text:
Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive 14

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See How to archive a talk page.)

This archive covers from 15 July to 29 August.

Apostolic Presence in the German Synagogue, 19 Aug 2005
Upon Benedict XVI's visit to only the second synagogue ever visited by a pontiff , a demand by one outspoken Jewish representative/leader for  this pontiff to open the  wartime vatican archives is widely reported by the media today.

This leader would do well to ask for the archives relating to 1932 and 1933 to be opened, as these would relate to both the wartime pontiff's machinations against the holy magisterium and those of his predecessor , Pius XI.

I have pointed out that both  pontiffs availed however of purely verbal instruction in the most controversial matters. Yet the reference to a letter from Cardinal Sec. of State Pacelli  relating the wishes of Pius XI to the  Centre Party Germany should be recorded from May 1932. These related to the papal wish to see Hitler empowered.

I repeat that these matters of  interference in democracy  at that time represent the most serious challenge possible to the Church, which must  repair the resulting  fracture of the magisterium. This is far more than a question of turning a blind eye  to war-time  genocide - it is the overturning of the divine order  both here on earth and  above in the realm of divinity.

I refer all readers to the copious sourcing and exegesis undertaken upon this gravest matter, to be found in archives  here, on Theology of Pope Benedict XVI on Pope Pius XII and on Hitler's Pope as well as the Centre Party   discussions. Readers should understand that prior to magisterial repair, all of this is still being obscured, and that here on the Wikipedia every attempt is made to hide and to neuter those facts that are known. This is a purely misplaced defensive reaction, a minor reflection of the vatican's inability hitherto to assume its true magisterial responsibility. I would urge the pontiff to avail of those sanctions which exist within canonical law, recognise the  cataclysmic  error , and  recognise the  self-excommunication of these two previous pontiffs mentioned. See under section discussion Canonical Law Hitler's Pope and Pius XII. Urge your priest now to demand repair to this upending of  heaven and earth .Famekeeper 21:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Ann Heneghan in good faith should study the edit  under my strong contention upon the Hitler's Pope page, and see that the user in question is closely followed . It is  shocking that the WP is not able to follow published source  , but purely symptomatic of all the actions which I have throughout protested  . Certain users are acting  contrary to the principles of the Wikipedia , and something should be done . As arbitration is not possible  , or rather since arbitrtation  has no power , locking of these article would be more appropriate  . Lulu of the Lotus Eaters  may be beginning to realise just how pernicious  the situation is become , others should ask themselves if they can accept clear violations  without protest.

 * The pontiff should accept canonical law and repair the scandal  referred to in the Cologne Synagogue  .  Since this reference was publicly made, it should be included in the article , by whichever editor of good faith  , is my answer  .Famekeeper 10:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I suggest we simply block this trollish user (check out user page and request for comment page). Any edit he makes to this article should probably be reverted. 83.109.191.234 02:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The Synagogue and Pope Benedict XVI
Repeating a point from his synagogue visit, the pope said that "there can be no dialogue at the expense of truth." He said efforts for closer relations must be pursued "in fidelity to the dictates of one's conscience."

Progress has been made between peoples, but "much more remains to be done," Benedict said at the synagogue. "We must come to know one another much more and much better."

The visit did bring out some of the troubled history between Catholics and Jews.

In welcoming the pope, synagogue president Abraham Lehrer urged Benedict to fully open the Vatican's World War II archives — a period during which some Jews claim Pope Pius XII did not do enough to stave off the Holocaust. The Vatican denies that and has begun releasing some documents. Taken from- []
 * and

Jewish leader Abraham Lehrer called on the Vatican to open up its war time archives so the world can understand the controversy surrounding the Pope at that time, Pius XII, who many claim turned a blind eye to the atrocities carried out against Jews.

"You grew up in Germany during a terrible time," Lehrer said. "We not only see in you the head of the Catholic Church but also a German who is aware of his historical responsibility."

Benedict was a member of the Hitler Youth at a time when membership was compulsory.

"On her lower arm you can see the number with which she was tattooed in the concentration camp,” Lehrer said referring to his elderly mother. “In 1944 in Auschwitz she had neither the strength nor the power of imagination to think that one day in 2005 her son would officially greet the Pope in a Cologne synagogue."

Taken from - []

 * I'm convinced, but I wonder how we could word this into the article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

To explain my reverts: I'm not opposed to including this but only against including this detail over against all the other stuff left out - both from the synagoge visit as from the Muslim talk as from the WYD, which after all was the prime event of the visit. If we can elaborate more on all these points wihout inflating the article (after all, there will be more journeys in the future), then I'd agree. Otherwise, I'm afraid, it looks like pet issue pushing to me. Str1977 22:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Leave it where I put it, as there it will cause  less heartache that where it should be , which is in an analysis of the outstanding issue . I resent Str's  suggesting I'm dishonest  in his editing description . I'm pleased you seem saner . This was reported  throughout Europe, and only the heads listening to bad music in a mudless field didnt get the message . Abraham Lehrer made this  come to everyone's attention  . I tell the  bosses again, listen up or get it worse later. Do yourselves a favour and come clean . No one says old Pius XII wasn't devoted to  all knds of good and holiness, but that equally doesn't mean he didn't break the  magisterium . Str and his ilk are close to actual contumate sin here in this cover-up policy and will  have to answer to their Christ  when they do fly out of the mud  . They know what to do , as you should if you have read the canonical discussion Str  dragged out of me .  It is quite plain - the  canonical offence was such that they (pius XI, XII and  Prelate Ludwig Kaas and the catholic Franz von Papen , (and indeed it would seem  most of the German hierarchy )all excommunicated themselves . Canon Law stipulates that the two pontiffs must be dug up and removed from their presence under St. Peter's  Basilica , where they are  destroying the truth of Jesus . There is no forgiveness for this heresy  under latae sententiae , only repair of the scandal by acknowledgement , and  removal from the sanctum  a.s.a.p . Leave it where it is , which is where it is true : BXVI's Apostolic missionis to repair the scandal  : romans 3, 8 - thou shalt not do evil to achieve a good  is the magisterium . This Str- is being rude to the survivors of the Holocaust what you have added on this page . I'm deeply revolted old fellow. It is outrageous ad hominem  and outrageous morality - you evidently didn't learn any contrition on the banks of that slimy river . Famekeeper

 * The only reasonable thing I could suggest is perhaps having a paragraph about the World Youth Day and this meeting in a summary paragraph, then fork the article where this is discussed in it's entirity. While trying to call people sinners for trying to do what you say is considered a personal attack and we do not allow those on Wikipedia at all. The issue is important, but I believe we should report on what was made in the press. While, I admit, I have not heard about this at all in the States, it might have been heavily covered in Europe or in Germany, where WYD took place. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm quite astonished. I provided a reasonable argument (and no ad hominem) for my reverts. But Mr FK answers with a diatribe of his wrong canonical reasoning (including his - dare I repeat it - impious calling for digging up graves (this should be only taken referring to this "request")), dipping into issue of a religion he himself - as he said - has no part in, complaints about alleged personal attacks (when in fact I said nothing of the kind), complaints about alleged rudeness to Shoa survivors/victims (when in fact he was minimising somewhere else the importance of Jews as victims).
 * As for the word "pet issue pushing" - it is true that FK has basically posted two things on WP:
 * 1) his "Church is the culprit of Nazism" and
 * 2) Spanish four-letter words (only recently)
 * As for the press. I have not heard of this in Germany (but I was only one of these "heads listening to bad music in a mudless field" that "didnt get the message")
 * Judging from a quick internet search of leading German papers, I find nothing on that: "Spiegel" (http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,370478,00.html) doesn't have it (and their Church-hatred is well known), the FAZ (http://www.faz.net/s/Rub21DD40806F8345FAA42A456821D3EDFF/Doc~E1B5457BA5AE74A7C909B9AED0F1576EE~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html) doesn't have it and the "Welt" (http://www.welt.de/data/2005/08/19/762344.html) does quote Mr Lehrer but without including the statement in question.
 * That doesn't mean that he didn't say it. On the contrary I think he said it but I guess it was one sentence in a longer speech which included the request as well as positive evaluations of initiatives of reconcoliation. Hence, a reference exclusively to this one sentence is giving a wrong picuture of the whole occasion. Hence my complaints.
 * Str1977 23:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I only posted an RfC against Famekeeper after he had repeatedly made the bizarre statement that canon law demand that Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII be exhumed so that they could stand trial. He has yet to cite a section that refers to a moral requirement to insult the dead in this fashion.  Robert McClenon 05:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * See below.Famekeeper

 * Hm....and I have heard of Spiegel before...and it seems it was not covered much inside Germany. But, if this is a true debate, a true issue, we have to present it somehow in a NPOV way and without bringing in original research. We, should not, discuss of what should happen, we should discuss on what actually happened. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I have to explain-im sorry about the length.... Frankly the insult and lack of good faith in this particular discussion began with the tag "if it's true" . But you will note that Str did not post into the discussion at all to justify his removal, has now re-removed something of world importance (hence the reporting ) and continues in the ad hominem attack on my good faith . I have always found this editor to be damantly trying to claim that all sources I use , I misinterpret, even when I quote verbatim, he knows that I find it more ridiculous than he does to continue revert war . The fact is that in the WP  situation , where users do not know one another, that people who adfhere to a faith obviously can stand together. he would get Robert mcClenon in here behind him , and they'd together grind me down. You will note that my editing of this is done in good faith, using sources , but that nevertheless protection of the Church is far more important than truth . I have been outraged on many occasions , and Str will seem to be reasonable , only to surreptitiously revert  (as does McClenon , and I advise you zscout to follow the discussion on his Rfc ). Hitherto I have not found someone with the balls to help me save the WP from these insidious  edits , not even jimbo himself, tho that is understandable . In this present case  however you will see that  no interjection is justifiable  because Str finds a clear logical reasoning : this is a minor detail , on a par with nonsense or whatever said to the other faiths , therefore he can claim the right to remove . However of course neither of the other faiths he mentions  come near to having  this clear beef  that they stood out  for a demand . Hence it is not the same.

