Talk:Adolf Hitler: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
Lacatosias (talk | contribs)
Line 576:
[[User:EffK|EffK]] 14:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 
::: I am very sorry to have to inform you, Effk,that any artcile written in a public forum by a vast public of contributors such as this, in which the tyranny of the majority must necessarily dominate by definition and which touches on any sensitive matter of fact with regard to the truth of the horrors perpetrated by the Christian majority is going to perpetuate the Christian point of view. Now, I don'ìt really have to go into a long discussion of the meaninglessness of the policy of so-called NPOV do I. I have never beleived that objectivity is possible in the humanities. The existence of such a thing as a neutral point of view has recently been put into strong question with regard to even the hardest of hard sciences. To ask for it as an ideal to try to reach for is something I can certainly understand. But to really beleive that one person, or even a group of people, can be unbiased in one's view of such a sensitive and extraordinaily delicate matter as this one is to be self-deluded.<p>

The history of the Catholic Church's relations with the Nazi regime, just like the history of the Crusades, the Inquistion and other such matters, will have to be written by non-Christians and atheists over a very long period of time. It will require a great deal of struggle and persistenece to get the truth out there, but it will evenetually be exposed for all to know. It took them 400 tears to admit that Galielo was right about heliocentrism after all. You can't really expect them to fully admit that even their recent past is blotted with blood and ''ounds can you? <p>

You are right, of course. But you are a Don Quixote in this case. Keep up the good fight.<p>

As to your observations, I stand behind them about 99.8% of the way. But, more imprtantly, there are innumerable sources that sustain your points. And these are ineviatbly being suppressed by the Christian majority. It's depressing, but what can be done??--[[User:Lacatosias|Lacatosias]] 15:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 
I am very sorry to inform you, Lacatosias, that the internet is unfortunately a medium were extermist activism can achieve very much. It will necessarily infect things like the WP if there aren't those around who are actively guarding a certain standard, at best those with knowledge and qualifications in the respective fields. This is what I am doing in this case. Effk is promoting a extreme theory, no doubt sincerely, but it is still extreme. The sources '''do not supprt''' the contentious points he makes (and they have nothing to say on what information should be included in what article and about linguistic problems). He's certainly not fighting the good fight, though I don't question his honest belief.
 
I'm sorry for you if you are shocked that the "hard science" is not unbreakable. Well, historiography is quite a hard subject in the field of humanities and we have our methodology which must be properly applied.
 
I am sad to see that you appearently are not well informed about historical issues, including the Gallileo case.
 
I am amused to see how to discount objectivity and the insurmountability of bias only to claim that history must be written only by adherents of a certain ideology. We have seen that in Soviet Russia, certainly Christians have done that too, Protestants in 19th century Germany actively bullied Catholics out of the profession, and now you want to do the same. Well, we tried and didn't like it. If atheists should have a monopoly on writing the history of the Church, then probably anti-Semites should write on the history of the Jews, and Creationists should do evolutionary biology. Brilliant, quite brilliant.
 
Rant over. 15:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 
==''This'' Adolf Hitler a Good Article ?==