User talk:Str1977/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Lulu[edit]

Thanks str1977 for your conscientious efforts in finding compromise language for several issues in the Pope Benedict page. I know I gave you a little bit of a hard time in a few edits, and your documentation and phrasings are admirable. I started out just making some minor change, but then got to following the pope page... my perception is that a lot of contributors mistake official Vatican positions (or at least explicitly pro-Catholic) on the pope for NPOV; but it's important for Wikipedians to make a distinction between these. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:36, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

Thanks, Lulu, for your message. Though I disagree with you (or do I?) If you're referring to the "His Holiness" issue, I can't see how this formal address can be POV. The style book does speak in favour of including it. However I can also live without it being included. There are more serious issues I have been plunging into - and what a plunge it was (especially the BMW slave labour thing). If you're referring to the "voting advice" issue. Sorry, if I was a bit rude, but you weren't the first to change this, probably to improve the wording. Your version sounds better, that's true, but sometimes we have to take a rugged path if we want to cross a mountain. Str1977 22:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's funny to be cross-talking on each others user talk pages, but I guess that's the easiest way. I appreciated several changes you made in the way of NPOV and clarity. The "His Holiness" suggestion (formally ...), but also the citation to the politician/abortion letter. My hunch is we actually DO have different underlying opinions on the pope, but it's nice to see someone I might disagree with producing quality entry text. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:04, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)


Proto[edit]

Sorry, Proto, that was some flip of the hand I shouldn't have done, but I can't see how "living" can be POV. Str1977 11:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Is cool, thanks for apologising. I'd see 'living' as a POV term cause a lot of people don't believe a fetus is alive, certainly not initially. Me, I think it is fairly soon after conception, but I sat through enough ethics lectures to know that isn't necessarily everyone's point of view. And especially there, I don't really see what it adds to the sentence by having it in, so leaving it out is better. Proto 12:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


Germany[edit]

Didn't mean to step on your compromise so fast--I was working on the same thing and tried to merge them and keep them on the topic of culture. Stratton 22:20, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Filioque[edit]

I'm very busy at the moment, and would rather not do any editing until Wednesday. However, I have noticed a bit of reverting (very civil and good faith, etc.) going on in the "Dialogue with Other Faiths" section, and I believe there may be some misunderstanding.

The Nicene Creed, in the official (and appalling) English translation, says, "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son." "We" is, of course, a mistranlation for "I". The official Latin text says "Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem, qui ex Patre Filioque procedit". That's the same as the English version, except that the sentence just begins with "And in", rather than "I [or we] believe in". The word "Credo" ("I believe") is at the very beginning of the Profession, and is not repeated for each sentence in the Latin version.

My understanding is that the Eastern Orthodox Churches have a problem with the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son. I think they believe He proceeds from the Father through the Son, but I'm not sure. Since the word Filioque ("and the Son") was not in the original version of the Creed, it could be omitted (though not denied) as a gesture towards ecumenism. That seems to have been the case in the wording of Dominus Iesus [1].

Some of the reverting seems to have been over whether it should be upper or lower case letters, and some over whether it should be "Patre" or "Patre Filioque". The Vatican document uses upper case ("Patre", not "patre"). As it currently stands, the Wikipedia article says the following:

The changed Latin sentence is "Credo in Spiritum Sanctum qui ex Patre procedit" ("I believe in the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father and the Son").

That's incorrect because:

  • The Latin sentence begins with "Et in" (and in), not with "Credo in" (I believe in).
  • The Latin sentence has "Dominum et vivificantem". If those words are omitted, for the sake of space, there should be dots ( . . . ). Otherwise, it looks like a direct and complete quotation.
  • The English translation should either begin with "And in", or else use square brackets for [I believe in].
  • The English translation of the changed Latin version (from Dominus Iesus) should not have "and the Son". (The omission of "and the Son" is the entire point of that paragraph.

By the way, I'm not very keen on "quietly left out without notice" in that paragraph. You can't very well leave out something noisily. I'd go for something like "omitted without comment".

Would anyone like to have a shot at re-editing that section while I go back to my work? Ann Heneghan 14:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear Ann, I had a shot.

I rephrased this into

...in which the famous "filioque" clause ("and the Son") is quietly ommitted. The changed Latin sentence reads "Et in Spiritum Sanctum (...), qui ex Patre procedit" ("and in the Holy Spirit (...), who proceeds from the Father") instead of "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" ("who proceeds from the Father and the Son"). ...