 * I feel you in America should know these things, this thing . Just because Str, who acts as a filter against trouble for the Catholic Church , does not know it does not make me a liar  pushing a pet issue . I push this issue , as he calls it, because  I have found a very complete  set of corroboration for the general thesis of collaboration by these popes with  Nazism . Str didn't exist until I began posting these  facts on the WP , and has  only appeared to relieve the resulting pressure .  I suppose that If I ask you Str if you actually are  a priest , you would be bound not to return a denial .  I have asked you if you are paid to do this  censoring , and you denied that , but I believe priests are paid well , and so I suppose you couldn't have denied the truth  then... I have accused you blatantly of acting as an agent of the vatican by your continuous defence in this argument . I note that you have never denied being an agent of the vatican despite these accusations . I am still amazed at the manner in which you (and now McClenon too) have constantly rubbished  historians I have quoted-and I dont mean  John Cornwell but Shirer and  Wheeler-Bennett and Toland and Klemperer . You are as much of an outrage to me as I evidently am to you.

 * As for my appearance. I first signed in (I edited some stuff before that) after our current Pope was elected, and contributed a bit to his article. I had never heard of you, or looked into Pius XII or Centre party, when some barely comprehensible comment, unrelated to Benedict, appeared on this talk page. That was your "Question of the Law", cross-posted everywhere. This annoyed me and I reacted to this post and had a look into Kaas, Centre, Pius XII, Brüning. Which got you shouting.
 * Also it is not true that I have only posted on Pius-related articles. I've had a hand in Abortion etc, Merovingians, German Monarchs etc and more - well you can see for yourself on my contributions list.
 * Good day, Mr FK.

 * I'm sorry Zscout, if you don't understand what is going on : this is the pontifical battle against liberalism, here , now , on the Wikipedia , and just try taking a look at the way the various articles were before I came along . I am hounded outrageously by this man , pretty much off the WP , which is why I appealed to Jimbo . Now as far as I know Zscout, you are another such bent user-I do very much hope not .  If you are not you will be happy to hear that , given your sanity as a rationally motivated editor , that I will be happy for this detail so called to be inserted somewhere else on the page . However as this is only the second (as I think this reference to st Peter's synagogue visit is stupid given that Jesus was in and out of them all the time) -only the second visit by a pontiff in 2000 years, and the president of the synagogue demands  view of secretive archives  held by this upstart faith  concerning it's culpability against the earlier faith- I consider this rather more than a detail and thereby completely worthy in our secular world of inclusion upon the WP . Now don't you, Zscout? And if you do will you revert this user's flagrant  action here and now prior to positioning elsewhere in the article.  see where you get on that-please try for the love of justice. Again I am forced to rant and filibuster so called to justify a short but awkward truth . I am totally alone in this , and were it possible for me to be completely erased , I would be so erased . howver fortunately the evidence of erasure remains. the Church is well aware of the Wiki software dangert, but they are  stymied by this last capacity . My pet issue is that as yet I have not rolled over and succumbed . Look at Jimbo's discussion page to understand the full import of this , in fact remind him that I'm still getting beaten up down here in his frontline trenches . Please, Zscout , be a human being  and help me  just on this one revert  which would take you 2 minutes. Please understand that the Synagogue president was pushing this important issue, not me Please understand  that what is labelled my pet issue is none other than why members of all our families died- that I ma putting the history straight , and that I have always sourced correctly- I stand by every source, even the canonicalone's , and yes , the church in the person of str are trying to block these sources from history. Not research but in the library, in the schools , evreywhere , but not allowed  here in public and  easily google-able .  Please understand that the Synagogue president was pushing this important issue, not me .....Famekeeper

 * No, FK, the synagogue president did not push your issue. He does not go around Cologne's streets shouting this sentence, like you do with your issue on WP. He just made this one remark in the context of a longer speech which included many other things. But you pick this one and include it into an article. This is what I call pet pushing.

 * Come off it- no Jewish leader ever did this to a pontiff before-didn't partly have a chance, did it because the pontiff is a german pontiff, served in the war , albeit as a boy. He's no boy now, he's ex-commander of the Inquisition or CDF , he knows the truth . You are wrong- this was a most shocking confrontation , a huge embarrassment , and one that opens the crack in the door that very much publicly wider . Tell your priest-if you need one , to call for rectification of the scandal, as that is the only salvation for the pontiff . But NO ! You can't because this stupid infallibility issue boxes you in and you cannot admit to error . No wonder Pius XII  used infallibility- he knew the code, knew he was sunk spiritu-canonically , and knew that  thereafter never could he be divested of his contumate error . But it is bad for christians , bad for the church  , bad for christ.

 * Your argument based on my one remark "if" is quite overblown.
 * I haven't argued ad hominem. But you again are in danger of falling back into including me into your conspiracy fantasies. Please stop this before it's too late.

 * That in itself is ad hominem, Abraham Lehrer asked for the archives to be open  to uncover the full story . Too late for what do you mean - is that a threat . I may tell you that I have posted insurance.

 * And also please spare Zscout your condesenscion ("I'm sorry Zscout, if you don't understand what is going on"). I think he's old enough to think for themselves like many other editors. Why is it that hardly anyone complained about my edits in these pages and mostly any issues could be settled quickly.
 * But I must warn Zscout as well. FK means business. If you don't agree with him on the last tittle of his edit, you will suffer the fate of Robert McClenon, who came in into our discussion as leaning towards FK's side but had to endure distrust and abuse from FK.
 * Again, FK, please respond to my argument I made four times (twice as edit summary, twice on this talk page) - do not hide behind conspiracy fantasies.
 * Str1977 00:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I answered that below-it aint a detail like you claim, that's why its plastered all over the shop as my sources showed . It was widely reported because of a) the visit and b) the demand for Church glasnost.

That should read "Church is the culprit for nazism", actually. And Church no, nor church which with small c means the flock. Church means the bosses. And within the bosses there are two factions, vatican 2 and the traditionalists referred to as being pyramidal :this is the faction of JPII and now BXVI, who are going to destroy the church with adherence to infallibility and monarchical structure. Perhaps I should let them go ahead un-molested? .....Famekeeper

 * Let me get this straight....you want my help but call me a bent user at the same time. No way you are getting my help. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Thats an easy way out for you, I said if you are a bent user , then you wouldnt help. Easy way out then, though  surely you have a conscience . Never mind , you didnt help hitherto , so why would you now ? Good is as good does , good faith is as good faith does . Famekeeper

 * I didn't mean to sound condescending- Zscout hasn't been in this huge  loop of discourse you and I have fought in. If you have taken me as assuming you are bent, well I also capitalised that I very much hoped not . it doesnt seem like you want to take this as eriously as the  media who reported it, or the president of the synagogue . you probably think I write too much too. I did it in good faith, but evidently it is not wise. Too many words , but its a cop out really innit , uh ?  Never mind  , all will be revealed  in time , and if you don't touch me , you won't catch the disease so quick . Dis-ease .Famekeeper

FK, how about - just for a start - let me go unmolested. Then maybe you can let all Catholics go unmolested and stop calling for our "control". Also please stop covering this by false distinctions, which are not even true in the English language despite the prevalent "capitalisation" issues. Str1977 00:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Let you go where- of course you are very exhausted. But you are also very busy on WP rectifying the scheme of things . Must have been a long flight or something . Sorry I try to help you with the language, won't again. But let you go where- No !- because I ,who am just an unwashed, unbaptised  member of this species wish to help you poor misguided  one's , whose very fabric has been torn by your leaders . C'mon  Str no one doubts in history what I write , what I write is what they have already doubted. You can get some rest , but  its still you and me . I get more use out of you  on the WP than trying to bleat about removing you . You might get sacked by the faith at this rate for being incapable of the argument and making a fool of the faith , by not succeeding in YOUR overturning of history .  The magisterium lies in ruins here, and you want also to leave the history in ruins . All that is happening is that just like the WP, history does not forget . Famekeeper

