or 'mainstream' historical opinion, if such a thing exists.Bengalski 16:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Due to the serious POV issues and dire lack of citations in the article I have inserted POV dispute and lack of sourcing tags. I hope we can work together to fix these problems, source all the claims in the page, and eventually remove the tags. Please do not remove them in the meantime - I believe removal of POV dispute tags is generally considered to be vandalism.Bengalski 17:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Bengalski. I think that the structure of the article and its presentation of both pro- and con-Pacelli viewpoints is much better than previous versions.  I would suggest that the NPOV tag should in fact be removed.  I think that the article as it has been improved by Bengalski is now NPOV.  It states opinions as opinions.  I agree that the source tags should be left in place, and that their removal would be a form of sneaky vandalism.  Robert McClenon 17:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that the unsourced statements should be left in place with tags for about three to four weeks, after which time any unsourced statements should be removed. That is my opinion.  Robert McClenon 17:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Bengalski that Paul or the like are a valid sources - yes, they might make accusations, but what about historiographical merit. Also, Mowrer does not make the exact claim that EffK always argued (the Mowrer reference refers to mid 1932, apart for it source quality: it is a rendering of a third hand acount 30 years after the event) and it hasn't, to my knowledge been picked up by any historian. Str1977 18:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think these are as valid sources as many in the article. I don't see Str1977 or anyone else removing claims backed only by church-afiliated publications. Also, there are an absurd amount of claims without any references at all. I think there are only two consistent positions: let the quid pro quo point stand as it was; alternatively we take out all claims sourced only from Catholic publications, or with no sources at all. Also, I repeat, removing the tags is vandalism. Plainly there is a POV dispute here between us, your trying to hide the fact will not make it go away. I would like us to try and work together on this without calling for outside intervention, but please do not vandalise again.Bengalski 18:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, Bengalski, with the effort in providing more referenes, though I am not quite certain that we need a reference for everything you tagged "fact" - especially since some stuff has been there a while. But that's a balancing act.
 * However, as far as the QPQ goes, I cannot agree with you: as you yourself stated, this is EffK's pet issue and during almost a year of dispute he has not been able to provide any evidence for his theory except for the ambiguous Mowrer quote (which, as I said, is of a questionable quality) - I say ambiguous because there is more than one interpretation for it and IMHO the one I gave on talk pages fits much better. But in any case, this is all Original Research as I have never seen a historian refer to this Mowrer info.
 * Why should we take out all references to Catholic publications - especially if they don't run counter to historiography's findings. I wouldn't have a problem giving a up-to-standard article from the Secular Humanism page as references, though they are probably not interested in publishing one. And take the content of the passages into account too: do you dispute what these passages contain?
 * And I want to work together too - the last year has satisfied my hunger for "bashing heads" for years to come. Str1977 21:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Str1977 is not a vandal. He has been a constructive good-faith editor of this article for nearly a year, and has kept his cool in face of some vicious personal attacks.  I don't think that outside intervention is needed, and I don't see a need to refer to it.  Progress is being made now that there has been needed outside intervention.  On the other hand, I agree with Bengalski that there are an excessive number of statements with no sources.  I think that we can take down the NPOV tag, but that we should leave the source tags up.  I also suggest that we avoid accusations of vandalism.  Removing the tags in the article requesting sources would be a form of vandalism.  Removing the tags at the head of the article is a dispute.  Robert McClenon 20:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Bengalski: Please do not start things being ugly again by claims of vandalism.  Str1977:  Please leave the tags in place or discuss them with Bengalski.  I think that we now have reasonable editors who can discuss our differences reasonably.  Robert McClenon 20:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur with Str1977's edits, except for his removal of the tags. I have reverted the article to the edits by Str1977 but have added the tags.  I would like to remove the NPOV tag, but will not do it unilaterally.  Robert McClenon 20:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Bengalski, may I ask you to please "Assume Good Faith" and not issue flat out warnings. I know fully well that this is vandalism but I haven't done it on purpose. Wiki recently made some changes to the editing software - I saw that problem for a while but appearently this time I got caught up with it. Sorry about that.
 * PS. I agree with your hope, Robert. Str1977 21:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The article is fair enough that it does not need a neutrality tag; I support removing it. I see fact requests after, "He was also a good swimmer in Lake Bolzena and he was swift and tireless as a canoeist," and, "His collection of coins and stamps was admired by his friends." I think that's a bit overdone. If there are concerns, include in the references a good general biography for younger readers. Tom Harrison Talk 21:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Most of the facts of his childhood are available from Sr. Margherita Marchione’s, Pope Pius XII: Architect for Peace (Paulist Press, 2000). ISBN 080913912X. Likewise to question that he had a stamp collection or was admired by his friends is more a form of harassment than a quest for sources or truth. Sources are important, especially in the case of controversial material and where private conversations are quoted. But in hindsight, even the person who inserted the several dozen requests for “sources” has to admit that it was a little over the top. I think the biography by Marchione can cover every demand for “facts” in the childhood section.