This addresses all your four points, only the implied "I believe" is not explained in the text, though I'm not sure whether this is needed.

My former edits on this where only looking at the upper/lower case thing. And if it is "Spiritum Sanctum" it must be "Patre" and "Filio(que)".

I share your ill-feeling towards the mistranslation.

Your understanding of the issue is quite right. The original Nicean creed had only "proceeds from the Father" - the inclusion of the Son however is used by some Church Fathers (don't know which ones) and was later gradually adopted by the Western Churches (first the Spanish Churches, than the Frankish Churches (under Charlemagne) and than the Roman Church (under the influence of Emperor Henry II)), probably to combat a subordinationist mis-interpretation of the creed. However, the Eastern Churches have rejected this unilateral act as conflicting with provisions of the Council of Ephesus. So the opposition was mainly on the formal level until the Patriarch Photius of Constantinople claimed a difference in substance, in order to paint his Roman adversaries as heretics. I think, it was also him who came up with the wording "from the Father through the Son" in order to phrase the supposed difference, so of course he didn't change the text. Attempts of reconciliation have basically always interpreted the Western "and the Son" as equaling the Eastern "through the Son". These reunions were, whenever they were achieved, short-lived.

The ommission in Dominus Iesus might be a gesture of ecumenism towards the Eastern Churches. However, it also backfired, since some Protestant leaders in Germany complained about the ommission and denounced it as tampering with the creed. (This was a very hilarious complaint coming from Peter Steinacker. I won't get into details about him. If you want to know more, please tell me.) Str1977 18:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, this is a bit overdue, but I've been really busy. Thanks for following up my suggestions on the Benedict XVI page regarding the Filioque clause. I wish it were possible to do a little bit of Wikipedia editing. Once I start, it completely takes over. And now that I've finished two important assignments, and expect to be a bit freer in the next few days, I find that the bickering on the Terri Schiavo talk page is worse than ever, so I'll probably be there for a while rather than at Pope Benedict. And yes, I would be interested in hearing about Peter Steinacker. Thanks again. Ann Heneghan 16:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear Ann,

thanks for your note - I can relate to what your saying: editing really takes over. I can imagine what it's like over at Terri's - I myself am a bit wrapped up in other places (Ludwig Kaas, Centre Party etc)

About Steinacker:

of course, I see this all through catholic-coloured glasses, and maybe he is not the arch-liberal (always understood as theological liberal, for lack of a better current term, the former ones are considered inflammatory nowadays ;-)) I think he is - there may be worse ones out there.

Steinacker is the president of the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Hessen and Nassau (evangelical (Evangelisch) here doesn't mean what it means in English (Evangelikal), basically it means Protestant) - this church is covering Wiesbaden, Darmstadt, Frankfurt, Gießen.

His picture is here: http://www.ekhn.de/bilder/portraits/steinacker_peter.jpg

Maybe one could compare him with the American Bishop Spong, but without the charisma and the crazy ideas.

In fact he is all grey in grey.

When the regional Hessen TV did a series on Church leaders in Hessen (3 catholic bishops, 2 protestant bishops/presidents), Kamphaus of Limburg was talking about spirituality and practical charity, Dyba (rawwww! and RIP) of Fulda about his years in Africa and fighting abortion, Lehmann of Mainz talked about liturgy, theology and ABBA, the Protestant bishop of Kassel talked about Luther and Steinacker talked about money, finances and budget problems and nothing else.

But then he was the sole representative for Christianity on another show on the same programme and portrayed all his beliefs as the beliefs of all Christianity (except for homosexual blessings - he only said that it is not a sin in his church.)

Anyway, imagine this guy suddenly writing an letter to a national newspaper, in which he complained about no less than good ol' Cardinal Ratzinger, "chief inquisitor" and "nemesis of all liberty" (not his words), and of his straying from the truth of the faith and pandering to the eastern schismatics.

And then he sent him to the stake. - Well, no, he didn't.