 * I end by explaining that this argument is here purely because of the revolution epitomised by the Wikipedia and the internet . Eventually everything will be known and understood and forgiven , and then we will all be better off . Wars which create so much real suffering will hopefully not suck in us poor  souls, and we shall join with the Cherubim and the Seraphim , with the spirit in this Earth and with the Trees  and  with the  Fishes and the Animals and  with the Insects and the Birds , we  the Mankind shall rejoin the station of all life  in a great  disembodied  freedom .-St Thomas . It could be Nuclear War , so if you fear this freedom , pay good attention to history , and get you glasnost quick  . I who represent the side of secularism , call like the  Pope should, that we should repent . He who claims this leadership , should repent first . Famekeeper 01:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * No, FK. It is not true that "no one in history" (I guess you mean in the field of history) what you write. I guess you would even have a hard time finding many who would agree with you. Probably you would shout at them as you did at Robert or Zscout.
 * The magisterium cannot be shattered by anyone not following it. That has happened countless times before.
 * I don't mind you bringing up capitalisation issues for the article text, since it is supposed to be clear English. (However, standards at talk pages are more lenient), though I don't like the whole thing. But it's part of the language. There are things I don't like about the German language too (e.g. the third person "Sie" as a formal address over against second person "vous" or "you" in French or English resp.), but I have to bear with it. My complaint here was that your claimed distinction does not exist. The actually one is: "Church" = the Church = RC Church (or Church of England) vs. "church" = a church.
 * I prefer New Heaven and New Earth to disembodiment, but never mind.
 * Str1977 19:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * It ia nice (ie small or fine) difference as in the difference between Catholic and catholic . Catholic relates to the official teaching say, and catholic to someone who follows that as best they can . The Church relates to the formal hierarchical body , and church relates to the body of following faithful . The vatican as it relates to an area is a small v , but as it relates to the orders emanating from the Hoy See , then V. All of this pales in importance compared to sticking with or sundering  romans 3,8 .Famekeeper

 * Mr FK, I appreciate your capitalisation efforts, but what you write is not true.
 * "Catholic" refers to Roman Catholic, whereas "catholic" is the word in the literal meaning: universal, as it is used by non-German Protestants using the Nicean creed or the Anglican Church, or to catholics outside of the Roman church, e.g. Anglo catholics.
 * The "Church" is referring to one specific body, mostly the RCC, sometimes the particular state church (England, Sweden, Scotland (but that'd be Kirk), or maybe the Church in general that Protestants consider to be invisible. "church" however means "a church", either a body or a building.
 * I don't know about this regarding Vatican vs vatican. A native speaker could help.
 * Anyway, this is only an issue in regard to the English language (and sometimes taken to absurd extremes, e.g. "Truth" vs. "truth"). A native speaker could help to clear the last one up. Of course you are right that this pales in regard to other issues, no matter how we see them. That was my point from the beginning: I don't want to argue about capitalisation.
 * Str1977 12:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The word "Vatican" is a proper noun referring to a palace in the Vatican City, and therefore is used as a figure of speech for the papal bureaucracy that has its headquarters there. Proper nouns are capitalized in English.  No amount of attempting to argue that "vatican" is ever correct will make it correct.  Since Famekeeper cites Cornwell, who is English and a native speaker of the English language, I challenge him to find a single use of "vatican" in anything written by Cornwell.  On this point, as on most points of capitalization, there is no difference between British English and American English.  Robert McClenon 12:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Words to avoid: claim
I just noticed a revert for claim. This bit of POV is covered in the Wikipedia: how to Words to avoid.

If you can cite evidence that there is reason to believe that Pope Benedict XVI has lied about his lack of Nazi fervor, it could validate the use of the word "claim", otherwise it doesn't belong. patsw 23:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Is this post intended to help the editors in their discussion on how to improve the article on Pope Benedict XVI? Ann Heneghan (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Personally, whatever those popes have done is not going to reflect on Benedict at all. Plus, most of the papal papers and notes are usually burned after the pope dies. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * This post was intended to justify reference within the article to the concerns expressed in the Cologne Synagogue . I am quite sure that any ayyempt by me to insert such, will be jumped upon , therefore I post  also to explain to interested editors and readers that the situation exists in reality . I am still most disturbed by the un-academic defensive faith editing of all these pages , and I refer  to my qualification of a certain user's actions against the  Hitler's Pope article . User Zscout could be right , however he could be wrong , given the close  involovement with Cardinal Ratzinger throughout the beatification process for Pius XII .  Zscout is  right that personal papers are burnt(though BXVI took it upon himself not to accede to Pope John Paul II's express will that this be done ).

See above for corroborating links justifying my re-inclusion of this fact. Do not vandalise or abuse good faith by removal. Famekeeper 22:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Famekeeper, what is the news value or encyclopedic value of this request by Abraham Lehrer? Was he the first person or the first rabbi to make such a request?  And if it was so widely reported why isn't there a link in the article to verify it?

 * It is not the first time that someone has been mistaken that the Vatican has hidden the papers of Pope Pius XII from the public. On the contrary, scholars have had access to the papers of Pope Piux XII after the start of World War II.  You can just see how many books have been published based on the examination of these archives inside the Vatican by looking at Amazon's description of the recent books.  Even one of the Pope's harshest critics, John Cornwell, was given access and acknowledges it on page viii of Hitler's Pope which you including in that article.  (I'm sure some wiki-copyright-cop will investigate if the length of your extract violates fair use of Cornwell's copyrighted text by the way.)

 * I've spoken with the authors of two book on Pope Pius and discussed with them how they obtained access to the papers. The archives exist and are accessible but what's not been completed is the task of indexing it which will be completed in a few years.

 * As you can see from this Washington Times article even the United States goverment has not yet released all of its World War II archives, and the United States has a lot more resources to manage and index archives. Pehaps when we see a link, Lehrer's request of the Pope regarding the 1939-1945 archives might be regarded as factual — but not every fact belongs in the Wikipedia.  What's unique about it?  What's significant about this request beyond similar ones made earlier by the Anti-Defamation League, for example? Is Lehrer's premise correct — that the Vatican hiding the archives?  At least, the ADL correctly acknowleges that the archives have been opened and is asking for more.  This is my good faith reason to remove it. patsw 00:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi Patsw, welcome to the problem - We can start all friendly . I am pleased that you bring out your concerns upon the discussion pages rather than like some editors, who simply rub out that which they consider offensive . Let us please keep it so.

My understanding is that Cornwell was allowed access to papers concerning the early 20's  and to the wartime era, but not to the lte 20's and the 30's. Access meaning he could ask for particular papers. My understanding is that papers concerning the actual war years have been in part made available.

My understanding is that Abraham Lehrer's request was the first such public face-to-face request, and therefore highly noteworthy  for no other reason. My understanding is that archives are  not open, but whether they  are available for the war years or not , the news reports  said that  Lehrer himself thought they were not and that was the basis of his request.

The article Hitler's Pope was constrained  by other users to be no more than a Cornwell thesis, which is ridiculous. I was forced to accept this, and their constraint was the only reason that I firstly transcribed Cornwell to avoid copyright prtoblems. However since I was then serially accused of being a liar-type, I was further forced to use the original. I believe that fair educational use, given the enormous  educational property of this organ the WP , is necessitated. Your contention and warning may be justifiable on copyright, but morally it would be interesting to follow. I would doubt that either vanity Fair or Cornwell himself would object, given the morality and the educational need for balance. If you wish to focus upon this issue, you might  surmise from my involvement that a bust-up on this one issue would not serve the best interests of either the WP or of  the Catholic Church : it would become a publicity gift against both , bringing us out of this rarified atmoshere  and into a more immediate and therefore more dangerous secular area. You will be aware that there is already a considerable body of obfuscatory editing history within this organ which would become evidence one way or another. You could also delve into the earliest historical positions written into the relevant articles and see how relatively un-educational their  positions were.

Your suggestion is that Cornwell was already known to be scandalised by the papal history when granted his access whereas this does not seem to have been the case. I am well aware that there are a plethora of books written on the general subject, and claim no knowledge of any. I am glad that you seem to have such intimate accesss to writers that you can say here that you have actually talked to several such authors. Doubtless this means that you will be concerned to support the broadening of the article, or its linking to other articles both for and against , such that a truly educational relation become effected. Certainly I for one welcome your suggestions that the archives  are in fact open, save for the problems of indexation  , however as you will also be aware from my history , my concern has never been with the wartime archives.

I am on record as believing that the narrowing of focus to within that era by the Church authorities is a  demonstration of bad faith in itself, that this limitation is in fact designed to minimise the far greater historical scandal to do with papal policy from c 1928 onwards. I see the argumentation as to whether or not Pius XII was anti-semitic apropos the Holocaust to be symptomatic of this evasion. Anti-semitism is in fact a side issue historically, and more easily rebutted than the primary one , which is the natural papal desire to defeat atheistic , nihilistic  Russian Communism  , and the resultant 'quid pro quo' with Adolf Hitler.