We have to be fair here. Pius’ report cards aren’t available online so we’ll have to let his biographer’s assertion that he had good grades stand. Does the article on Einstein have a source for his grades or the famous bad grade he received in school? No, it doesn’t and to be fair, we can’t expect it to. In fact much of Einstein’s childhood in the Wikipedia article is unsourced, but rightfully, no one is fussing about that. Demanding a source for Pius’ good grades in elementary school seems a little bit much. Again, I think the biography by Marchione can cover every demand for “facts” in the childhood section. When it comes to the sections on his church career, I think everyone can agree that statements should be sourced. Fair enough.

Another overarching issue is whether the Catholic League is a reliable source. Mindful of the fact that Muslims defend Muslims and Jews defend Jews, we have to extend the same standard to Catholics. Naturally Catholics have defended Pius XII and Catholic sources are going to be far more plentiful. Many of these websites, including the Catholic League’s cite to other sources that are also often Catholic (but sometimes Jewish as well). We can’t be surprised at that nor can we be dismissive of the scholarship. It’s only fair.

I am removing this: “Documents issued by the Church also allowed thousands of Nazis and other war criminals to assume false identities and escape to freedom in Latin America.” Perhaps a few would like to turn this whole article into a referendum on the Church, but the article is about Pius XII. There is no evidence that Pius arranged for papers for any axis personality to escape anywhere. Perhaps individual clergyman did, but there is no evidence Pius had anything to do with that. It really does not belong here. Pius’ meeting with Poglavnik: Pius received hundreds of foreign dignitaries during his papacy. He even received Col. Keppler and other Nazi’s. It would seem that he had to do this by necessity as a head of state. Clinton even received Arafat – it’s part of the job of being the head of state. (I think John Paul II met with Arafat too, didn’t he?) This all falls under the aegis of the acts of a head of state and to be fair-minded, we have to remember that. Including the little blurb about Poglavnik seems like mudslinging or guilt by association. As if they schemed how to kill people over café latte. Let’s be fair.

Newsweek: Had to reorganize the part about Woodward. Kenneth Woodward is NOT a critic of John Cornwell as the last version had mistakenly stated. He is a respected journalist who reviews books for Newsweek and who frankly identified the lack of scholarship which seems to be common to all of the anti-Pius works, including Cornwell’s. User:70.21.128.251


 * Well I tried. It seems pretty clear to me that any attempt to present any information that is unfavourable to PXII will not be tolerated by some editors of this page. Robert McClenon appears to have a genuine interest in NPOVing the article - although I think it should be apparent that we're going to need an NPOV tag for some time yet. Str1977 says his deletions were a software accident, and certainly I'll give him the benefit of doubt. Tom Harrison: do we really think that this 'swift and tireless' stuff is what a decent encyclopedia article is made of? Can I again remind people wikipedia is not hagiography. And I think a sourcing issue is relevant here - this is purple prose. Who is to judge whether he was 'swift and tireless'? How can we begin to unearth his friends and ask them if they admired his stamp collection? And what on earth relevance does this stuff have?