It was a very bizarre thing to read. Str1977 20:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Abortion[edit]

Thanks for your quick answer on "Rv vandalism a personal attack?" Str1977 21:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. Have it on my watchlist :P gkhan 21:47, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Str1977 - check out the latest on Abortion - people are calling medical definitions POV. (214.13.4.151)

Kudos to you. I know our approaches are different. I am happy to have you posting on the Abortion page. I am trying to comport with wiki rules, but quite frankly I have not seen much attempt at neutrality on how this article is written. Understandably, I suppose - but alas, that is the frustration: most everyone has a bias, yet most people who favor legality pretend they are not in favor abortions legally taking place in their community (whereas most pro-lifers readily admit that they wish all abortion was banned. 214.13.4.151 11:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I don't think our approaches to the topic in question are that different. You might have got the impression because lately I have been arguing a lot for the distinction between what can legitemately be called POV (though I think it is the right, less artificial, more reasonable POV and actually the truth - talking about personhood) and the undisputable facts (unborn human individual). Since these are facts, the arguing about alledged POV is really not according to Wiki rules, that state that balance and NPOV is not to blur facts. Str1977 15:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please add your thoughts on this [2] User: Tznkai 18:36, 24 June 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you appreciated it. Care to add it (with the appropriate explanations) to the latest BJAODN? I would, but having written it, I'm somewhat partial. → ( AllanBz  ) 28 June 2005 16:23 (UTC)

Please visit http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abortion and add your voice. The truth is hurting some people over there. 214.13.4.151 15:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Merovingians[edit]

Dear Slac, you posted on Template talk:Merovingians:

Because of its size, I'm thinking of dividing up this template into three: Kings of Neustria & Burgundy, Kings of Austrasia, and Kings of All the Franks.

I don't know whether that's feasible, since the branches divide and unite repeatedly. Also, this two-part (or three part) division is not really accurate before 623. What about the kings that do not fit into this division, like Chlodomer, Charibert I, Guntram, Charibert II? Str1977 6 July 2005 22:56 (UTC)

Perhaps not. But it would be good if there were some reasonable way of reducing the template's size. Of course, the listings are inconsistent as they appear throughout WP currently, so I suppose that would have to be fixed first. Slac speak up! 6 July 2005 22:58 (UTC)

Sure, if you can come up with a solution, go ahead. As for inconsistency, I fixed the template list and the "list of Frankish kings". If you have questions, please feel free to ask. Str1977 6 July 2005 23:39 (UTC)

A possibility might be this one: to split it in two templates, one covering the time before 613 - when the kingdoms are very much in flux still - and the other covering the period from 613 to 751 - with the stable duality between a king of Neustria & Burgundy and one king of Austrasia (except Aquitaine). As I have seen, the Carolingian template is also a bit messy. Str1977 7 July 2005 00:09 (UTC)

That does seem to be a good idea. The two Carolingian templates also seem to overlap somewhat. Slac speak up! 7 July 2005 00:14 (UTC)

Maybe, with the Carolingians, there could be one template covering the period until the treaty of Verdun, and then one for the Western branch, one for the Eastern branch, and ... well, I don't know what to do with the Lotharingian, Burgundian, Italian branch. Str1977 7 July 2005 00:22 (UTC)

German Church tax[edit]

Dear Clayworth,

the church tax does exist in Germany, however the details you give are not accurate (church - or charity - of your choice is the Italian way)

Not all religious groups do raise church. If a group is sufficently big, sufficently stable and not at odds with the constitution, they can attain the status of "corporation of public law" and they then can among other things (against a fee) use the state's revenue system of raising "membership fees" from their members (the amount is usually a percentage of from the income tax). Currently this status is held by the Catholic Church, the mainline Protesant EKD and the Jewish congregation. Also, Jevovah's Wittnesses have recently succeeded in a court case giving them this status as well, but so far they haven't decided on how to deal with their newly won rights.

So you give church tax to the "church of your choice" because you are a member of that church, but not to any other church. You also can opt out only by withdrawing official membership. If you don't belong to a church/religious group that raises that church tax (as explained above) you don't have to pay anything (in contrast with the Italian model).

Str1977 19:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers about the German church tax. I have a couple more questions if that's OK.

  • Is the church tax an 'opt in' or 'opt out'; i.e. if you do nothing (say when you start work for the first time) is money taken from you for a church?
  • Is the amount taken from you determined by the church, or the government, or do you choose how much?
  • If you join one of these registered churches do you get money taken away from you automatically, or do you have to give the church (or the government) separate permission for that?

