User talk:Integrtiyandhonesty

Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Here are some pages you might like to see:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your username (if you're logged in) and the date.

March 2013
Please do not add or change content, as you did to Nazi Germany, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. ''Please do not re-add this unsourced change. If you have WP:reliable sources to back up your claims, please discuss them on the Talk page.'' noq (talk) 11:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your input since I am new to the process. This was a good faith effort to bring historical clarity to these articles. The language that Hitler "became" or "becomes" Chancellor 1/30/1933 and the language regarding the "Enabling Act" of 1933 in both articles: the Catholic Church and Nazi Germany and the Nazi Germany article, are vaguely correct while, historically, imprecise.

The current language regarding Hitler becoming chancellor implies he was placed in this office by a national general election held specifically for this office. Rather, and precisely, he was appointed to this office by the still existing and functioning [but challenged] Weimar Republic by its President, Paul von Hindenburg. This is pointed out in properly Cited content on Wikipedia covering Hitler's appointment as Chancellor. Under the Weimar Constitution Article 53 [also properly Cited material on Wikipedia] the office of the President is empowered solely with the obligation to appoint the Chancellor.

Secondly, the language regarding the "Enabling Act" is similar in its vague correctness in these specific articles [unintentional - surely]. The "Enabling Act" of March 1933 did not invest Hitler with "dictatorial power(s)" as broadly implied and offered here. The language of the "Enabling Act" itself makes clear, as already existent properly Cited content on Wikipedia covering the "Enabling Act" offers. Article 2 of the "Enabling Act" is very specific regarding this. Article 2 states the office and the powers of President are to remain unchanged, or not disturbed. Furthermore, the Act makes clear the seats of the Reichstag had the right to object to any proposal by the Chancellor through an appeal process, or, in essence, a vote of confidence.

The statement that Hitler achieved "dictatorial" powers via the "Enabling Act" of 1933 is misleading and leading in other ways. There was clear and real opposition to Hitler and the Nazi Party when the "Enabling Act" became law. All the parties who had secured seats in the Reichstag during the preceding and last election held, March 5, 1933, controlled 56% of the seats as is, again, pointed out by and properly Cited on Wikipedia regarding the election data.

It is true and correct that the Reichkoncordact of, July 20, 1933, called for the the Centre Party to cease political activity and that, soon after, Hitler abused the legitimate powers of the "Enabling Act" to ban other political parties representing the Socialists and Communists holding 32% of the seats of the Reichstag in the Summer of 1933 by fanning the flames of hysteria against them post the Reichstag building fire 02/27/33 as pointed out and cited on Wikipedia, the coalition of the Nazi Party with the DNVP in early 1933 became a dynamic in its own right.

These external facts do not reveal, however, the realpolitk of Germany circa 1933.

Furthermore, President Hindenburg was no ally to Hitler who often dismissed him as, "That corporal . . . . " this too, is pointed out in Cited material on Wikipedia. Nor, was the Vice-Chancellor, Franz von Papen, wholly sympathetic to the Nazi Party. He [Papen] intentionally sought the Vice-Chancellor office for the purpose of "checking" the Nazi Party via President Hindenburg. This is Cited as well on Wikipedia regarding his role as Vice-Chancellor.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but also, the "Enabling Act" does not alter the powers of the President as stated previously in Article 2. Under the Constitution of the Weimar Republic solely and exclusively the office of President holds the privilege of Commander and Chief of the military. Therefore, Hindenburg retained his powers as Commander and Chief until the the next election cycle for the office of President, or his death. Hitler, though possessing a formidable paramilitary, a "private army", had no such power under the "Enabling Act" to command the Weimar military, whatsoever. This too is validly cited on Wikipedia concerning the Weimar Constitution. This strongly suggest Hitler was far from possessing full "dictatorial power" in 1933.