 * As for the anonymous editor, you clearly have no interest whatever in trying to achieve NPOV here. You take out what I put in to balance the claim that the church saved hundreds of thousands of jews and provided ID documents for thousands because you say that Pius cannot personally be held responsible for providing documents for Nazis. But you have evidence that he was personally responsible for saving 800,000 jews? I don't see you taking out that bit. He had nothing to do with ID papers for Nazis but personally issued the papers to the jews? Do you see the contradiction in this argument? Then you have no factual argument to make against what I put in about the meeting with Pavelic, you just take it out because you don't see it as important. Who are you to decide what is and isn't important in this respect? He was good at canoeing is relevant, but not that, under no coercion at all, he gave audiences to major war criminals. I provide sources to say Pius is criticised for moral cowardice in granting a personal audience to this mass-murderer but you have decided this isn't in any way significant.


 * This is plainly biased editing. After which maybe you can see that I question we should take your word for who is 'respected' as a journalist, or accept that you have the authority to decide what is or isn't good scholarship or worthy of inclusion in the article.Bengalski 03:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Can I add - simply to delete all the work I did I find disrespectful. There are many things in the article I disagree with but I didn't just go and delete them all. I believe it is better to discuss before just deleting things that other editors believe to be important.Bengalski 04:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully maintain that my comments from above stand on their own. Woodward never gave Cornwell any thought until he reviewed his book. He is not a critic of Cornwell any more than Siskel & Ebert were critics of particular people. No, they both critique works, not people and that is what Woodward did.

In brief, Pinchas Lapide, David Dallin and Sir Martin Gilbert, all of whom are Jewish, place the number of persons saved by Pius' acts in the hundreds of thousands. And they credit Pius XII directly. There is no contradiction is citing them and maintaining that faceless charges that Pius helped Nazi's escape be expunged. What credible person directly asserts that Pius arranged for false papers to help axis persons etc? Please name this person. Until then let's keep the article in the good shape it was without slander and acrimony. Thanks! User;70.21.160.66

Here We Go Again
Can we try to keep the tone of these talk page discussions civil? Bengalski: Please do not be so quick to claim "biased editing". In articles about controversial figures, it is often difficult to achieve balance. Disparaging the efforts of others does not help.

Bengalski has done a lot of work in adding tags to specific statements that need sourcing. I think, and some other editors agree, that he has requested sourcing for too many minor facts. Either they should be allowed to stand as not worth disputing, or they should be deleted as unencyclopedic (such as "swift and tireless", unless that is a quote). However, any discussion of removing the tags should be on this talk page, not done simply by reverting.

Bengalski says that this article will need an NPOV tag for some time to come. What exactly does he think needs to be done to restore NPOV? I can see the need for references, but please state exactly what needs to be done with regard to NPOV.

I do not really want to discuss the anonymous edits because I have an obligation to be civil. There has not been reasonable discussion of whether there was a basis for undoing most of Bengalski's work.

Can we please try to be civil and work on the article?

I think that about one-third (guess) of the fact tags should be removed, but not without discussion. Can we please discuss any changes to the article rather than just reverting? Undoing Bengalski's work is not appropriate.

Regardless of whether Mowrer did refer to a quid pro quo, the allegation is sufficiently well known and quoted by reputable sources that it should be included. The question is to whom to attribute it. I am satisfied with attributing it to Gregory Paul, or someone can provide another source.

If I see any more unexplained reverts of what Bengalski has done, I will revert to his version, and will point out that reverting unexplained changes is sometimes necessary. Robert McClenon 10:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Robert - just to be clear my accusation of biased editing applied only to the IP editor. I'll try my best to assume good faith, but it can be a bit difficult when all your work is reversed for no good reason. Also I'll say as I have before that I myself have a POV bias, as I think we all have, but I try to overcome it.Bengalski 13:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's put fact tags back in selectively. Most agree that it way way overdone. I respected about 8 or 9 requests for facts and put cites in. The others, such as asking for a cite for his stamp collection, I think we all agreed went over the top. If there are still areas where cites are direly needed, plase kindly re-insert. That's the best way. Cheers! User:70.21.160.66

Dear Ben dear Robert, dear 70..., I agree with Robert that the "fact tags" should be simply reverted - I don't agree with every tag being placed but it merits discussion. I thank you, Ben (may I use this abbreviation), for giving me the benefit of the doubt, though I would have appreciated if he hadn't drawn a connection between reverts to his edits here (mostly done not by me) and the arbitration against our dear friend from outer space who still spams talk pages. Please, all of you (and all of me), keep tempers down and try to work towards balance. Cheers, Str1977 10:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear 70, there's not need to rush and remove fact tags - they will be dealt with in time. Also, he mentioned a book which mentions these childhood details. Could you please indicate which "fact tags" could be replaced by this. Cheers, Str1977 11:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Some things I think need to be done to move towards NPOV:


