Talk:Robert Leiber

Has something been written where the reverse was intended?
"Leiber asserted in 1961 that Pius XII personally ordered superiors of church properties to open their doors to Jews. As exhaustive studies of Susan Zuccotti and others have shown, no written proof this has yet to emerge."

The phrase "no written proof this has yet to emerge" sounds wrong to me - I expected to read "written proof of this has yet to emerge" (without the "no") or alternatively "no written proof of this has yet emerged". In other words, I expect to see the exact opposite of what is currently written. Since this is a referenced statement, I don't want to change it myself. But it looks a lot like something I once did - when experimenting with different ways to present a fact, I accidentally left a superfluous "not" in a sentence, thus imparting the exact opposite meaning to what I had intended, although from the context of the paragraph the "not" clearly shouldn't be there - although it only stood out to me when I was proof-reading the article again with fresh eyes some days later. TheGrappler (talk) 00:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You are correct. Thanks. Savidan 04:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

And, unfortunetaley, Zuccotti is all but a seroius and sound scholar. - GermanJew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.59.53 (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)