Hcc01

Ed Balls

Greetings Hcc01. I've hopefully clarified the text of 2 edits I made to Ed Balls in accordance with your edit reason. FWIW I have immense sympathy for Sharon Shoesmith and the country lost a valuable educationalist. However I think it would be better to try to improve the parts you disagree with rather than removing them. Feel free to discuss it on the talk page. JRPG (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hitler/My talk page

Recently you have been on my talk page accusing me of vandalism, and I would appreciate it if you would refrain from making those unfounded claims, and if you do find that I am vandalizing something, please let me know what it is, as I assure you I have the utmost respect for the importance of accurate information on Wikipedia.

Also, as for the Religious views of Adolf Hitler wiki, I see that you have claimed you have a PhD in history and you are a high school teacher, which in your opinion makes you an expert. However, I have noticed some cognitive dissonance in your conclusions about Hitler and the Christian link between his world view and his anti-Semitism, and I was wondering what could cause such dissonance given your high level of education.

The reason I wanted to consult you on your talk page was to ask if you are also a Christian? If you are, that would possibly explain your reluctance to see the same links that I see, which has also been made by many scholars on the subject. If you are not a Christian, then I fail to see why you would be so reluctant to make the same link as I have made, have made as you wouldn't be suffering from the cognitive dissonance that is often required in order to be a Christian.

Respectfully, Greengrounds (talk) 09:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

That's somewhat better, Greengrounds, thank you. Unfortunately it was preceded by two posts elsewhere that were actively defamatory. Accusing me of Holocaust denial or propagandising young children is libellous given my profession and former profession, and short of withdrawal/deletion of the posts I cannot let it pass. I will therefore be referring to mods. I must say, on a personal level, it is difficult to give credence to your claim to 'respect Wikipedia' given your behaviour towards people who point out your mistakes and tendentiousness is in flagrant violation of the policy of 'no personal attacks', despite the warnings you have been given to bring it to your attention.

I'm afraid the person pushing a religious point of view in defiance of scholarship is you. I am an historian. My sole interest is in making the article as accurate as it can possibly be within the constraints of Wikipedia, precisely because, as I have said several times, this is such a sensitive and important topic. It's also why I tend to remove stuff rather than add it - a form of policing rather than editing. The reason I am not 'making the same link' you have made is because I am looking as objectively as I can at the facts, whereas you are merely pushing propaganda and as a result the link you have made is a false one. It is as false as your claim that there are 'many scholars' who support your view (there are many people who share your views that do, but none of you appear to be scholars). Any 'cognitive dissonance' you note in my replies is solely because you have decided on your view, based on your religion of aggressive atheism and in flat defiance of a mass of historical research conducted over the last fifty years, that Adolf Hitler must have been a Christian because all bad people must be religious. Minor details like 'facts' or 'reality' clearly do not interest you (I must admit the irony of many of your posts is quite breathtaking). You are replacing well-sourced - if often poorly-expressed - work based on mainstream scholarship and apparently deliberately replacing it with ill-informed propaganda from any old source that supports your point of view. You are not even consistent in what you use - Richard Carrier's famous blog? BBC Bitesize? French sources you clearly cannot read? Leavened with off-the-wall Christian apologetics such as Chick Tracts? They all appear to be grist to your mill. And that, I am afraid, is also vandalism, which is why I used that word (so is interrupting or otherwise editing other people's comments on the talk page, which you do rather too often). It is the deliberate damaging of an article, and I might add that largely thanks to you (and to a far lesser extent Ozhistory) that article is now in a diabolical state that reflects no credit on anyone.