 * 1) The 'QPQ' passage needs to be in. I do not see the problem with Gregory Paul as a source, and I would like to see specific argument as to why he is not acceptable. Perhaps it would make sense to have a general discussion here about what we see as requirements for admissibility as a source. As this point is so hotly contested I will try and find other sources as well. But I ask again that people let the paragraph remain while we work on it, as it has better sourcing than much of the rest of the article.
 * 2) The Pavelic para needs to be in. Vatican support for the murderous regime in Croatia is highly controversial and should not be whitewashed.
 * 3) The childhood stuff is completely over the top - do people really think it is encyclopedic to have so much gushing praise of his canoeing skills, memory, stamp collection etc.? If I went overboard requesting sources I think it was because this part was rather overboard on unsourced praise. If all these points come from one reliable book then that would take out all the citation requests. But it would still leave a lot of guff in the article. If you're going to have so much praise shouldn't we mention some of his childhood failings? Do we really believe he didn't have a single one?
 * 4) I am not denying that Pius was involved in saving jews, or that he has been praised by many for this. But there needs to be some balancing. For example the claim that he was personally responsible for saving 800,000 lives is really over the top, and not substantiated. Okay perhaps putting in the point that the church also saved Nazis is not the best way to do this. It would be better if we could use the talk page to work out a balanced position.
 * 5) In fact there are claims that Pius was directly involved in a policy of sheltering war criminals - notably in Unholy Trinity (Aarons and Loftus) and in the latest edition of The Real Odessa (Uki Goñi). I will write something on this for the article.
 * 6) Pius' critics link his alleged failings in relation to fascist regimes to his anti-communism. We should have something on this.
 * 7) Perhaps if we can work out a balanced version of the holocaust debate we can actually cut down this section of the article - I agree with people who have complained that it is given too much prominence in a page that is about the man's whole life not just this period. A POV war involves escalation of claims on either side like an arms race, a touch of bilateral disarmament wouldn't be amiss.
 * 8) Most of all I think we need a POV dispute tag so long as any critical material is simply going to be deleted out of hand.Bengalski 13:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Bengalski: I didn't say there was no room for improvement, I said and maintain that the article is near enough neutral to remove the tag. The source for anectdotes about his childhood is (said to be, and I assume good faith) the biography by Sr. Margherita Marchione, listed in the references. As a general encyclopedia, it's entirely appropriate for us to include information about his childhood that might be of interest to our younger readers. We can't assume that people only want to read about what we want to write about. Tom Harrison Talk 14:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you've missed my point - I haven't said there shouldn't be anything about his childhood, only that it should be rather less hagiographic. And I think we need to have this general discussion about sources - Sr. Marchione is at least as partisan as Gregory Paul, but her claims are being reported as simple statements of fact. (Even Catholic reviews don't claim her work is at all objective - she is viewed as unapologetically writing apologetic.[] [])Bengalski 15:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * With respect, 'your point' may unintentionally be part of the problem. It looks like you requested a citation about his stamp collection, not to elicit an actual citation, which has now been provided, but to make a point. It looks like you larded the page with s to make it seem the page was more poorly sourced than it was. Sister Marchione is a perfectly adequete source for information about his childhood. I might say, "If you have a source that says his stamp collection was lousy, go ahead and include that for balance." But I won't say that; because there is plenty of controversy already. I see nothing to be gained by ginning up more about things that aren't disputed. Tom Harrison Talk 16:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * To be clear, I am disputing a) that Marchione is an adequate source - if she's included at all, it should be made clear that these are partisan claims rather than statements of fact; b) that this kind of gushing praise of his childhood feats is appropriate in an encyclopedia article.Bengalski 16:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay I have rephrased that section so the claims are now clearly shown as coming from Sr. Marchione, and thus removed the citation tags there. However I still think this is excessively hagiographic, and that Sr. Marchione is a questionable source.Bengalski 16:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest below that the information on his youth be moved into its own article. Then we can put an NPOV tag on that article without cluttering up this one, and have a one-paragraph summary in this article.  