User talk:Mamalujo/Archive 4

The Catholic League
Mamalujo, I noticed you changed the title of the section "Censorship of Art" on the article pertaining to the Catholic League to "Chocolate Christ", arguing that it could not be censorship since there was no government involved. Actually, there are many forms of censorship, and most of them do not require a government. Self censorship is one example that is frequently dealt with in art. Another example of censorship is when a group of religious extremists tries to force a private enterprise to stop displaying a work of art they find inappropriate for purely theological reasons. I have therefore changed the title back.Frellthat (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

AN/I thread
I've opened an AN/I thread regarding your edits to Hitler's Pope. You'll find it here: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents Jayjg (talk) 01:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP warning on Hitler's Pope
Mamalujo, I wanted to comment here after seeing a thread on the Administrators' Noticeboard regarding your recent conduct ( here ). Some of this has been posted by others to your talk page, which you recently archived, but as another uninvolved administrator I wanted to restate the problem and emphasize what the situation is, from our perspective.

Wikipedia has several very important policies that you seem to be violating regularly with regards to the Hitler's Pope article and others. To summarize, these are our policy on biographies of living persons, our policy on not inserting original research into Wikipedia articles, our policy on requiring reliable published sources for controversial information, and our policy on not edit warring without discussion and consensus on talk pages.

To summarize what appears to be going on, you have repeatedly claimed that the author, John Cornwell, has (in your words) "recanted" allegations made in the book. That term is highly critical, and without proper references and sources is not appropriate for use in Wikipedia biographies of living persons, per the BLP policy.

You were repeatedly asked to provide reliable sources for the statement. Despite those requests, you continued to reinsert the information without (as far as I can see) providing any published independent reliable source which describes Cornwell's current stance as a "recantation".

Those requests put you on notice about the existince of our BLP policy, that the particular section you were adding was a violation of that policy without reliable sources, and included repeated requests for you to provide a reliable source for the claim so that this could be reviewed properly under our policies.

It's not entirely clear that you were properly notified that this is a serious infraction of Wikipedia conduct rules. Let me now do that.

WP:BLP is an extremely important policy, for a number of reasons including but not limited to avoiding libel claims against Wikipedia and avoiding the use of Wikipedia as a soapbox for attacks on living persons, a purpose which is completely contrary to the idea and policies of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. We report, we do not attack. We have no way internally to determine what is absolute truth on matters - we require that people provide citations and reliable sources, so that the intellectual pedigree of claims can be traced out to sources such as books, magazines, journals, or other sources with editorial policies and standards. We also are not the appropriate venue for new synthesis or new research or editorial work - encyclopedias report, they do not develop new intellectual threads.

Repeated wilful violations of the BLP policy are grounds for blocking of editing privileges on Wikipedia.

This is now at the attention of a number of Wikipedia's volunteer administrator staff, who are able to and empowered to make such blocks. Any of us can and will block your account from editing for limited time periods if you continue this activity.

If you continue much past that point, reasonable editors can conclude that you do not understand, argree with, or abide by our policies on these matters, and editors who are causing repeated problems and clearly will not follow the policy are usually permanently blocked from editing.

This is not an infringement on reporting such a claim, if it's been made in reliable sources such as other history books, journals, popular reporting on the issue, etc. If it has been so reported, including that language, then you clearly can provide citations for the sources that say that. All you have to do is provide that source information, preferably in discussions on article talk pages first, and then it becomes fair and policy compliant to use in the article (with full citation included to the reliable independent source for the information).

If you can provide such sources please do so.

If not, please review our policies and abide by them in future editing. We do not want to drive away productive contributors, but some areas, particularly biographies of living people, are extra sensitive topics and require extra vigilance for policy compliance in editing and adding information.

Now that you've been notified, if you chose to defy the policy and these warnings, you are aware of the penalties that will be applied. Hopefully we don't have to go there, but I want it clear that they are on the table for further violations.