Of course, merely because there is an historical consensus on one thing does not mean it is right. That is why I have said that if you can find reliable sources that put forward a different view, or if you can write them, by all means bring them in. I would look forward to reading them, because I like historical debates and finding out new points of view. If I find them credible or persuasive, I'm quite happy to change my mind on the subject. You've had weeks if not months to come up with new material that matches the standards of WP:RS and you've not managed it. The overwhelming consensus is that Hitler was probably not an atheist. It's difficult to be entirely sure because he kept giving conflicting information, and some researchers go further than I would on that point and say he was, but in a sense it's not relevant because that's not really what you're trying to prove. What you apparently want to do is damn Christianity by association with Hitler. Why you want to, given all the perfectly legitimate grounds for criticism of Christianity and the Christian churches that exist without your trying to launch a one-person crusade to change historical thinking, isn't at all clear, but that's the way your edits and your contributions are evidently pointing. The key therefore from your point of view is that there is overwhelming agreement among historians who have studied this topic that he was not Christian and that he gave every sign of being strongly anti-Christian, even though some of the finer points (agnosticism, deism, naturalism etc.) are still endlessly debated. His earlier worldview may well have been Christian, but there is overwhelming evidence to suggest his later one was based on a form of pseudo-scientific understanding, derived loosely from the social hygiene movement that grew out of Darwinism. I would add, although his anti-Semitism may have had a Christian basis, the Holocaust went much wider than that, and included Poles (Catholics) the disabled (cared for by Catholics) and the gypsies (diverse religious positions). This less-well-remembered element is one reason why mainstream scholarship tends to reject Christianity as the basis for the Holocaust, although most agree there was some contributory factor and again, the precise degree is open to debate.

Merely googling internet sources created by atheists as biased as yourself, who do not speak German and who will uncritically accept that which supports their view while screaming 'propaganda' about the majority that contradicts it, isn't going to change that. I'm afraid, until you are willing to accept that you must subordinate your religious beliefs to what really happened, you are probably going to have continuous trouble on Wikipedia, and as long as you are so abusive, you are going to be unpopular.

Hope that is of some help - especially the advice at the end.Hcc01 (talk) 11:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Hcc01, you have my sincere sympathies at being the current target of Greengrounds rages. Other than your mild association of my activity on the Religious views of Adolf Hitler page with those of Greengrounds, I find myself in agreement with everything you say above, and would support any referral to a moderator (the article, taken in whole, remains very poor - but, whatever the shortcomings of my own contributions, you seem to be underestimating the parlous state of the article before my contributions began). Greengrounds, meanwhile, who appears to be virtually a "single issue editor" has breached virtually every tenet of wikipedia - misquoting sources, deleting cited content, insertion of poorly sourced content, abusing other editors, grammar and spelling mistakes and a relentless POV push against scholarly consensus. I have no idea how to go about it, but believe that it is in the interests of wikipedia to report Greengrounds to a moderator. Already I have advised him of Wikipedia's reliable sourcing policies and copyright policies. Myself and AndyThe Grump have noted that he has misquoted sources, and Deadbeef has advised him of the requirement to assume good faith; of not making personal attacks; and of remaining civil as a consensus is built. IronMaidenRocks, Farsight001, User:66.216.235.202 and others have also raised sourcing questions and other issues. The breaches nevertheless continue unabated. He has accused me of being a "retard" and a "liar" - likened you to a "holocaust deniar" and called you a hypocrite etc - and virtually everybody of being Christian apologists etc. He will not engage in respectful discussion, nor concede any point by reference to reliable sources. What do we do next? Ozhistory (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Ozhistory - I hope you did not take offence at my elision of you to Greengrounds. What I meant was that you have occasionally taken the article further than I am entirely happy with (I'm far from certain that the historical consensus is that Hitler was an atheist and I think care needs to be taken in using such a potentially emotive label) and provoked a corresponding reaction. However, you have always been polite and open to reasoned debate and discussion on your changes, which I regret to say Greengrounds is not. You also do proper research into the subject, which I have noticed before - just maybe be a bit careful about the presentation. I appreciate your support. Next step is to open a 'requests for comment' page to bring the matter to wider attention, giving examples of Greengrounds' behaviour. If there is no resolution from that, it can be referred to full arbitration which could result in a ban. Alternatively, it could be referred straight to the Administrators if you would prefer to short-cut - certainly it's serious enough - but my view is it would be better to give Greengrounds every chance to turn around his behaviour and make amends, so he's got no comeback if/when he is slung out. If you would like to do that, by all means go ahead and I will back you. Otherwise, I will do it myself on Friday when I am (hopefully) not under the shadow of my current article deadline!Hcc01 (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Hcc01 (talk) Thank you, thank you, thank you THANK YOU for calling out Ozhistory on what he is doing. It has made me sick to my stomach what he has done to that article, and the "double standards" he applies on the Religious views of Adolf Hitler page over the past two months. It has been a constant battle, and he has certainly proven he is not above Edit warring to impose his agenda.