The evidence then provided by validly Cited information on Wikipedia makes for a correct and precise statement, I would suggest, that the "Enabling Act" began the process of accelerating the elimination of Hitler's political rivals which culminated with the death of President Hindenburg on August 2, 1934. This leads to a general referendum vote of yes or no to the Nazi's Party sponsored legislation on August 19, 1934. This, specifically, made him the sole leader - [Fuhrer]. This is the precise date that he became the officially acknowledged dictator of Germany and one would be historically precise to say, Nazi Germany was in full bloom and effect. This, as well, is validly Cited on Wikipedia discussing when Hitler became - Fuhrer.

It is my understanding from speaking to veteran wikipedians that one does not need to "reinvent the wheel" and spend countless hours seeking credible sources if what is being proposed is currently properly cited, validated and sourced.

Thank you.
 * No one is asking you to "reinvent" the wheel here. Only to explain your proposed changes and show WP:RS citations for your points and try to gain consensus for any substantial changes therein. Also, please state your discussion points on the article talk page, not here. You can just cut and paste over, if you wish. Kierzek (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That is good advice. Thanks again.

April 2013
Hello, I'm Binksternet. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Catholic Church and Nazi Germany seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Binksrenet: As much as I appreciate your unsolicited "re-edit" and offer of "talk" to maintain integrity and earnest input the notion that these good faith edits imply a lack of objectivity/neutral stance is erroneous on the face of it. These minor good faith edits were purely factual in nature and historical data. Such as, the fact, that those who proclaimed to be Christian in Germany during this period were composed of 67% Protestant and 33% Catholic is a well established sociological demographic fact. Second, it is also an historical fact that the Vatican officially had established itself as neutral entity during WW I and WW II as well.

It is my intention to continue to offer good faith edits for the sake of preserving history as it happened - not as some wish it had, or had not. Copyrighted material is not a carte blanche safety net to the truth. Copyrights exist to protect the writer from fraud and theft. Simply because a source is copyright protected does not raise a statement within a published book or document to some holy status as true and correct.

For every book referenced to support a position an other can refute. So, let's cut to the chase shall we? And save ourselves much time and energy. My goal - like yours - is to preserve history as it happened and refrain from subjective statements and use of language. For example, the words merely, notoriously, suggests, and so on. These are words that strongly indicate a subjective judgement - not a presentation of facts. Look forward to your response.Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Catholic Church and Nazi Germany, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet This is an assumption on your part that these good faith edits were not based on already existent data on Wkipedia. All those edits are verifiable on Wikipedia itself - for example, the fact that Hitler did not achieve his goal of full dictatorship until August 2, 1934 you'll find in the Article: Nazi Germany. In this specific article itself it states that the Vatican officially had a neutral status during WW II. We all would appreciate and benefit by respecting earnest and honest editing which is the heart of this. Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Orsenigo
- are you saying this a fake? the message says sometimes, the captions were unreliable, not the actual photographs. why is the picture misleading anyhow. Historin Michael phayer says after the Concordat this orsenigo urged catholics to support the regime - its not part of a desired narrative, but it is part of the whole story, the story of the concordat and after imo. Sayerslle (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

What I'm stating is the photo is not related to the Concordat. Can you validate that this photo is related to the Concordat 'specifically, or at all'? Gobbels had absolutely nothing to do with this treaty. This photo implies very much the opposite. It being used this way strongly suggest and implies a connection between the Concordat and Gobbles war crimes which is clearly a stretch and bend of history. As for the caption?

Further, your caption contribution here only states the slimmest of relevance to the treaty itself by stating that this photo was taken after the Concordat. When? That day, weeks, months. . . . years? Look, we can produce photos of Nixon and leaders of Russia and China shaking hands - even in "loving" bear hugs" - during the Cold War smiling as if they were life long friends and agreed on every subject. Does this mean they were? Of course not. So, the point is relevant context.

Then, stating the "connection" of "after" you add content that has nothing at all to do with the Concordat itself that brings to question relevance. Sorry, but what is the relevance to the Concordat again? In short, its not the photo per se that's at issue. It's how its being used.

Let's be candid Sayerslle. There is a history here. You clearly have made your point over the years. You seem to be determined to paint the Catholic Church black regarding this history. No problem with that. This is your view of it. I suggest, however, you tamper this with some objectivity and balance from time to time. You make good points and bring to light issues that history demands be "on the table". No problem with that. I hope you continue to be active "to keep 'em honest". But, sometimes you go just a tad too far and history becomes a story of one view.


