| Revision as of 12:00, 22 December 2005 editBengalski (talk | contribs)875 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:28, 11 January 2006 edit undoRobert McClenon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers197,145 edits Response by McClenon to BengalskiNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==Comment by Bengalski== | |||
| Maybe I shouldn't be making any comment without first reading through the extended history of this dispute, but one thing strikes me so strongly I felt it needed a comment. | Maybe I shouldn't be making any comment without first reading through the extended history of this dispute, but one thing strikes me so strongly I felt it needed a comment. | ||
| Line 20: | Line 22: | ||
| I don't think there's a Vatican organised conspiracy at work in Misplaced Pages, but I do think we have a number of conscientious catholic supporters at work on this and other pages who are slanting the entries to favour the church. I think it is important that EffK's case be viewed in this context. It seems that EffK set out to try and redress this balance, and I don't think there's any wrong in that. Without having read through all the discussions I don't know if he's always gone about it the right way, but I can see he was acting from good motivations and from the heart, and it isn't easy fighting that kind of uphill battle. I think the bias being perpetrated by his opponents is a far more serious problem than any alleged misconduct on EffK's part.] 18:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC) | I don't think there's a Vatican organised conspiracy at work in Misplaced Pages, but I do think we have a number of conscientious catholic supporters at work on this and other pages who are slanting the entries to favour the church. I think it is important that EffK's case be viewed in this context. It seems that EffK set out to try and redress this balance, and I don't think there's any wrong in that. Without having read through all the discussions I don't know if he's always gone about it the right way, but I can see he was acting from good motivations and from the heart, and it isn't easy fighting that kind of uphill battle. I think the bias being perpetrated by his opponents is a far more serious problem than any alleged misconduct on EffK's part.] 18:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC) | ||
| NB: Just looked at the Pius XII page again and it's got worse. Now there is a whole section dedicated just to quotes praising Pacelli 'a great servant of peace', 'filled with compassion and magnanimity' etc., with not one against (the section is fittingly titled 'selected quotes'). Is this encyclopaedic or NPOV?] 11:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC) Sorry I should have read it more carefully - the current version now has 2 anti-Pacelli quotes as against 15 for.] 12:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC) | NB: Just looked at the Pius XII page again and it's got worse. Now there is a whole section dedicated just to quotes praising Pacelli 'a great servant of peace', 'filled with compassion and magnanimity' etc., with not one against (the section is fittingly titled 'selected quotes'). Is this encyclopaedic or NPOV?] 11:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC) Sorry I should have read it more carefully - the current version now has 2 anti-Pacelli quotes as against 15 for.] 12:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC) | ||
| ===Response by McClenon to Bengalski=== | |||
| Bengalski and Durova both raise valid issues as to content. I mostly agree with them. Six months ago, when I began editing the articles in question, I also thought that balance needed to be provided for NPOV. I still think so. However, it will be nearly impossible to balance the articles as long as EffK's conduct on talk pages continues. The content issues cannot be addressed constructively as long as the talk page abuse continues. I have repeatedly tried to ask EffK to summarize what he wanted changed, and have been answered with insults and lengthy rants about suppression of the truth. | |||
| I agree that there are content issues, but the conduct issues about the flooding of talk pages with incomprehensible posts make it nearly impossible to discuss the content coherently. ] 15:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:28, 11 January 2006
Comment by Bengalski
Maybe I shouldn't be making any comment without first reading through the extended history of this dispute, but one thing strikes me so strongly I felt it needed a comment.
EffK is accused of "engaging in an extended effort to use Misplaced Pages to present a theory of Roman Catholic Church complicity in and active support of Adolf Hitler. This effort has involved personal attacks on other editors, accusations of bad faith (including that other editors are acting as agents of the Vatican), and using article talk pages as a soapbox."
There may in fact not be any agents of the vatican here, but looking at a page like that on Pius XII you'd be forgiven for doubting. There is a very strong positive bias on that, and other, pages dedicated to Catholic leaders. If EffK has a POV he is pushing in the other direction, it is more than outweighed.
Just to look at the Pius XII article, which has been one of the scenes of the dispute: in general the 'controversy' over his stance towards the Nazis is indeed acknowledged throughout the article, but there is far more virtual ink spilled to deny it than report it, and the language is one-sided. Eg.:
- the first paragraph kicks off ascribing laudable motives to Pacelli as 'working to promote peace'
- there are various references to Pacelli condemning the Nazis, whilst pro-Nazi comments EffK cites (such as the one he provided from a book by Mowrer, or any of those in John Cornwell's book) are out. Similarly we have Goebbels diary entries attacking the church, and a completely unsourced Hitler quote, but not eg. Ciano praising him as a man the fascists could work with.
- these alleged comments from Pacelli are virtually unsourced. There is no source for the 'private letter' mentioned. Another is from an unconfirmable private conversation mentioned in a 'Catholic League' publication - which doesn't strike me as necessarily too reliable.
- the language is hardly neutral: a critic 'falsely portrayed' him; 'there is no doubt' that jews were 'bravely' saved, while there is no mention of those he is accused of giving up to the Nazis; we're told more than once how the pope has been 'widely praised'
- John Cornwell, the best known critic of Pacelli, gets half a para - immediately followed by 2 1/2 paras of the response from pro-Pacelli historians and the Vatican's own enquiry
- there are references to ODESSA at the bottom of the page, which suggests to me that at some point someone may have included information on the accusations of Pacelli's involvement in sheltering Nazis after the war - but if so these points have also been removed from the page itself. There is a mention of the ODESSA issue, but without any acknowledgement that Pacelli is claimed to have been involved himself, and the case is dismissed as the "almost 'mythic' ratlines".
I don't think there's a Vatican organised conspiracy at work in Misplaced Pages, but I do think we have a number of conscientious catholic supporters at work on this and other pages who are slanting the entries to favour the church. I think it is important that EffK's case be viewed in this context. It seems that EffK set out to try and redress this balance, and I don't think there's any wrong in that. Without having read through all the discussions I don't know if he's always gone about it the right way, but I can see he was acting from good motivations and from the heart, and it isn't easy fighting that kind of uphill battle. I think the bias being perpetrated by his opponents is a far more serious problem than any alleged misconduct on EffK's part.Bengalski 18:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
NB: Just looked at the Pius XII page again and it's got worse. Now there is a whole section dedicated just to quotes praising Pacelli 'a great servant of peace', 'filled with compassion and magnanimity' etc., with not one against (the section is fittingly titled 'selected quotes'). Is this encyclopaedic or NPOV?Bengalski 11:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC) Sorry I should have read it more carefully - the current version now has 2 anti-Pacelli quotes as against 15 for.Bengalski 12:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Response by McClenon to Bengalski
Bengalski and Durova both raise valid issues as to content. I mostly agree with them. Six months ago, when I began editing the articles in question, I also thought that balance needed to be provided for NPOV. I still think so. However, it will be nearly impossible to balance the articles as long as EffK's conduct on talk pages continues. The content issues cannot be addressed constructively as long as the talk page abuse continues. I have repeatedly tried to ask EffK to summarize what he wanted changed, and have been answered with insults and lengthy rants about suppression of the truth.
I agree that there are content issues, but the conduct issues about the flooding of talk pages with incomprehensible posts make it nearly impossible to discuss the content coherently. Robert McClenon 15:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)