I hope that's not too much trouble. DJ Clayworth 20:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome, Clayworth.

"Is the church tax an 'opt in' or 'opt out'; i.e. if you do nothing (say when you start work for the first time) is money taken from you for a church?"

It depends on whether you are a member of a church that raises church tax. If you are, you pay church tax (if you're liable to pay income tax) but you can "opt out" by "opting out" of the church. - If you're not a member, you don't pay church tax, but you can "opt in" by "opting into" the church.

"Is the amount taken from you determined by the church, or the government, or do you choose how much?"

The amount is fixed by law: currently, I think, it is 10 per cent of your income tax. In Bavaria it's 9 per cent but there is an additional payment ("Kirchgeld") to your local parish, but with this the amount is not fixed. (Sometimes tables are issued, but these are only for orientation.)

What I don't know is whether these percentages are the same for every church or whether some are "cheaper" or "dearer". (I don't know, I've only belonged to one and I'm not intending to change that.) The figures i gave are valid for the Catholic Church and those of the Protestant church, I think, are the same. Don't know about the Jews. There might be differences since it's the choice of a church whether to raise church tax. As I said, JW haven't yet decided what to do with their newly won rights.

"If you join one of these registered churches do you get money taken away from you automatically, or do you have to give the church (or the government) separate permission for that?"

The money is taken along with the other taxes. If you are an employeé, it is taken together with the wage tax by your employer to the revenue service and at the end of the year you can calculate whether you paid too much and get the difference back. If you are self-employed you pay the money with the annual income tax. I know, German tax laws are complicated.

"I hope that's not too much trouble."

Not at all. Str1977 22:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Alexandra[edit]

If I may jump in on this issue, John, I'd like to point out to things:

Str1977 12:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Alexandra's name was definitely Alix. Princess Alice was her mother, the Grand Duchess, a daughter of Queen Victoria. The name "Alice" doesn't work in German, and the closest they could manage was "Alix." Or so I've read. As to Sophie of Anhalt-Zerbst, the problem is that Catherine was not only a consort, but also a reigning monarch. If she'd just been consort for Peter III (and, say, regent for her son after his overthrow, since it's hard to imagine Peter III lasting very long), I'm sure people would be saying her article has to be at Sophie of Anhalt-Zerbst. john k 14:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Dear John, thanks for your reply.

And also thanks for signing the RfC.

Yes, probably some would say Sophie, if she hadn't been reigning Empress.

As for Alice:

So it must have been her mother after whom the hospital is called.

However, Alice is also not so uncommon a name in Germany (my cousin is called Alice - though in her case it's pronounced Aleeze - but probably nowadays there are Alices with English pronunciation.), but maybe back then it wasn't as common, especially among the nobility. For instance, the second wife of Napoleon I, whom we commonly call Marie Louise appears in the (or some at least) Habsburg genealogies as Marie Ludovika.

19:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, almost certainly the hospital was named for her mother. I've no idea of the commonness of Alice now in Germany. I do recall something along the lines that they used "Alix" because in German it sounds more like the English pronunciation of Alice than spelling it "Alice" would - I think Alice was irritated at people calling her "Aleeze," or something along those lines. john k 19:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


Arianism[edit]

Hey there-

I don't mean to sound pissy, but what were your problem with the following "wording issues" in the Arianism article?

I wrote: "These moves did not stop the controversy within the church, however, and Constantine tried to pacify the situation and became more lenient towards the Arians."

You changed to: "Though unwavering in his adherence to the Nicean creed, Constantine tried to pacify the situation and became more lenient towards the Arians."

Can you provide evidence that Constantine was "unwavering to his adherence to the Nicene Creed"? As far as I know, no writings of Constantine himself on the subject have survived. Others, both Arian and Nicene, wrote about him later, and all tried to claim him as one of their own. Meanwhile, the fact that he kept on a known Arian or semi-Arian (Eusebius of Caesaria) as his personal theologian, eventually receiving baptism from him, seems like it might cause one to question the statement. Personally, my feeling is that Constantine, like probably the vast majority of his contemporaries, didn't care much about the dispute and primarily wanted peace in the church. I tried to leave out any unknowable info about Constantine's personal feelings and just stick to what he actually did. I'm open to hearing any hard evidence that you have that I might have missed though.