Robert McClenon 17:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with Tom Harrison, as I keep saying, that there should be a section on his childhood on this page - I don't think it necessarily needs a separate article. Just that it needs to be in a much more NPOV style.Bengalski 17:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Bengalski makes 8 numbered points above. I tried to comment on them, but that reset the numbering, so I did not do that.  I agree with most of the points except point 8, that we need an NPOV tag.  I agree that the quid pro quo allegation, regardless of source, is a necessary part of the article.  So are the allegations of collusion with the Croatian regime (which even disgusted the Nazis because of the randomness and inefficiency of its genocide) and enabling war criminals to escape.  There is too much material on his childhood for a general biographical article.  I would suggest that it be moved into its own article, "Childhood and Youth of Eugenio Pacelli", and a one-paragraph summary be included in this article instead.  I disagree with point 8, that the article still needs an NPOV tag.  I agree that it does need such a tag if critical material is being removed without consensus.  However, what we need is not the tag, but an agreement not to remove critical material without discussion.  I agree with Tom Harrison that Bengalski used "fact" tags to request sourcing when sometimes he just wanted the material removed as non-encyclopedic.  The information about his youth is non-encyclopedic in his main biographical article.  It is encyclopedic in an article about his youth.  Robert McClenon 16:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, Bengalski, please try to avoid allegations of POV-pushing. In an article such as this one, where there are differing POVs, achieving NPOV is both difficult and essential, and involves the mutual assumption of good faith, as well as civility and respect.  You wrote:  A POV war involves escalation of claims on either side like an arms race, a touch of bilateral disarmament wouldn't be amiss.  I agree, and suggest that it also applies to claims of POV-pushing.  Robert McClenon 16:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Robert, I agree on most but not on the quid pro quo allegation being a "necessary part of the article" - you know better than most here, that it is not based on sources. It is based on EffK's creative reading. It is not a view entertained by any historian (to my knowledge). Hate articles of course might drop such things, but they don't care about sourcing, do they? Str1977 17:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Acceptable sources: call for discussion
Str1977 - you keep removing the 'QPQ para', I take it on the grounds that you don't think Gregory Paul is a satisfactory source even as just an example of someone making a disputed claim. I think we need to have a proper discussion on this. Some questions for you to start off that discussion: Could you explain exactly what's your objection to this source? Why is he less acceptable than for example Sister Marchione? And in general what's your approach to judging acceptability of a source? Why are you only removing this paragraph and not the many other unsourced or questionably sourced claims?Bengalski 17:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You are exactly right in assessing my view on the Paul article. I never stated anything in favour of Sister Marchione, since none of what 70.. posted "on her behalf" seemed to me serious enough to merit contention. I think some things from the childhood section go to far, not because I doubt Pacelli's stamp collection but because of the triviality of the info (though of course other people have trivia sections). Or do you seriously raise actual doubts about 70's info. Str1977 17:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I will point out one difference between Sister Marchione and Gregory Paul as POV sources. I am not aware of anyone disupting the accuracy of the facts stated by Sister Marchione, only that her viewpoint is hagiographic.  I think that Str1977 is questioning the accuracy and reliability of Paul.  Are there any other sources for the QpQ claim?  By the way, the QpQ claim is quite different from the argument that Pacelli was not sufficiently distrustful of Hitler, and that his (correct) anti-communism led him to underestimate the menace of Nazism.  Robert McClenon 17:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no idea if Sister Marchione's claims are accurate or not, and it would be hard to know how to begin to investigate - I suspect for our purposes they are downright unfalsifiable. Yes Str1977 I think questions Paul's accuracy, but that isn't quite the point - there is no claim being made that Paul or the QPQ claim in general is accurate or in any way right. Just that it is a notable allegation. And I really would like him to set out his reasoning for why this source is unacceptable as an example of such an allegation. Other sources - I'll keep looking, as I mentioned above Paul himself cites someone called Klaus Scholder. Yes I understand your last point. I'd also add, I think I remember Str1977 arguing somewhere that there may have been a qpq but it was perhaps justified if Pacelli thought the centre party was doomed anyway (forgive me if I've got this wrong), and maybe that's a reasonable argument.Bengalski 18:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