I would go so far as to say that Abraham Lehrer by narrowing his request to the watime archive may be not only mistaken (as you suggest) but counter-productive. This would be an unfortunate situation, though a very natural one given the Jewish experience , and his own family's  experience. He would appear to have very usefully fallen into the same bear-trap defense to which I refer above, leaving aside the true origins of the ''quid pro quo' of 1932-1933.

My experience here is that the focus is  shifted against myself in 'ad hominem' attack, whereby my good faith , my interpretation and my motives  are all sundered in attempt to discredit the essential historical reference to this 'quid pro quo'. You will note that I have over the course of my intervention provided fairly un-exotic sources, from hitherto respected if aged historical commentators. I imagine that if you are in contact with writers, that you will not fall into similar denial.

I would bring your perfectly honourable concern, stated upon your user page , to my necessary relation of Canonical Law. This you will find links to upon my own Rfc page. I should like to think that you would concern yourself sufficiently as to read these, as the canonicals deal very clearly with the situation , btoh political and ecclesiastical. I should also like to think that this your honourable concern , will enable  you to allow myself some reasonable lenience of respect , such that you will not simply view me as a disruptive  anti-moralist , anti-christian. I consider myself to be acting entirely within the spirit of Christianity embodied in these Laws.

I may be mistaken in having concluded that the only way to defend the down-trodden of history  and to open the apparent can-of-worms to dis-infection, was to have  quoted these  very same Church laws. It was my honourable belief that hypocrisy would not be able to prevail against such clarity. However thus far all I have garnered seems to be  continuously creeping  criticism, which considering these laws  and the faith of my accusers , is contradictory.

Lastly we come to the  contemporary reality , which apart from Lehrer's  impertinence , involves  Class Action Lawsuits against the Vatican. As you will be well aware, hitherto the Vatican has been able to avoid prosecution for apparent misdeed by virtue of its position as a sovereign State , but I believe that now , for the first time , that this has been denied upon appeal. Doubtless this will be counter-appealed, and possibly again the history will be avoided. However I suggest that those who seek to defend against  serious accusation  ,should  pause to consider that when the defence becomes impossible, settlement shall be required. I have, very sincerely , provided canonical guidance  toward such settlement , and should be seen , not as an attacker , but  as a defender of the faith in Jesus Christ. yrs etc Famekeeper 07:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive 14


text:
Livingston Village

Livingston Village is a village in West Lothian, dating back to the 12th century. Originally a farming village in West Lothian it is now in the heart of the town of Livingston.

Pre 1962
Before 1962 Livingston Village was known as Livingston and has a history dating back to the 12th century. It is first mentioned in an early 12th-century charter as Villa Levingi (Leving's town). In 1128 David I granted the newly founded Abbey of Holyrood control of the church at Livingston and its income in a charter that was witnessed by Turstani filii Levingi (Thurstan Levingsson). He built a fortified tower (Peel of Livingston) which is long since gone. The settlement that grew up around it became known as Levingstoun, Layingston and eventually fixed at Livingston. The name derives from the family name Leving who controlled the area until dying out in 1512. The home of the family was a large Scottish tower house, Livingston Peel. From 1512 until 1671 the house was occupied by The Murrays of Elibank. In the late 17th century the Peel was demolished and replaced by a house called Livingston Place and it passed from the Murray family to the Cunningham family. It was acquired by the Earl of Rosebery in 1828 and demolished in 1840.

The Earls of Callendar and the Earls of Linlithgow bear the family name Livingston, and trace their lineage back through Thurstan of Levingston to his father Leving of Levingstoun. One genealogy traces it further back to a Baron de Leving who is believed to have accompanied St. Margaret from her birthplace in Hungary, her presence in Edward the Confessor's court in England and her exile in Scotland. Other sources regard Leving as a Flemish entrepreneur.

Livingston Old Kirk, in its current form, dates from 1732 and is a fine example of plain Presbetryrian architecture of the period. It stands on the site of a pre-Reformation church which appears to have stood on the site from c.1350 to 1650.

In 1898 Livingston had several houses, a Church of Scotland Church, a United Free church and a School.

Charlesfield House
Charlesfield House was a major country house standing just south-west of the village on the banks of the River Almond. It was designed around 1795 and completed in 1798 as the home of a Rev. Thomas Hardy. However it was sold almost immediately, to Henry Raeburn, son of the renowned Scottish portrait artist, Sir Henry Raeburn. The house contained a large number of his father’s works.

Howden House
To the north-east of the village stands Howden House, also built in 1795. Its grounds form a substantial park for the town. The following year it was used for the marriage of Dr James Gregory to Isabella Macleod. Gregory was famed for his children’s cough medicine: “Gregory’s Mixture”. Latterly it was occupied by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. In 1964 it was converted into a community centre and its gardens given to use as a public park, with the help of a £12000 grant from the Carnegie Trust. In recent years the community facilities have condensed down to occupy the former stable block to the west and a new-build structure. The original building was converted to flats in 2013.

Alderstone House
The estate was purchased by the Kinloch family in 1556 and the current house built as a typical Scottish L-plan tower-house in 1626 by the advocate Patrick Kinloch. The grounds contain a large stone doo’cote of similar age in the grounds.

After 1962
The new town of Livingston was built and was given the name Livingston so the old Livingston was renamed Livingston Village to distinguish it from the New Town. Since then the village has expanded greatly and now contains a large amount of New Town architecture.

Governance
Livingston Village is in the West Lothian County, before 1975 the village was part of Linlithgowshire. There was previously a Quango called the Livingston Development Corporation that existed from 1962 to March 22, 1997 to build, manage and promote the New Town which included Livingston Village.

Livingston Village is covered by the Livngston North Ward in West Lothian Council and the Livingston North Local Area Committee. The Councillors are the Chair Andrew Miller (SNP), John Cochrane (Action to Save St John's Hospital), Robert De Bold (SNP) and Bruce Ferrie (Labour).

Livingston Village is part of the Almond Valley Constituency since 1999 and is represented by the Scottish National Party (SNP) Angela Constance who has held the seat since 2007 when the constituency was called Livingston. Livingston Village is part of the Livingston UK Parliament constituency since 1983 for which the SNP's Hannah Bardell was elected MP in May 2015, unseating the incumbent Labour MP Graeme Morrice.

Prior to Brexit in 2020 it was part of the Scotland European Parliament constituency.

Recreation and Sport
Almondvale Stadium the home of Livingston F.C. who play in the Scottish Premier League is on the edge of the village.

Transport
Livingston Village was served by Livingston Station on the Edinburgh to Bathgate Line which opened in 1849 and closed in 1948. The area around this station used to be known as Livingston Station and is now known as Deans. A new station opened in 1986 about 1 km east of the original site and is called Livingston North railway station. Another station to the south: Newpark railway station also served the village. This has been replaced by Livingston South railway station about 2 km east.

The M8 Motorway is nearby and the A705 run parallel to the village. The nearest airport is Edinburgh Airport.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Livingston Village


text:
Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive 15

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See How to archive a talk page.)

This archive covers from 15 July to 4 September.

Excommunication, Loss of burial right etc
I am required by user McClenon in the second Synagogue section  above to explain the law pertaining to sanctified burial rights  of the figures who (history  notes)  desired the empowerment of Adolf Hitler in 1932 and 1933. I have dealt with this under talk section "canonical Law" for Hitler's Pope, however let me try and clarify more simply. I refer here to the guide published at []. Readers should pay particular attention to sections (2), (3) and (4) under  "Kinds of excommunication".

To try and be short (2) :Excommunication is either a jure (by law) or ab homine'' (by judicial act of man, i.e. by a judge). The first is provided by the law itself, which declares that whosoever shall have been guilty of a definite crime will incur the penalty of excommunication.''. The crime was to have contumately broken the injunction of ''Romans, 3,8 ...which forbids any truck with evil to promote a good. This being a part of the magisterium.

(3)Excommunication, especially a jure, is either latæ or ferendæ sententiæ''. The first is incurred as soon as the offence is committed and by reason of the offence itself (eo ipso) without intervention of any ecclesiastical judge ; it is recognized in the terms used by the legislator, for instance: "the culprit will be excommunicated at once, by the fact itself [statim, ipso facto]"''.

(4)Excommunication ferendæ sententiæ can be public only, as it must be the object of a declaratory sentence pronounced by a judge; but excommunication latæ sententiæ'' may be either public or occult. It is public through the publicity of the law when it is imposed and published by ecclesiastical authority; it is public through notoriety of fact when the offence that has incurred it is known to the majority in the locality, as in the case of those who have publicly done violence to clerics, or of the purchasers of church property. On the contrary, excommunication is occult when the offence entailing it is known to no one or almost no one. The first is valid in the forum externum and consequently in the forum internum; the second is valid in the forum internum only. The practical difference is very important. He who has incurred occult excommunication should treat himself as excommunicated and be absolved as soon as possible, submitting to whatever conditions will be imposed upon him, but this only in the tribunal of conscience; he is not obliged to denounce himself to a judge nor to abstain from external acts connected with the exercise of jurisdiction, and he may ask absolution without making himself known either in confession or to the Sacred Penitentiaria. According to the teaching of Benedict XIV (De synodo, X, i, 5), "a sentence declaratory of the offence is always necessary in the forum externum, since in this tribunal no one is presumed to be excommunicated unless convicted of a crime that entails such a penalty". Public excommunication, on the other hand, is removed only by a public absolution; when it is question of simple publicity of fact (see above), the absolution, while not judicial, is nevertheless public, inasmuch as it is given to a known person and appears as an act of the forum externum.''