One final note - you are allowed to delete (or archive) warnings on your talk page. However, removing or archiving a bunch of them in the middle of a dispute like this can be seen as rejecting the authority or validity of the criticisms or warnings. If you thumb your nose at the administrators' warnings and notifications, then proceed to violate the warnings, responses are usually harsher. Again, it's completely allowed to remove or archive - and that applies to this message as well as all the ones you archived a bit earlier. But please consider what impression you're leaving the administrators who are reviewing your actions. If you abide by the policies going forwards this is not an issue either way, of course.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, re Hitler's Pope, have you considered that the quote "I would now argue, in the light of the debates and evidence following Hitler's Pope, that Pius XII had so little scope of action that it is impossible to judge the motives for his silence during the war, while Rome was under the heel of Mussolini and later occupied by Germany." might only apply to events during WWII and not to the signing of the Reichskonkordat and the six years from then till the war commenced? PS Apologies if I've missed other quotes referring to the pre war period.  WereSpielChequers  (talk)  11:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Separation of church and state
FYI, I removed that source because using the same reference more than once in the same paragraph is unnecessary. --Illythr (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler
Sure a source was cited; but what is the source for Nazism being a religion such that it fits the definition of that template? It's a political philosophy if anything, surely? -- Rodhull andemu  18:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Atheist terrorism
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Closedmouth (talk) 05:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Establishment of religion
Hi Mamalujo, I just noticed you attempted to merge this article a few months ago and were reverted. To me it looks like drivel: as you know, the assertion it's founded on is that an establishment of religion is another word for a religious organisation, so the Catholic Church is an establishment of religion, an idea that I've never heard before and that certainly isn't widely held. This article could be merged with either established church or state religion; there's actually a consensus that the former be merged into the latter so I would suggest the article be moved into state religion. Anyway if you'd like to leave any comments here I'd be pleased to hear them. --Lo2u (T • C) 01:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Aktion T4 and euthanasia (February 2009)
May be you are interested in the recent "discussion" about modifications recently made on the section Aktion T4 and euthanasia of the  that article  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.25.66.51 (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