WP Aministration: Censoring by wrong Archival and irrational behaviour
Tom Harrison, please note the censoring of relevant discussions. Please take the burden of your office to see that full measures are applied forthwith to deal with the bad faith inherent to the wrongful archiving made. Please report to your ultimate boss in your honorific position, that a reference is made to him here as posted in this wrongly Archive-d. This archiving is purely symptomatic of the bad faith seen throughout. It is a form of harrassment against good will, a harrassment against historical truth and verifiability, and against Wikipedia. I reequst you to either see that the relevant standards are imposed, or to kindly explain your position as representative administrator-by-action. I am entirely of good will in remarking clearly the revisionist motivation of the spurious Users str1977 and Robert McClenon, and in my qualification of their and any position so made by me. I request that Jimbo either through you or in any way he choose, act upon the reckless disregard for the falsity as shown by all thus far involved, which now includes Jimbo Wales himself. I have posted Jimbo such that reckless disregard of falsity concerning 'EffK',or 'theory' cannot be by ignorance but is irrational, and in briefest, anit-social. In his default declining, thus far, to wish accord with the requisites of provability within his own publishing organ, I yet expect from Jimbo that principles will be enforced.

Bengalski, the tiniest assumption of good faith still affected me when I last wrote here to you. I should have clearly warned you that the rivisionism is so strong that by anything you attempted, you would inexorably be wrong-footed, and through such efforts you would only, by persistence end up as another slandered EffK. Here as we see the manipulation of Wikipedia happening before our very eyes, I am forced for the common good to reinforce the suggestions I made from the general to the specific. Failing the Administrator resolving this to where it belongs which is to an immediate Arbitration of its own as Users assisting Clerical Denialist Revisionism, I urge you to place exactly that at Arbcom. Let us give Tom enough time to understand fully the exactitude of the matter, say 24 hours or whatever Tom may request of us. You yourself B will be of no doubt by now as to the matter, and I will ape whatever is necesary of arbitration templating I can, which does not however include the actual lodgement templating. I will help specify the workshop charges and perhaps Tom in good faith will help us both with the relevant principles as to verifiability, good faith etc etc. that  we may require. I noticed your capacity as to legal consciousness ,B, and suggest that this will be a boon. You will realise by now that Evidence is not a problem.

Alternatively, Bengalski, I suggest you retire and have no further contact with any Articles on Wikipedia to do with, or tangential to, Roman Catholicism. This may be the better course for dealing with the issue, as it will re-inforce the reckless disregard made against me as representative of rational verifiability and critic of irrational falsification.

To Jimbo, please accord to that which is required by the responsibility you hold, not to publish what is a reckless disregard for falsity at Arbitration. EffK 11:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi EffK. I'll give it a bit more time for now, but yes if I keep getting blanket reverted whenever I put in anything critical then it could come to that.Bengalski 13:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Bengalski: If you understand what EffK is saying, can you provide me with a short summary?  Robert McClenon 13:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * EffK: If you want the ArbCom to consider remedies against Str1977 and Robert McClenon, there is no point in demanding ArbCom action here.  The ArbCom is not reading this page.  What you need to do is to go to WP:AMA and request an advocate who can write a summary of your case for the ArbCom.  The ArbCom is still in voting, and if you can present a concise summary of your case, they should be glad to review it.  Robert McClenon 13:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Robert, I'm not here to speak for anyone else. I think you can understand what EffK is saying. On the other hand, if you really find him so objectionable - and after all you are trying to get him banned, so there's no need to pretend you're interested in further dialogue - just stop reading his posts.Bengalski 14:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the Add to Usenet-style KillFile function available in the Wikipedia menu? Robert McClenon 16:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Abuse of article talk pages is disruptive because many of us have not figured out how to set up a killfile. Robert McClenon 16:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand that he is saying that Str1977 and I are part of a conspiracy for "denial of source", and that we are also planning to have you (Bengalski) banned. I am not sure what he is saying is actually being suppressed.  I am not sure what the difference is between the "partial quid pro quo" and the "complete quid pro quo".  Robert McClenon 18:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)