 * The photo does not have to be specifically related to the Concordat. The article is not about the Concordat alone, it is about the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Nazi leadership. In that sense, it is relevant and on-topic.
 * Certainly the caption can be trimmed, with text and references moved into the article body. Binksternet (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * yes, when the article is looked at, all in all, I thought it was on-topic enough and relevant. I wasn't particularly thinking to place it exactly, except as anywhere after the Concordat really - I do tend to write a lot / too much under photos. As for you saying, intergityandhonesty, that I seem determined to paint it black on this issue, - well, fair enough in a way, but not just for the sake of it I hope, -  'I suggest however you tamper -' is a Freudian slip, yes - its temper, isn't it. Sayerslle (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

You do good work in general and we all know it takes a serious and focused effort to contribute to an article. Let's keep it grounded. No one has a monopoly on the truth. It's a tough subject and views can become entrenched. Once that happens the only loser is the truth. Good luck to you and look forward to future collaboration.Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 02:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Catholic Church and Nazi Germany

 * o.k. I intend to collect material on a sub-page for a while and then i'll present bits i'd like to add at the talk page. but will everyone still be around kind of thing - one problem with wikiedia is that a group can't be guaranteed to stay around for, say a year or so, and work in good faith , to arrive at a fair, interesting, article  - but people come and go - ive ordered the Robert Ventresca,  new biography of Pius XII, and i'm interested to read his version of the Nazi period and Pius within that. This is one of those quite diffuse and sprawling articles also that Wikipedia I think has  more problems with - but anyway, ok, Il  present  material i'd like to add/change on the talk page first. Sayerslle (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Integrityandhonesty - I admire your patience and obvious good will in that recent mammoth exchange with the new editor on the talk page for Catholic Church and Nazi Germany. Thank you for your comments regarding the work of others - including me. Ozhistory (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Weimar rep of the german reich
I just mean, this use of words , where does it occur expressed thusly -"Reichskonkordat agreement signed between the Weimar Republic of the German Reich and the Holy See" - in RS. Sayerslle (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Im looking at Gunter Lewys book 'the catholic hurch and Nazi germany' - chapter three starts like this " when the world learned on July 9 1933 that a Concordat had been initialed by Nazi Germany and the Holy see, public opinion generally regarded the event as a great diplomatic victory for HItler' . And Ive reffed the way Ventresca refers to it as an agreement 'between the Holy See and the German Reich' - i'm simply saying, where are the historians  describing it your way - an agreement '

signed between the Weimar Republic of the German Reich and the Holy See - who describes it like that? which historians? without RS describing it that way its kind of original research in my opinion.Sayerslle (talk) 01:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

skewed
I changed the second paragraph to illustrate the kind of thing I meant - the 'tone ' always comes across as what was done to the Catholic Church kind of thing, - like it just suffered and never had any decisions to make, had no choices, - I may have made it more rambling again,  unfortunately, - but its easily revert-able, -I'm a bit of a hypocrite there-  but my general point is that, certain tendencies  flatten out nuances, imo, make it all one-note.Sayerslle (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead
yes. I was being a bit hypocritical I suppose - the lead is way too long in my opinion thuogh, and lacks focus and the article, is getting pulled in different directions by different emphases -the rambling stuff about how horrible the Leninists were for example, and the way the post world war one situation in munich is treated - 'they shot at pacelli' etc looks like a kind of pov pushing emphasis - (Cornwell in 'Hitlers pope' used that period in munich history to look at some pretty anti-Semitic descriptions of the revolutionaries Pacelli was sending back to Rome-) - I tend to get over-influenced by the book I'm reading at the time - but whatever, I think the article is a bit of a mess and I don't know what to do - i'm going to work on  a sub-page and will not edit the article for a month or so, and then edit with more caution - one needs to have a good overview of the material in ones head to get the balance right between the lead and the different sections and just looking at the article it looks unbalanced and too long to me- maybe  a few subarticles could split off and leave the main article more concise and to the point. Sayerslle (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)