My perspective on the Religious views of Adolf Hitler wiki is that it should simply be removed from Wikipedia entirely it is too prone to Neutral point of view abuse.

Most of my edits have been formatting trying to combat blatant block quoting and POV violations and I don't recall deleting any relevant information and replacing it with poorly sourced info. For example, why should Boland and Domarus get block quotes while Toland is made virtually irrelevant.

I agree with Toland's assessment of the evidence: Later in his biography, Toland wrote that, in 1941, Hitler was still "a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite his detestation of its hierarchy, he carried within himself its teaching that the Jew was the killer of God. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of God — so long as it was done impersonally, without cruelty."

Hitler believed he was doing gods work. There was never any evidence that he rejected Jesus as savior, and you have said that Hitler's beliefs in no way espoused even a loose definition of Christianity. Well, to be a Christian all you have to do is accept jesua as savior, under many definitions that all it takes to be Christian, or am I wrong? So Hitler could very well be up in Heaven with his Catholic Nazi friends.

Then there is Steigmann-Gall, Susanna Heschel, Robert Ericksen, John Cornwell, and even Edmond Paris (who had the apparently unfortunate misfortune of getting picked up by Chick), but if you read his book he provides some very relevant and well referenced material. All of these authors are relegated to the back pages, or are not even allowed on site.

The BBC reference was used as a complimentary reference to a http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk reference which simply alluded to the easily verifiable fact that the Pagans were persecuted (which would seem to contradict the tone of the article that Hitler was a Pagan). So rather than looking at the info and the contradictory evidence, NOPE! It's gone based on sourcing, but it's easily verifiable information. Yet it's somehow relevant that some churches were persecuted. I just don't understand the double standard.

Anyway, I was glad to see some consistency on your part in at least recognizing what was being done by Ozhistory on this page, I only wish you would have spoken out sooner. It's very frustrating feeling like I'm the only one who notices it it, and yes I resorted to some drastic and un Wikipedia like measures, which wasn't the best way to do it, I didn't realize there were other measures I could have taken.Greengrounds (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes Hcc01, the above text just further illustrates the breadth of the problems with this editor. His comments, as per usual, don't necessarily match his prior actions - and I note that he is now saying he wants to delete the whole article! My reference to "moving the article towards consensus" doesn't refer to the atheism question, but rather giving due weight to consensus that Hitler was hostile to the Christianity, and that his regime's long term plans for the churches were hostile. As you are familiar with the complaints process, I will observe and assist as and when required. One of the many peculiar things about Greengrounds interventions are that they have often been justified by reference to an edit which didn't actually exist when he signed up to wikipedia. Briefly I had a line in the opening saying "Hitler was an atheist". It was revised before Greengrounds arrived on the scene, a revision which I accepted, and have adopted and worked with ever since. Strangely then, I first became aware of Greengrounds presence via a message on my talk page saying "Hitler wasn't an atheist - stop spreading lies" - but referring to an edit which no longer stood. Alas, lucky me. Ozhistory (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hcc01 (talk) Clearly I am not the only one who has violated Wikipedia rules here, and as you seem to be willing to guide the conflict, I would like to present to you my case against Ozhistory (talk), I left him this on his talk page in response to his accusations against me on my talk page. He proceeded to remove this as "vandalism", so I offered him the same courtesy in removing his comments from mine as vandalism as well. Any way, it was his POV violations that got me fired up in the first place, though I admit I have handled it wrong. I am prepared to accept responsibility for my actions, though I hope to see just application of Wikipedia standards for both parties involved in this dispute. If you see look at the talk page at Religious views of Adolf Hitler, as well as mediator User:Deadbeef, we had reached a consensus on whereby Deadbeef had finally asked whoever does NOT agree with the lead as written, please speak up. Neither of us spoke up, inferring an agreement. When I checked back a few weeks later, Oz had totally bit by bit rewritten the lead to suit his POV, without a single time referring to the talk page. If you note, I have been more than willing to talk, albeit somewhat belligerent to other users at times, to my regret. But at least I was willing to talk, and willing to stick with initial mediation rulings. Oz was not, and he is as a part of this ongoing dispute as well, depite his desire to paint himself as an innocent victim. Here is basically my complaint against him, plus the previously mentioned bypassing the mediation process we had already gone through, should be considered quite unethical.

