User talk:Scout of truth

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Scout of truth! I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing helpme at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Marek. 69  talk  23:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

Franco's Spain
Hi Scout, I note your dialogue with Sayerslle on the talk page of Pius XII and thought I might give you some pointers if you are unfamiliar with this particular subject area. Since the article is primarily about the period of his pontificate I would suggest reading up on the 1953 Concordat which was agreed between the Vatican and Franco's Spain. It stated that Catholicism would be the sole religion of Spain along with a host of other things which probably seem very strange to middle-of-the road faithful Catholics today. Unfortunately when I last looked the articles dealing with Franco's Spain on Wikipedia were very misleading to say the least, i.e subject to editing by ostensibly Roman Catholics but look more like people who are using a religious platform to further a political agenda and using the appropriate techniques. For example I doubt if you will find on Wikipedia that Franco's Spain in the post-war years was excluded for a while from the United Nations for the explicit reason that it was "fascist state". The academic consensus would seem to be that far more people died during the White Terror (i.e. the era that Pius's pontificate partly covers) than during the Red Terror so if you wish to expand the context I guess a key point will be to explain the Church's reasons in signing a Concordat with a regime that was in the process of exterminating it's opponents. It was probably not coincidence that the Concordat was delayed until 1953 when the United States decided that the offer of naval bases in Spain, as the Cold War was starting to freeze-up, outweighed the evils it perceived in coming to terms with what it only recently regarded as a fascist state. I would also suggest adding some kind of comment pointing out that the theological mindset that underpinned the Church's diplomacy is of its era and not the way she conducts her affairs today. It's also unfair to vilify Pius XII as being the "baddy" as he was only doing what he was familiar with in terms of how the Church then interacted with the world. He believed he was doing the right thing based on existing practices. It was largely the era of the totalitarian regimes, most especially in areas such as anti-Semitism and the Holocaust, that led to deep reflection that culminated in the decrees of the Second Vatican Council and the changes that were brought about. It would seem that a for a tiny minority of Roman Catholics, who are grossly overrepresented on Wikipedia, that the old ways were much better but maybe your attempt to provide greater context will help them to understand what it is they are turning the clock back to and why the Church turned away from it through the hard reality of what happened in the 20th century. If you are interested in the mindsets that prevailed during this era, not the Church or religion in particular, then I would recommend a little book published in 1951 I am part way through reading "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer which can justly be described as a modern American classic. Yt95 (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Howdy, and thanks for your post. I must concede that my area of expertise lies elsewhere, and I will certainly investigate the sources you suggested. However my discussion had less to do with the validity of his claims and more to do with it being out of place. Had it been located elsewhere It certainly would have been fine. However it was located within a portion of the article detailing his election. I expect that it would have been better placed somewhere relating to foreign policy.

Once again I thank you for chiming in and taking the time to write this substantial message.

Scout of truth (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)