In determination of the sanctified burial section (5) relates : Public excommunication in foro externo has two degrees according as it has or has not been formally published, or, in other words, according as excommunicated persons are to be shunned (vitandi) or tolerated (tolerati''). However this case is as in section (2) a jure, by the law and (3) latae sententiae , by reason of the offence against the law , and resting in the forum internum.

Apropos burial and absolution  part (IV) "Who can be excommunicated" states  ''As the baptized cease, at death, to belong to the Church Militant, the dead cannot be excommunicated. Of course, strictly speaking, after the demise of a Christian person, it may be officially declared that such person incurred excommunication during his lifetime. Quite in the same sense he may be absolved after his death; indeed, the Roman Ritual contains the rite for absolving an excommunicated person already dead (Tit. III, cap. iv: Ritus absolvendi excommunicatum jam mortuum). This gives some hope against the necessity of  re-burial but it is necessary to state with precision the conditions under which this penalty is incurred. Just as exile presupposes a crime, excommunication presupposes a grievous external fault. Not only would it be wrong for a Christian to be punished without having committed a punishable act, but justice demands a proportion between the offence and the penalty; hence the most serious of spiritual chastisements, i.e. forfeiture of all the privileges common to Christians, is inconceivable unless for a grave fault''. Yet Note, however, that by external fault is not necessarily meant a public one; an occult external fault calls forth occult excommunication, but in foro interno, as already seen.

Lastly  ''Considered from a moral and juridical standpoint, the guilt requisite for the incurring of excommunication implies, first, the full use of reason; second sufficient moral liberty; finally, a knowledge of the law and even of the penalty. Where such knowledge is lacking, there is no contumacy, i.e. no contempt of ecclesiastical law, the essence of which consists in performing an action known to be forbidden, and forbidden under a certain penalty. The prohibition and the penalty are known either through the text of the law itself, which is equivalent to a juridical warning, or through admonitions or proclamations issued expressly by the ecclesiastical judge, which relates clearly to the text romans 3,8''.

I was earlier asked by user McClenon to determine whether this was a grave fault (sin ?), or what. One can understand why he asked. My assumption- my first - is that the contumate overturning of the biblical injunction could not be more grave, as it strikes at the heart of the christian magisterium. I enumerated the definitions of guilt concerning circumstances and contumacy previously. There does not appear to be any extenuation whatever.

''If we consider only its nature, excommunication has no degrees: it simply deprives clerics and laymen of all their rights in Christian society, which total effect takes on a visible shape in details proportionate in number to the rights or advantages of which the excommunicated cleric or layman has been deprived. The effects of excommunication must, however, be considered in relation also to the rest of the faithful. From this point of view arise certain differences according to the various classes of excommunicated persons. These differences were not introduced out of regard for the excommunicated, rather for the sake of the faithful. The latter would suffer serious inconveniences if the nullity of all acts performed by excommunicated clerics were rigidly maintained. They would also be exposed to grievous perplexities of conscience if they were strictly obliged to avoid all intercourse, even profane, with the excommunicated. Hence the practical rule for interpreting the effects of excommunication: severity as regards the excommunicated, but mildness for the faithful. We may now proceed to enumerate the immediate effects of excommunication. They are summed up in the two well known verses:''

 * ''Res sacræ, ritus, communio, crypta, potestas,

prædia sacra, forum, civilia jura vetantur,''

i.e. loss of the sacraments, public services and prayers of the Church, ecclesiastical burial, jurisdiction, benefices, canonical rights, and social intercourse.

(4) Crypta

''This word signifies ecclesiastical burial, of which the excommunicated are deprived. In chapter xii, de sepulturis (lib. III, tit. xxviii), Innocent III says: "The canons have established that we should not hold communion after their death with those with whom we did not communicate during their lifetime, and that all those should be deprived of ecclesiastical burial who were separated from the unity of the Church, and at the moment of death were not reconciled thereunto." The Ritual (tit. VI, cap. ii, n. 2) renews this prohibition for those publicly excommunicated, and most writers interpret this as meaning those whose excommunication has been publicly proclaimed (Many, De locis sacris, p. 354), so that, under this head, the ancient discipline is no longer applicable, except to the vitandi. However this does not mean that the tolerati can always receive ecclesiastical burial; they may be deprived of it for other reasons, e.g. as heretics or public sinners. Apropos of this leniency, it must be remembered that it is not the excommunicated the Church wishes to favour, but rather the faithful for whose sake communion with the tolerati is allowed in the matter of burial as well as in other matters. The interment of a toleratus in a consecrated cemetery carries with it no longer the desecration of said cemetery; this would follow, however, in the case of the vitandi. (See BURIAL.)''

We see a return here to the definition of vitandi and that Excommunication is not only External.

''In the first Christian centuries it is not always easy to distinguish between excommunication and penitential exclusion; to differentiate them satisfactorily we must await the decline of the institution of public penance and the well-defined separation between those things appertaining to the forum internum, or tribunal of conscience and the forum externum, or public ecclesiastical tribunal; nevertheless, the admission of a sinner to the performance of public penance was consequent on a previous genuine excommunication. On the other hand, formal exclusion from reception of the Eucharist and the other sacraments was only mitigated excommunication and identical with minor excommunication (see below). At any rate, in the first centuries excommunication is not regarded as a simple external measure; it reaches the soul and the conscience. It is not merely the severing of the outward bond which holds the individual to his place in the Church; it severs also the internal bond, and the sentence pronounced on earth is ratified in heaven. It is the spiritual sword, the heaviest penalty that the Church can inflict (see the patristic texts quoted in the Decree of Gratian, cc. xxxi, xxxii, xxxiii, C. xi, q. iii). Hence in the Bull "Exsurge Domine" (16 May, 1520) Leo X justly condemned Luther's twenty-third proposition according to which "excommunications are merely external punishments, nor do they deprive a man of the common spiritual prayers of the Church". Pius VI also condemned (Auctorem Fidei, 28 Aug., 1794) the forty-sixth proposition of the Pseudo-Synod of Pistoia, which maintained that the effect of excommunication is only exterior because of its own nature it excludes only from exterior communion with the Church, as if, said the pope, excommunication were not a spiritual penalty binding in heaven and affecting souls. The aforesaid proposition was therefore condemned as false, pernicious, already reprobated in the twenty-third proposition of Luther, and, to say the least, erroneous. Undoubtedly the Church cannot (nor does it wish to) oppose any obstacle to the internal relations of the soul with God; she even implores God to give the grace of repentance to the excommunicated. The rites of the Church, nevertheless, are always the providential and regular channel through which Divine grace is conveyed to Christians; exclusion from such rites, especially from the sacraments, entails therefore regularly the privation of this grace, to whose sources the excommunicated person has no longer access.''

I do not see that abbreviation of law adds to it's understanding. I hope this clarifies the law, and claim this transcription necessary for educational fair use purposes ( the good of the Catholic Church and of its faithful ) and fully acknowledge the authorship of the  italicised excerpts  from A.BOUDINHON (transcribed by Douglas J. Potter) who dedicated this  to the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ , from , again , []

Famekeeper 11:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

FK, two things: Str1977 20:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Even if excommunicated people are not buried that doesn't mean that they are dug up again if they are posthumously found out to have been excommunicated.
 * You have not proved at all that the people in question were excommunicated during their life time.

 * This user is being disingenuous . You know Str that is not what the text relates, you knew before , you know anyway because you were clearly aware of all the relevant law even before I came along to reveal it. No one was excommunicated , no one can be excommunicated after death . The law clearly states that ipso eo, they excommunicated themselves at breaking  romans 3,8. As Ludwig Kaas did when he chose to lose the Centre Party's and  his soul (by his own words that you published) and as Pius XI did  by approving Hitler to von Papen etc  . Please do not be disingenuous in this serious matter . The bottom line is a jure, latae sententiae excommunication .Famekeeper 08:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Political Reasons for Excommunication

 * No, Str1977 is not being disingenuous. He is simply stating that Famekeeper has not proved any of the allegations that he is making about excommunication.  Merely being able to shout louder than one's critics does not prove a case.  Famekeeper has not proved any of the assertions that he has made, whether it is that any of the priests in question violated Romans 3:8 or that they violated any particular canon.  Everything that Famekeeper has to do with intent, and with what they expected would be the results of their actions.  Famekeeper has done a good job of providing historical timelines of facts that no one disputes, but the sequence of events does not prove causation, let alone intent.  Robert McClenon 11:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

In terms of proof the only thing that I, FK , have noted which is not widely known and reported upon comes from the memoirs of Edgar Ansel Mowrer , an american  foreign correspondent in Berlin , removed by Hitler as almost his first demand after the industrialists and right-wing  handed him the chancellorship on January 30 th 1933. I include it at the bottom (please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hitler%27s_Pope/Archive1 to read it), as it predates these relevant timeline  suggestions towards proof by a year, into 1932 and heavily implicates those that McClenon arfully calls "these priests". I have equally sourced other writers from the early  nineteen thirties.