File:SpanishLeftistsShootStatueOfChrist.jpg
Hi. I wanted to let you know that I marked the image above with "no license" and "no source" tags. My concern is that I cannot seem to find an ultimate source for this image, or, indeed, any documented information on when and where it was take or by who. While it could very well be what it purports to be, a photo of Spanish Civil War Republicans shooting as a statue of Jesus Christ, there's also the distinct possibility that it's a picture which was staged as a deliberate piece of provocative propaganda by the Nationalists. Since the only place I can find the photo on the web is on various blogs, including the one you cited as your source, and since none of those blogs indicate where they found it or what its provenance is, I'm concerned that it may not be what it seems, and that we have really no evidence about it one way or the other. I would prefer that the image not be deleted, and that some information to validate its content were to be found and added to the photo's page, so I hope you have some thoughts about where such information might be found. I'll be glad to help out in doing that research if you have some direction you want to point me in. Please feel free to comment on my talk page or here. Thanks, and sorry for the hassle. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 05:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, information on the validity of the "historic" incidents purportedly portrayed might be sufficient. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 06:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As an example of the slipperiness of this image, this blog entry labels the shooters not as Republicans or Leftists but "Anarchists" - but, again, with no source. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 06:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, the incident is said to have taken place at the statue to the Sacred Heart of Jesus at El Cerro de los Ángeles in August 1936. According to the article on Spanish Wikipedia, which I translated with Google:"In the summer of 1936, Republican militiamen shot the image of Jesus and blew up the monument, reducing it to ruins." However, the official website says: "The Cerro de los Ángeles suffered heroically during religious persecution in Spain, among its devotees taking a large number of witnesses to the faith. The monument to the Sacred Heart of Jesus was destroyed on August 7, 1936, first Friday of the month." without mentioning the shooting incident or how it was destroyed or by who. So the provenance of the photo remains quite unclear. It would be so great to have a source. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 07:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is where my concern comes in. In this book, Performing Spanishness: history, cultural identity and censorship in the theatre of José María Rodríguez Méndez by Michael P. Thompson, it says "a notorious photograph of a firing squad of Republican miltiamen aiming at the statue was widely circulated by the Nationalists."  If this is true, how did the Nationalists come into possession of the photograph?  Surely such a photo, if it protrays what it is said to portray, had to have been taken by the other side?  Who staged the quite obviously stage photo, the Nationalists to put blame on the Republicans, or the Republicans to show their disrespect for Christianity and the Church?  Either is quite possible, but neither has any strong evidence to support it. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 07:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I was able to check today two general histories of the SCW: Anthony Beevor's The Battle for Spain and Gabriele Ranzato's The Spanish Civil War and neither of them mention the supposedly famous and historic incident. Beevor, however, does have some detail on a battle (partly involving tanks) which took place near Cerro de Los Angeles in 1936. At this point, barring some additional information, I think what we know is that during the course of the Spanish Civil War, the statue dedicated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus was destroyed, and then rebuilt by popular subscription after the war; we know that there was fighting near Cerro de Los Angeles, and we know that many people believe that the Republican dynamited the monument.  We also have a photograph, which was apparently distributed widely by the Nationalists, presumably for progadanda purposes, which purports to show Republican militiamen shooting at the statue.  Other then that, things seem quite fuzzy to me.  Unless something more definitive shows up, I don't see how this photograph can be kept when its source, its subject and its original purpose are all unknown. I hope that you will be able to come up with something more concrete than I've been able to find. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 23:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to keep the discussion in one place, I'm copying your response to me on my talk page here: "Thanks for all your thoughts regarding the image. I would have to disagree that their is any basis for deleting it or even doubting is authenticity. The fact that it was widely circulated by Nationalists in now way means it was staged.  Is there any credible source which says that its authenticity is doubtful.  I do recall that one of the histories which I read and used as a source in my edits on related articles used the photo.  I will locate it.  In the meantime, unless there is some credible and reliable source which casts real doubt on the image, I can see no reason why it should not be used.  That such an image would have been captured is not surprising.  Desecration of religious sites was widespread. The the article on the Spain's Red Terror. Mamalujo (talk) 05:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)" Unfortunately, at this point there's not even any strong evidence that the "incident" depicted actually took place -- which means that if the image isn't deleted (and, as I said above, I'd prefer that it not be), it can't be used as visual proof of "red terror" (or any other kind of terror for that matter). Some verification of some sort, either of the incident or of the image, would prevent that. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 05:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Mother Teresa a humanitarian?
Mamalujo, I don't know what you mean by fringe. I know it is not the view of most Catholics, but here in the UK the idea that she is not a humanitarian is commonly held as the result of TV and press exposure of the limited medical care she offered to dying people on the basis that suffering is good for the soul. That there is widespread dispute in the mass media over her role suggests to me that to describe her as a 'humanitarian' is clearly not a neutral point of view appropriate to Wikipedia. Haldraper (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Mamalujo: re your message on reverting edits, it would be helpful if you could put forward some argument/evidence that her being a humanitarian conforms to the NPOV policy of Wikipedia rather than your viewpoint as a Catholic.Haldraper (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Spanish Constitution and persecution of Catholics
Mamalujo, in the edit summary to one of your most recent edits to the Spanish Civil War you refer to an excellent document by Stanley Payne but you spoil it by making an interpretation of it - against Wikipedia NPOV guidelines. Payne states "Catholic rights" whereas you interpret it as "rights of Catholics". As a lawyer, I'm sure you can see the very significant difference. I'm sure you can find plenty of other sources out there which interpret events according to your viewpoint, and when you do, please add them to that and any other relevant article. In the meantime, please do not "explain" what reputable sources actually. Thank you.--Technopat (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see my apology on article talk page.--Technopat (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

File:SpanishLeftistsShootStatueOfChrist.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:SpanishLeftistsShootStatueOfChrist.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)