This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Microstates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of European Microstates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European MicrostatesWikipedia:WikiProject European MicrostatesTemplate:WikiProject European MicrostatesEuropean Microstates articles
A fact from Robert Leiber appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 July 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Has something been written where the reverse was intended?edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
"Leiber asserted in 1961 that Pius XII personally ordered superiors of church properties to open their doors to Jews. As exhaustive studies of Susan Zuccotti and others have shown, no written proof this has yet to emerge."
The phrase "no written proof this has yet to emerge" sounds wrong to me - I expected to read "written proof of this has yet to emerge" (without the "no") or alternatively "no written proof of this has yet emerged". In other words, I expect to see the exact opposite of what is currently written. Since this is a referenced statement, I don't want to change it myself. But it looks a lot like something I once did - when experimenting with different ways to present a fact, I accidentally left a superfluous "not" in a sentence, thus imparting the exact opposite meaning to what I had intended, although from the context of the paragraph the "not" clearly shouldn't be there - although it only stood out to me when I was proof-reading the article again with fresh eyes some days later. TheGrappler (talk) 00:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
You are correct. Thanks. Savidan 04:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
And, unfortunetaley, Zuccotti is all but a seroius and sound scholar. - GermanJew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.59.53 (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
.svg)