Ozhistory (talk)In your edits on Adolf Hitler you have received a citation for edit warring, and I see you are currently involved again on the The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany in reverting other user's edits. Many of your recent edits, specifically on the latter article violate the policy of Citing sources. Proper citations should be used, and other users should be respected when they ask for citations. On both of the articles in question you have been accused by multiple users of Violating Wikipedia's Point of View Policies. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is a community, and you do not own the articles, nor do you have the right to impose your POV on Wikipedia articles. Specifically, Avoid stating opinions as facts. Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. Please pay close attention to article structure and Due and Undue Weight, Balance, Impartial tone, and Words to watch. Also you have completely ignored previous mediation agreements in whichUser:Deadbeef was the mediator.Greengrounds (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Greengrounds, further slanders above. Not helping your case. I have had very little to do with the Adolf Hitler article - still less be involved in any "edit warring". I have a very good record on citations, research and collaborative article writing and respectful disagreement. It would assist us all however if you took your own advice in relation to sourcing, stating opinions as facts, edit warring, article structure, due weigh, POV pushing etc etc. Icc01, I suggest you delete the above as personal abuse. Ozhistory (talk) 04:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Greengrounds, I am not taking your side against Ozhistory. I am not taking sides, nor do I wish to, and I haven't time to 'guide disputes' (although there are times when I think it would be a lot more fun than marking). I have pointed out to Ozhistory that there are one or two issues with the way s/he has edited the article at times, and these criticisms appear to have been accepted. I'm not the only one who has suggested care is required, and Ozhistory has always seemed open to reasoned criticism on the subject. You on the other hand appear to have ignored the far more serious criticisms I list that have been levelled at you, by a large number of experienced editors over a long period of time. If you were to hold rational discussions with editors who hold different points of view, based on solid research and proper consideration of the evidence, that would be great. Unfortunately, every one of the following criticisms could be and has been made about you by a very large number of editors: In your edits on Adolf Hitler you have received a citation for edit warring, and I see you are currently involved again on the The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany in reverting other user's edits. Many of your recent edits, specifically on the latter article violate the policy of Citing sources. Proper citations should be used, and other users should be respected when they ask for citations. On both of the articles in question you have been accused by multiple users of Violating Wikipedia's Point of View Policies. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is a community, and you do not own the articles, nor do you have the right to impose your POV on Wikipedia articles. Specifically, Avoid stating opinions as facts. Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. Please pay close attention to article structure and Due and Undue Weight, Balance, Impartial tone, and Words to watch. And incidentally, all of that could be and clearly is considered by Ozhistory to be personal abuse - and you wrote it about another user on my talk page. Therefore, I think we still need moderation on this. I haven't time to do it today, but tomorrow I will be submitting a formal notification to the Administrators about your behaviour. In the meanwhile I would advise - although as you have noted I have no authority on wikipedia and you are if you wish at liberty to ignore my advice - that you refrain from editing anything to give everyone time to cool off a bit, because I am concerned at the way this dispute seems to be shaping. Finally one offer to both of you about this specific page - I am willing to re-edit the page from first principles in July if you are both happy to agree not to edit it for three months afterwards. I make this offer for two reasons (1) to offer both of you a way out to cool off a bit and (2) because the article is currently in something of a mess with sentences not following on from each other, citations being orphaned and disputes sprouting up almost daily on the talk page. Much though I would love to do it today or tomorrow, I won't have time until the end of next month. I will repeat this offer on the talk page of the article.Hcc01 (talk) 08:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I would accept that offer, but the other editor appears to be more interested in making his POV edits. Also, could you provide me a link that would help me with filing a dispute claim? Oz history is getting off scot free here, and he has even slandered me on other talk pages. It is unjust that he should not be held accountable for his behavior as he has done personal attacks against me from day one, ignored mediation attempts from mods, been accused by multiple editors of POV violations, and most recently has slandered me on another article's talk page. I have already admitted that the way I have handled him and others was wrong, and I am prepared to be held accountable, but it would be unjust for him not to be held accountable. Greengrounds (talk) 05:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Greengrounds, "personal attacks" from day one, "slander" on others' talk pages - again you are defining your own actions. Cease accusing me of POV "violations" (I have merely engaged in respectful processes of collaborative editing). I have not ignored moderators, and once it became clear that an editor (albeit one single editor - you) wished to completely revert my accuracy additions to the April text, I have been conducting a collaborative discussion on the lead, and made modifications to a draft in response to all reasonable criticisms, or suggestions. What you refer to as me "slandering you on an article page" refers to me advising a longstanding editor of your capacity for "alarming overstatement" after you claimed that the Catholic Church and Nazi Germany article was "sickening" for not making it sufficiently clear that "Catholic Germany supported the Nazis" etc. That editor pulled you up for overstatement (my word). I gave a mild "heads up" that you have previously demonstrated a capacity for doing so. Other editors have been far more blunt with you than I. I would therefore appreciate it if you would post a formal apology on my page to bookend your month of personal vendetta (of which your post to Hcc01 is only the latest example). Ozhistory (talk) 08:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hcc01, you must, by now, be as tired as I am of been named on talk pages related to this editor. As his post to you of 31 May indicates and recent comments on Catholic Church and Nazi Germany confirm, he at this stage wishes to inflict as much reputational damage on me as possible - presumably this is because I was the first (if not the harshest) to call him out on the issues we have shared. I realise that editors familiar with his conduct will not allow this to unduly influence them, but for fly by editors, this may not be the case. Please advise me as soon as you commence your referral process, so that I can give all necessary assistance. Ozhistory (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