A reader might note that having centred on the bizarre nature of canonical law being my personal gambit, user McClenon now resorts to further  claims which he cannot support. I refer readers again to their standard historical texts, all of which point to the central issue here enumerated. I refer readers to all my attempts at reasoning which I have undertaken at such great length. This vast length has been required purely because throughout my attempts at clarifying the history, two particular users have  constrained me by constant disingenuous reverts. As has happened on this page, in respect of the Cologne Synagogue leader's demand. Therefore the record needs to be put straight. Until the letter referred to by Mowrer is produced, or the vatican archives are opened , as Abraham Lehrer demanded , we can only take a reasoned attitude towards all this, as well as hoping that a contrition for this vast mistake might now  be forthcoming  from this new German pontiff.

These are the apparent historical  facts  as known. I have dealt with canon law in relation also to political interference and moral order, see discussions following on my "Question of the Law in discussion pages (which apologists have not succeeded in banning me from ) relevant to the ecclesiatics  Kaas and Pius XII , and previously on this page and Benedict XVI Theology . Judge for yourselves  if you do not feel you should know what was done , and whether or not  the 2/3 majority for dictatorship and was not achieved through this connivance against atheistic Communism . Then reckon the body count resulting  from the approbation and assistance given to the illegal Hitler Coup D'Etat  . The  count is circa 60,000,000 souls /bodies of pain  and grief.

 * a parallel apparent barter or quid pro quo of interests during Febuary-July 1933  between the Holy See and Adolf Hitler ;

 * the personal representation of both those interests carried personally  between  Berlin and Rome by Monsignor Ludwig Kaas ;

 * 'Working committee' meetings including Ludwig Kaas and Adolf Hitler from 16th March onwards ;

 * 20 th March negotiations on-going between Hitler and Centre Party leaders, Kaas ,Stegerwald and Hackelsburger;

 * Hitler snubs Catholic services at the 21 March official Reichstag opening day ,with a communique referring to the Hierarchy'' qualification of Nazis as unfit for the sacrements ;

 * the 21 st March illegal arrest of Communist parliamentarians ;

 * the collapse on 22nd March of the moral stance of the  Catholic Centre Party Germany  against Hitler consequent on promises made by Hitler to preserve aspects of Catholicism  ;

 * the vote of the Catholic Parties' altogether  15% representation  by  leader Ludwig Kaas providing en bloc the crucial 2/3  vote  for the 23 March 1933 Enabling Act (of dictatorship by Hitler ) ;

 * the u-turn reference to peaceful relations with Catholicism in Hitler's speech of 23rd march ;

 * the immediate reporting of Kaas to Rome on 24 th March ;

 * the close longstanding relations between Kaas and the Holy See's [foreign] Secretary of State, and future Pope Pius XII Cardinal Pacelli ;

 * the return of the still Centre leader Kaas on 31 March for a private meeting  with Adolf Hitler, of 2 April ;

 * the fact that by this time such a private meeting with Hitler by a non-Nazi  was remarkable ;

 * the surreptitious meeting of Kaas in Munich  with the then German Foreign  Minister Franz von Papen ( hidden by Papen) on 8th April ;

 * the journeying together to the vatican of 9th April secretively ( from the German press) ;

 * the prior reception by Pacelli of Centre Party leader Kaas ;

 * following Papen's 10th April interview with Pacelli, the  10 th April Pope Pius XI approbation  of Hitler  as a leader " uncompromisingly opposed to Communism and Russian nihilism in all its forms" to the Nazi minister Hermann Goering and Papen , undertaken with great honour  ;

 * the immediate revelation of this honour in the Italian press    suggesting  Concordat with  Germany  (Reichskonkordat ) forthwith ;

 * the 15 th April  Kaas and Papen  meeting with Pacelli finalising that now ex- Centre  leader(resigned) Kaas will draft the  Holy See's Concordat ;

 * the 18th April meeting between Pacelli and the pontiff concerning the Concordat ;

 * the 20th April assurance by  Ludwig Kaas in a birthday telegram to Hitler from the vatican, widely published in Germany expressing  "unflinching co-operation" ;

 * the statement on 26th April by Hitler to two representatives of the Catholic German Hierarchy that he is only going to do with the Jews that which the Church of Rome  had been trying to do without success for over 1,500 years ;

Timelines include many more revelatory references, pronouncements , arrests of many priests , complaints by the Hierarchy , yet on 2nd July 1933 final agreement on the Concordat is reached as  Papen reports  because: Pius XI "had insisted on the conclusion of the Concordat because he wanted to come to an agreement with Italy and Germany as the countries which, in his opinion, represented the nucleus of the Christian world."

The last relevant reference in timelines is to July 3 -Papen cables German foreign minister Konstantin von Neurath, "In the discussions which I had with Pacelli, Archbishop Groeber, and Kaas this evening, it developed that with the conclusion of the Concordat, the dissolution of the Center Party is regarded here as certain and is approved." Famekeeper 20:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Note, dear reader, that FK rightly says "in terms of proof the only thing that I, FK , have noted" - it is the only real evidence he has given and it does not necessarily prove his conspiracy theory. It also fits the standard historical narrative included in the pages on Centre Party (Germany)] and [[Ludwig Kaas, so there's not need to develop a conspiracy theory, unless in order to smear. Str1977 09:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Memoria e Identida, the Holocaust and democracy (23 febuary 2005
In answer to the calumnies thrown at me by the apologist editor Str1977 I insert the origin of my personal dis-ease with the present Holy See's  shocking hypocrisy in the above matter. I go so far as to say that as a confessed catholic this editor is in as much danger for his soul as the ecclesiatics who traduced the good news of Jesus Christ. I do not resent the constant mis-use of my time brought on by his and  Robert McClenon's  persistently disingenuous  reversion of factual report , but I am forced into this constant repetition. This is a major problem of honesty upon the Wikipedia. I have grown fond of the first accuser, and very often congratulate him on the assisduity of his apologetics. However it is quite unreasonable to expect me to re-iterate this ad infinitum, and is the purest demonstration of that which I have always recognised, and which I have brought to the founder Jimbo Wales's notice-which is the infiltration of the WP by purely faith - based editors. Fortunately they are so far not of a high enough calibre to cause the history to be shaken. Nevertheless they are disgraceful, and were it not for the use they provide (in encouraging the riposte of reason against misused faith) , I should wish them to be excommunicated from the Wikipedia. Anyone who cares about the future of the world should recognise that the reason that I represent, must not  surrender to this  twisting of the good and the true. I therefore make no apology for my presence. Now hear this :
 * The Pope has released a new book called 'Memoria e Identida' wherein he has raised the most serious controversy concerning the failure of democracy when in 1933, the German Parliament voted the Enabling Act and gave Adolf Hitler his dictatorial powers . John Paul II has further likened this democratic sanction of evil to that of legalised abortion and further equated the evil of the resulting Holocaust with what women do with their own bodies . Apart from being casuistic & extremely offensive to sufferers of that evil , this shows a worrying reluctance by papal authority to take recognisance of its own involvement with that self-same abandonment by Democracy of itself . The facts as related on the Pope Pius XII wiki page(the Concordat) should have caused a righteous concern inside the Vatican . This argument in this book whilst directed against the very concerning issue of abortion , will nevertheless serve the other virtuous purpose of again raising the involvement of the Vatican in incontrovertible conspiracy which of itself resulted in the greatest human destruction yet witnessed on this earth . The papacy should clean its own stables thoroughly or suffer a growing clamour for repentance for its own direct culpability in that subversion of democracy , and remove unto itself it's own part of that opprobrium which is thereby generalised upon the German people . The part the Vatican played effectively tipped the balance in this subversion and this is one of the greatest errors that the church could have committed and it's reluctance to face up to it reveals that it itself recognises this . The vatican was of course playing a long-game against the Soviet threat and whilst it could with John Paul II be said to have finally won , it's coldness at sacrificing the safety of the Jews in particular , but everyone in the end , reveals clearly the extreme calculation that the Lambs of Jesus take unto his cause . The Wiki itself shows that humanity desires openness and clarity and that churches all must come cleanly into a future light or perish as institutions .These are facts requiring admittance or contestation. It is untrue and diminuishes them to say these "criticisms" are well-known . 'They' are not criticisms of this Pope anyway and the timeline of papal intervention as known to the Simon Wiesenthal Foundation's Holocaust timeline has been extended on the Wikipedia by one year back to 1932 . Please help , not hinder , truth . This book is claiming a corruption of democracy CAUSED by the Vatican as the prime example of the fallibility of democracy . This is much worse than an attack on democracy in a book and should be discussed in full because it is a subject for worldwide interest. Flamekeeper 22:32, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) Famekeeper 21:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Fine. I cannot wait for you to stop spamming and flooding this talk page with your POVs and original research. 83.109.142.197 18:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Attempt at Summary
For the benefit of any reader of this talk page who has been fortunate enough not to go through the tedious exchanges with Famekeeper, I will try to summarize. I am sure that Famekeeper will respond at great length.