I wrote: The dispute continues

You changed back to: The dispute resumes

Why this change? As the previous paragraph makes clear, Nicea by no means settled matters, and there was still ongoing controversy. "Resumes" implies that the dispute stopped at some point. The subhead could be a lot more evocative, for sure, but to use "resumes" I think is misleading.

I wrote: "As debates raged in an attempt to come up with a new, more universally acceptable formula..."

You changed back to: "As debates raged in an attempt to come up with a new formula..."

If you accept the contents of the following paragraph, it should be clear that many of those arguing were attempting to come up with a formula that everyone could accept. Why drop the addition?

Like I said, I don't mean to sound pissy or possessive about the article, but I'm a little baffled about the purpose behind these edits. Jfruh 11:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Bavarian Reaction[edit]

Yes I'm familiar with deletes. It's up for a speedy deletion which mean that when an admin sees it, they'll hopefully agree it should be deleted and do so. If an admin or another user thinks that it's not elligible for speedy deletion, they may remove the message, in which case it can be removed by a vote for deletion WP:VFD

Cheers, Cdyson37 13:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

German Wiki[edit]

Hallo Str1977, was ist der Grund für Deinen Revert auf de:Simon Petrus? Du weißt sicher, dass unbegründete Vollreverts bei Wikipedia unzulässig sind. Es geht hier um Verständigung und Zusammenarbeit. Ich habe sorgfältig recherchiert und die Überarbeitung detailliert begründet auf der Disku: Das solltest Du ebenso tun. Bhucks Anfrage hast Du auch nicht beantwortet. Wie soll so Vertrauen entstehen? Jesusfreund 16:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The Holocaust[edit]

Sorry that I lumped you and the anonymous user together earlier, I couldn't figure out whether the comments were from someone else or from you not logged in. I apologize for the confusion. --Goodoldpolonius2 20:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Historical persecution by Christians[edit]

You might be interested in the Historical persecution by Christians article, and the dispute about the "Modern" section. Jayjg (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Christian Heritage Party of Canada[edit]

You may be interested to read this about the CHP from their website:

"The CHP is Canada's only pro-Life federal political party, and the only federal party that endorses the Judeo-Christian principles enshrined in the Canadian Constitution:

'Canada was founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God' - capital 'G': the God of the Bible -'and the rule of law.'"

So I don't think that that the phrase in question in the CHP article is problematic. Regards, Ground Zero | t 19:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Judah/Judaea[edit]

Well, personally, I'm not sure we should have any discussion of the post 586 BC Judaea in an article on the Kingdom of Judah. We should note that it was annexed by the Babylonians and that the Persians allowed the exiles to return, but no more than that. The rest should probably be in Judaea. If we are to have this section, it should certainly only refer to Judaea. john k 23:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Christians[edit]

I must not be a very good communicator. You have indicated that you could not follow my logic or trail; I will try and do better.

Before stating a group is non-Christian, please define Christian in the article. In doing so, we might illiminate a good deal of confusion that would be engendered by the statement, "Mormons are not Christian". When someone who is not a Christian reads the statement, it is too easy to assume that Mormons do not worship Christ, which is false. I think you will find that the world views Mormons as Christian (it is a little hard not to when the name of the chruch is {{The CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST of latter-day Saints]]), it is only other Christian churches that feel compelled to draw a distinction and redefine the term Christian so as to exclude Mormons.

I think it would also be helpful to document by referencing/linking to at least some of those chruches who have stated that Mormons are not Christians. I know ministers who state it, but only a few churches that go so far as to proclaim it.

When you define Christian, as you use the term, it is then easy to understand that what you mean is Mormons are not part of historical or traditional Christianity. That is completely appropriate because Mormons claim that all the churches were/are in a state of apostasy. Their creeds are the doctrines of men and have nothing to do with God or His teachings.