It's done, Ozhistory, Greengrounds. I have opened a requests for comments page. Greengrounds - I am doing it this way because I want to give you every chance to understand what the problem is and why you need to rethink your approach. If an agreement can't be reached, I think we are looking at an Administrator being brought in.Hcc01 (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Catholic Church and Nazi Germany

Not meaning to abuse your talk page, but I was wondering if I could get your opinion on this wiki: Catholic Church and Nazi Germany. As you are an expert on history (not meant to be an inflammatory remark!), and you have earned my trust and some of my respect, and you are also privy to the situation User:Ozhistory and his POV bias on this topic, as well as a bit of bad blood between the two of us.

If you have a look at the article, it is highly biased just like the Religious views of Adolf Hitler page before I tried to stave some of it off. Recently I made an edit where I asked for citations on a few points in a paragraph. I also provided a referenced, relevant citation, which he reverted, inflammatorily referring me to Summi Pontificatus. I know you do not like this word, but I found it quite hypocritical since he undid the edit without providing citations for the material that I had asked, while attacking my source.

Anyway, there are other users on that talk page that seem to be questioning his POV tactics as well, but here is my source and I wanted to get your opinion on it: Complicity in the Holocaust, Robert P. Ericksen Cambridge University Press

As far as I can tell, it is a highly relevant source, and I'm not aware of any reason why it shouldn't be included in the article. You thoughts? Also what would your thoughts be on flagging the article with a POV flag?Greengrounds (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Dispute filed at WP:DRN

Hello Hcc01. This message is to inform you that the ongoing content dispute at Religious views of Adolf Hitler has been filed at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Please feel free to make your claim there, so independent third parties can evaluate the situation and suggest a course of action. Greengrounds, Ozhistory, and IronMaidenRocks have also been notified of the filing, or will soon be notified. Thanks, Deadbeef 04:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Religious views of Adolf Hitler, User talk:Greengrounds". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 04:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Catholic Church and Nazi Germany

Hello Hcc01- We need your help. Today, an editor by the name of Binkstrenet "rolled back" weeks of earnest work by several editors working in close collaboration of which you were a part to resolve a number of issues and were making substantial progress - until today. Please check the Talk page to offer your input. Thank you!Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)