It appears that Famekeeper is stating that there is an ongoing conspiracy by the Catholic Church to suppress the truth that Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII were guilty of moral error in allowing Adolf Hitler to accede to absolute power in Germany, and that they either knew or should have known that this would result in the Holocaust. If that is not what Famekeeper is saying, then maybe he can restate it, but I would suggest that any restatement be short.

If 83.109.191.234 thinks that Famekeeper is a troll, I would suggest that he first create a signed-in account, and then endorse the article to which he refers, which is Requests for comment/Famekeeper. I am not interested in signatures from anonymous users. Robert McClenon 00:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not interested in wasting my time on the ongoing dispute with Famekeeper, I'm just simply going to revert any vandalism he makes to this article. 83.109.142.197 18:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * McC - read it a few times. It is unclear- I thought it was an attack on me for a while, but then I thought in fact it was an attack on you . By the way  I do not say there is a cover up, as I believe  it may have escaped understanding . Excommunication is termed  occult when it is known to no one or almost no one . Famekeeper

Flooding of talk page
It is very disturbing that User:Famekeeper keeps flooding this talk page with massive amounts of text.

 * I quite agree- I shouldn't have had to . I am finished in providing a repetition of the canonical analysis required by the other user . I congratulate this anonymous user on his four posts, all here . I wonder what manner of  internet  provider he has , and whether he is not wasting his own  ammunition  by announcing his feelings  under this mumber . He is very liberal in his qualifications , and I am glad if he should remain happy  at this  my departure . I note that no one has removed Abraham Lehrer , and do hope that I shall not have to return . Of course the other question remaining will be to do with the course of the Federal Lawsuit - which will be fascinating , but presumably that will really hit the press , and even the WP . Famekeeper 11:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I have worked on this article long time before he became Pope. I welcome newcomers if they want to make actual contributions to the article, but it seems to me that you only want to flood the article with conspiracy theories, original research and alleged wrongdoings of the Catholic Church in 30s and 40s (what these events have to do with Benedict XVI am I not able to recognize). 83.109.146.40 08:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Famekeeper is not a newcomer. The flooding of talk pages with text containing original research and conspiracy theories has been going on for nearly a year.  Please see Requests for comment/Famekeeper.  Robert McClenon 13:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Famekeeper is providing an inaccurate summary of his history on these talk pages. He says that he shouldn't have to flood these talk pages.  That is true.  However, I did not request what he considers the canonical analysis.  This filibuster of the talk pages was going on before I became involved, and has largely been archived.  What I requested was a summary.  I have not yet seen a satisfactory summary, but I think that is because Famekeeper does not know how to provide a summary.

 * I do not understand whether Famekeeper is trying to intimidate the anonymous user. By the way, his Internet Service Provider is telenor.net.  Robert McClenon 14:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Funny-McC says he accepts my summary on related discussions at the linked Theology of Pope Benedict XVI .Famekeeper 07:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

 * There is nothing inconsistent about accepting one summary and not another, if one is accurate and the other is not. Robert McClenon 13:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

 * What is inaccurate :prove it . Or is it another mistake you would own up to, McC, when confronted ? I have told you and posted openly ,that you are at best foolish and that I have irrefutable proof of  your bad-faith , placed in discussion on your  User Rfc. Foolish , disingenuous or ouright-dishonest . You yourself claimed foolish ( a mistake , man !) , so am I to apologise for getting it wrong  , and according you more brains  than you yourself apparently use , user . Oh, and yes , I agree with the word bully , and I prove that there as well . Now, grow up.

 * I reserve the right to correct the WP until I am slung out, as a pure favour from me, due in view of the extra-ordinary  ahistorical sycophancy  towards a deeply shameful papacy , which will remain so as long as this praticular pontiff evades his responsibility . Let it all go to court, as mentioned in  another of my edits upon this article . Get behind me , as was once said . Famekeeper 00:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm sad, FK, that you are staying true to your past behaviour. When confronted with contradiction you resort to personal attacks. At least you don't show favoritism - you shout at anyone deviating from your rule one inch, even if they agreed with you in general and in the beginning, like Robert did.
 * And as for your quoting scripture: do you think you're the Messiah?
 * History is history and courts are courts! They are not the same - and in court your claims would suffer an even worse fate than in historiography.
 * There's probably no point in kindly asking you, but I will try once more: please refrain from your un-Wiki and un-civil behaviour.
 * Str1977 09:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Because of FK's flooding of the talk page I just had to create three new archives. Please, FK, be more concise. Str1977 09:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Where is the inaccuracy? Did I include total war related death, and is that the inaccuracy . By the way Wyssie suggests I 'Start apage on Kass @, which is back to square one . Listen Str , I agree with everyone that this length is ridiculous. I am resolving myself down to McC's question as to whether Double Effect  changes the character of the approbation/collaboration of 32 & 33 . I refer you to both there and to  this pop's Theology page . I refer you particularly to the teachings of Pius XI presented on the former , and to extra-ordinary gap between that and Brok's tears and  Pius's comment to Goering . I'm soprry and shouldn't rise to McC's bait , but he is quite truly irrefutably as I show on his Rfc discussion and repeated here . I am sad about the history of the collaboration/approbation, sad that it appears that  the christians  involved  fell from the protection which that name provides , in their  falsity towards the innocent. Short as I can be . Famekeeper 18:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Famekeeper, not everything that is accurate gets into the Wikipedia. It is necessary but not sufficient.  At a fundamental level, it appears the proposed edits relect either a misunderstaing or rejection of what this article is about:

 * Filling in the significant details from the past events in Pope Benedict's life which previous editors may have missed.
 * Tracking the significant events of the present going forward in his life.

 * The test for significance is simple: what other sources of biographical information have considered to be significant in Pope Benedict's life.

 * It is not for original research, argumentation, speculation, or propaganda. You are free to publish material that I and other editors have objected to in your own blog or in an open discussion board, but you are not entitled to insert your own original material into this article when it is contrary to Wikipedia policies and the article's editing consensus. patsw 23:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Vaya! Abraham Lehrer is a fact . The Federal Court case, fact . And here's fact from the contradiction within the WP , for your interest/knowledge/POV  . It represents , possibly , the deepest challenge of all .Listen to you , if your crowd had done to my mother what  the papacy is throughout history books  accused of aiding   by approbation , that would be fact . Or your mother. Abraham Lehrer spoke of his mother and the tattoo number on her arm . Fact . Let's see about the following fact or not fact , eh? Just because a bunch of ante-diluvians wish to limit the wikipedia to out-dated  encyclopedic concepts, from out-dated means (paper)- does not trouble me or Jimbo, I'd say , one little JOT . You do what you wish , and justify yourself-now ,get off my back and stand up straight by yourself .I'm busy  doing articles a service .Famekeeper 00:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Answer my question, McC and stop ad hominem. I can pri=ove, do prove on your Rfc my qualification of you. I adhere to it too

 * Comment on Abraham Lehrer is not verified with a link in the article. It's therefore subject to being deleted.

 * The lawsuit, Alperin v. Vatican Bank, merits a neutrally worded sentence and a link as a pending legal case. patsw 01:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I do not agree. At most, it merits a sentence in an article on international relations of the Vatican state. I don't see the relevance in a biography of the current pope. It could however also be mentioned with one sentence in the biography of Pius XII. 83.109.131.140 20:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Time to remove Flamekeeper's irrelevant POVing on this page
FK's behaviour here and elsewhere is along the lines of "I'm going to force my views on everyone and you can't stop me." Maybe it is time this farce was stopped. These antics, here and elsewhere, are turning talk pages (and articles when he gets the chance) into his personal pulpit to push his opinions, no matter how irrelevant to the subject matter. Any suggestions of dealing with him? Fear ÉIREANN \(caint) 01:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Onecould as easily ask for suggestions for dealing with the opposite ?The point is that I am accused of inaccuracy, but entirely without specifics. Is that right behaviour. DO I call you a a liar, Mr Fear ? Famekeeper 08:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Block this crackpot troll. No need for more discussion, IMHO. 83.109.131.140 20:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

New Chrstian Right, Condoms and Africa
The BBC reported on the UN AIDS programme disquiet  at the rise in percentage population  of infected persons in Uganda today. A link is clearly made between this rise and the new ,right wing, fundamentalist American Church policy. This policy, fostered by cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict , is  to fught the spread of AIDS by abstinence , and todeny  that condoms are a help towards reduction of  infection. The report stated that due to pressure upon the American government  from this  christian right, the cost to users of condoms in Uganda had risen three-fold, the supplies had been drastically reduced and the level of infection had quickly rebounded upwards from the earlier achieved 5% of population. I have in my own smalll way referred to the canonical situation of the church's teaching and AIDS, and I suggest people of good will, as opposed to dogma should join where possibly some good could be done to help save lives and prevent suffering. One is tempted to believe that the church rightists would prefer people to die, than to live. This is a grave error, entirely like  all the scandal of Vatican involvement  in the rise of Nazism. I see that this is on topic...Famekeeper 08:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Soapboxing and Filibustering
Jtdirl asks how to deal with Famekeeper. There are two ways that he can be blocked. First, if he engages in any obvious violation of Wikipedia official policy, he can be given a short-term block by an admin. That would include personal attacks. However, any such block should be short-term, and if it is for anything other than 3RR (which he does not do), it may be controversial. The alternative is to present a case to the ArbCom to block him. Anyone who wants to do that may visit the user conduct RfC against him and either sign it, or add their own signed opinions to it, or add their own diffs to show improper conduct.