A compromise would be If you use "Mormons are not viewed as part of traditional Christianity". However, an alternative would be for you to use the same statement you desire and I would then put in a definition and why Mormons agree with the statement based upon the definition. Storm Rider 19:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Constantine Hanging[edit]

Why did you remove my details on crucifixion,{Date} hanging, burning at the stake and the shedding of blood and make things so general? Please reply in the discussion page for Constantine the Great. Gave up. User:68.41.141.167 00:25, 25 October 2005

Checkout capital punishment in the Catholic Encyclopedia for burning at the stake. The way I understood it, it was not new in the early Middle Ages. The public execution of a criminal, was of course, to exhibit to the populace there was law and order.(A fun day of educational entertainment with the family.) The ancient Romans were very creative when it came to the executions of criminals. They had many methods. Check out executions in the arena, strangling seems to have been quite popular, etc. I would expect hanging was just one of more humane ones. Thanks a lot for the kind reply. Gave Up 25 Oc5 05

Ordination of women[edit]

I edited the article according to what I had entered on the talk page. patsw 01:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "theological reasons" in OOW. If Jesus had included women in the 12, the history of Christianity would have been different, in fact, the history of civilization itself would have been different. There would have been many women bishops, priests, and deacons through the centuries. But Jesus didn't include women in the 12 and that is the central theological reason. patsw 01:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Georg Elser[edit]

Hallo Str1977, vielen Dank erstmal für Deine Nachricht!

Was ich mit meinem Beitrag sagen wollte war, daß die die Spekulationen um Elser - zwei davon finden sich auch im Artikel wieder: britischer Mordauftrag und Niemöllers Behauptung, Elser sei SS-Scharführer gewesen, um mit einem bewußten Fehlschlag der Öffentlichkeit Hitlers "Gottgesandtheit" zu demonstrieren - stärker kommentiert werden sollten.

Zwar sind sie im Artikel als Gerüchte gekennzeichnet, doch wäre hier meines Erachtens eine klares Wort angebracht, daß sie schlicht und ergreifend Quatsch sind - ohne die Integrität Niemöller sonst in Frage zu stellen.

Wer noch nie was von Georg Elser gehört hat, und das ist im englisch-sprachigen Wikipedia wahrscheinlich eher der Fall, für den scheinen die im Artikel aufgeworfenen Gerüchte vielleicht durchaus eine anerkannte Diskussionsgrundlage zu sein.

Wir wissen beide, daß dem nicht so ist. Ich meine: Eine direkt ablehnende Kommentierung dieser Spekulationen wäre auch keine subjektive Sicht der Verfasser mehr, sondern entspräche heute den historische Tatsachen. Dies würde dem Andenken an diesen großartigen Widerstandskämpfer auch nicht schaden.

Zuletzt will ich in diesem Zusammenhang auf die hervorragende Biographie "Den Hitler jag ich in die Luft" von Hellmut G. Haasis, Rowohlt Berlin 1999, verweisen. Insbesondere Kapitel 20: "Der lange Weg zur Anerkennung".

Tschüß und bis dann, (Strafrechtler) Felix R.

Thiering stuff[edit]

I looked them over and you are correct. The language preferred by the other editor implies that Thiering's theories will (inevitably) be accepted someday, which is guesswork at worst, wishful thinking at best. Your sentences were far more accurate and NPOV. Hope I have helped without fueling the fires of discontent. KHM03 12:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to formally request mediation as this is not productive. If you agree we can go ahead with the process.

Sincerly, Dylanstephens 18:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Reichskonkordat[edit]

I want to apologize for my overly harsh tone at Talk:Reichskonkordat. After some wiki-stalking I'm of the opinion that you are valueable contributor here. Not that this would outrule the possiblity of some content disputes between us. --Pjacobi 22:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Pjacobi, for your message. I have no hard feelings. I know I'm quite hypersensitive regarding some topics, after what has transpired between April and October. Thanks for your appreciation. Of course, there is nothing bad in respectfully disagreeing on things. Cheers, Str1977 22:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

CDU - Conservative party?[edit]

If it's not a conservative party, what is it? Adam 13:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Adam, the CDU (or the CSU) is not a strictly conservative party. After 1945, both parties (actually at first many local parties who then united in the different states and finally on the federal level with only the Bavarian part reaming distinct) were founded as a union (hence the name) of citizens from three different political movements: Political Catholicism (until 1933 organized in the Centre Party and the Bavarian People's Party), Conservatives and Liberals, all united under the "Christian view on man". The conservative element was later strengthened by the influx of smaller (conserative) parties, but the CDU remains a kind of a mixture. "Conservative" however is used by political opponents as a beating stick in campaigns. Hope that satisfies you, even if I can not easily give a alternative wording. Even "liberal-conservative" is not exact, but it's certainly better than just "conservative". Str1977 14:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)