Famekeeper has been demanding arbitration by Jimbo Wales for months because he thinks that the truth is being suppressed. He has not filed a Request for Mediation or a Request for Arbitration. Unfortunately, if his flooding of talk pages continues, the arbitration will be whether to ban him. Robert McClenon 18:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive 15


title: User:4v4l0n42/top


text:
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-08-29/Portal namespace

A portal namespace was recently created, with the prefix Portal: This namespace is mainly intended for many of the WikiPortals. The idea began with the creation of Portal:Cricket, which was originally in the mainspace under the same name. It was nominated for deletion in April, with the result being to keep, until a portal namespace was created. The namespace was not officially created until earlier this week, when a developer finally made the necessary changes.

Debate on whether a namespace for Portal was necessary was largely in favor of adding the namespace. However, a proposal to make the Main Page a portal was rejected soundly as 'unnecessary' and 'disruptive'.

Editor-oriented WikiPortals will remain at Wikiportal. Existing reader-oriented WikiPortals have been moved to the Portal namespace already.


text:
User:Finbarr Saunders/C.A.T.S.

The City Alert Texting System (C.A.T.S.) is a British system for alerting the public in case of emergency or a major incident. C.A.T.S. sends text messages directly to (registered) people's mobile phones in the locality affected by the emergency or incident. At the moment, only a very few localities are covered.

C.A.T.S. was set up by Eazytext.com, a private company.

Usage
People have to register with C.A.T.S. by sending it a text message containing the postcode. There is a small charge to register, and the registration is valid for one year.

title: User:Finbarr Saunders/C.A.T.S.


text:
Gülzow

Gülzow is a town in Lauenburg district in Schleswig-Holstein, Germany, founded in the 13th century.

It has a population of 1,500 and is situated near Hamburg, between Lauenburg, Geesthacht and Schwarzenbek. There is a market square, where fresh fruit, vegetables and other things can be bought. In the square there is also a café and a small museum of local history.

title: Gülzow


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nintendrone

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 01:41, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Nintendrone
Neologism, not encyclopedic, dicdef. Bovlb 09:45:19, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nominator --Botsie 10:05, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete --Quasipalm 16:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete a hairbrained neologism. -Splash 19:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Jachin 22:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete made-up stuff, insult page. -- WCFrancis 23:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neologism. Cnwb 00:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fanboy trolling. Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 21:39, 2005 September 2 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Talk:Belfast Blitz

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spot87 (talk • contribs) 21 May 2006.

First Edit
I found it difficult to write the 'human cost' paragraph. There were too many tragic stories. In the end I opted to repeat quotes from primary sources which are in several books.

Dr Brian Barton has published most on this topic, however there are instances where he seems to have a 'orange' tinge to his writing.

I didn't include 'ditching', it was difficult to summarise. For months some people left the city every night and slept in ditches with a deterioration in hygine, manners, etc

There are different accounts as to who sent the telegram to whom. It probably was sent to the Dublin City manager rather than to deV. For now I opted to follow what many books say.

It would be good to get photos of the blitz. Plenty exist. But they seem to be copyright.

I left out later discussions. deV wanted to help. Offers were rejected. e.g. joining the electricity grids - at the time the south had a surplus of power from ard na crusha

I left out discrimination in - for example the 'home guard' (Dad's Army) had to take an oath which effectively excluded nationalists

Ok, any suggestions? --ClemMcGann 09:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Good work, Clem.

Lapsed Pacifist 15:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. --Red King 19:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

This is an excellent article. Thank you. (anonymous but grateful, January 24 2007)

After the blitz came a post war housing boom consisting of estates like newbarnsley ballymurphy highfield e.t.c, I remember as a kid asking my father why we had such strong coalsheds they where the size and height of a large bedroom with an 8 inch thick concrete roof and all just to store 2 or 3 bags of coal ! I was told that after the war designers where told to add these as ready made bomb shelters, of course back then they would probably not have forseen the threat of all out nuclear war —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.228.66 (talk • contribs)

Belfast Blitz
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Mal 06:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
 * Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
 * Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day.
 * See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.
 * Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.
 * There may be an applicable infobox for this article. (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
 * Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
 * Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
 * As per WP:MOSDATE, dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.
 * Per WP:MOS, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example,  ==The Biography==  would be changed to  ==Biography== .
 * Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
 * Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “ All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
 * You may wish to convert your form of references to the cite.php footnote system that WP:WIAFA 2(c) highly recommends.
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.

Fair use rationale for Image:Basilbrookeborough.jpg
Image:Basilbrookeborough.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced statements
I removed some statements which had references, but when the references were followed did not support the statements. User:ClemMcGann then but them back, so I have removed them again. Please don't put these statements back unless actual references that support them can be found. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I am surprised that any editor would remove a section which has been in the article from its first inception with the comment remove unreferenced bollocks. This article predates our citation templates, nonetheless a reference was given in the form of a footnote.  If you doubted the words then a 'citation required' could have been applied. When I restored the article I cited an extract from the original reference.   It is, as the cite says "Extracts from an article on The Belfast Blitz, 1941. By Jonathan Bardon.  Lecturer of History, Queens University, Belfast."  (who has written and broadcast extensively on this subject)  You now say "when the references were followed did not support the statements".

Perhaps you could say which? Will you now restore the paragraphs?
 * ClemMcGann (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologise if this seemed tiresome or heavy-handed. Most of the stuff I remove from Wikipedia doesn't deserve any time spent on it. This article accidentally went the same way.

When I removed the text that I did, the only 'reference' given was a superscript "1". Reference number 1 was to a BBC Online article which in no way supported the statements made. I don't think there was any way that I could have deduced that an unnumbered footnote was meant to be the reference. The footnote is also unclear as to what kind of publication the reference is. Is it a book? An article? A lecture? Is Bardon representitive of historians of this subject?

I also think that the text as it stood before I edited it is poor quality. It's not clear to me if the 'crisis' that the government was allegedly unprepared for was the war, or the bombing. The relevance of Craigavon is unclear, since he died months before the bombing. The 'bullet point' style of writing is open to misinterpretation. If we wish to show that the government of Northern Ireland was unprepared for a bombing then surely it would be better to quote figures about shelters built, AA batteries in place, or other preparations rather than quoting what Lady Londonderry said about the chief minister. I have no problem with you improving the article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Apology accepted & point taken. Bardon has written extensively on this subject.  The article could improve better references.  The publication was a pamphlet which derived from a lecture.  He has since published a book with the same title. ClemMcGann (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Map
The image which shows Belfast Lough could be improved if Dublin, Belfast and a scale were also shown - at present this map is a bit scanty. This would then illustrate the two cities' relationship to each other.

I would do it myself, but lack the knowledge. So, any takers ? RASAM (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Alsoma map of the route taken by the bombers would be most useful, for example did they fly up the Irish Sea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.1 (talk) 10:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

City centre bombardment
From all accounts I have read the city centre suffered more damage in the 4/5 May "Fire Raid". The article states that Bridge Street was "effectively obliterated" in the 15/16 April Easter raid but on that occasion the Luftwaffe had turned its full force onto North Belfast districts especially the New Lodge, Antrim Road, Lower Shankill and York Street. Their targets were the Waterworks, Victoria Barracks and mills. The section in the second raid needs to be expanded to include the devastation visited upon East Belfast, city centre and the Harland and Wolff shipyard.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 09:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Belfast Blitz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150713203032/http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/The_BlitzBelfast_during_the_second_World_War to http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/The_BlitzBelfast_during_the_second_World_War

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Belfast Blitz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120922035553/http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0083/D.0083.194106050027.html to http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0083/D.0083.194106050027.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070621041418/http://secondworldwarni.org/ to http://www.secondworldwarni.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Belfast Blitz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070621041418/http://secondworldwarni.org/ to http://www.secondworldwarni.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

"Easter Eggs for Belfast"
Is there any conformation from a credible source that William Joyce ever made such a comment ? A lot of comments attributed to Joyce tended to be of dubious veracity and not backed up by reports/transcripts from official monitoring services. Joyce's broadcasts were monitored by the BBC, Irish Army and (US) Foreign Broadcast Intelligence service so the If such a comment were ever actually broadcast there is likely to be a record of it somewhere. 109.144.221.170 (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Belfast Blitz