Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metz Accord

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Metz Accord[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Marginal and non-NPOV conspiracy theory Lectiodifficilior (talk) 05:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm going to need some help on process here, so forgive me if this isn't formatted correctly. The article in question is a conspiracy theory, concocted by a very marginal figure and unsupported by serious, neutral scholarship. The "event" in question does not appear in neutral or academic histories or other reference works on the Catholic church. (Go ahead and look for this in Google Books; you'll get mostly Wikipedia stitch-ups and a few publications from house publications of various ex-Catholic fringe groups.) The author of the theory, as described in the first paragraph, [Malachi Martin], is described by Wikipedia itself as "promot(ing) many unsubstantiated claims and conspiracy theories involving the Church." While Malachy's contention that recent popes have all been either secret Jews or freemasons, or both, catches the eye more, the notion of a super-secret Vatican-Soviet agreement to silence an ecumenical council is equally absurd. I would cite sources for this, except that no reputable source discusses this non-event. While the author of this entry can cite various works by ex-Catholic conspiracy groups, and some real sources for details nobody doubts (eg., that the Vatican II council invited non-Catholics), it does not cite anything remotely like a trustworthy, neutral reference or history for the existence of the event in question. Incidentally, Martin's theory is spelled out primarily in a novel he wrote!

In short, this is junk. That is has remained on the site for two years is an embarrassment and, frankly, an indictment of how marginal crazies can twist Wikipedia to their ends. If the article is not to be deleted, it must be replaced with an exceedingly short notice that this is a conspiracy theory, believed by a tiny fringe, and with no currency outside that. Even this, however, overplays it. Wikipedia should not allow tiny fringe groups to claim whatever they want and get a page for their efforts.Lectiodifficilior (talk) 05:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some of the references are in French, but WP:NONENG states they should not be discounted and therefore we may not be seeing the "entire picture" of what the author(s) are saying. Also, the bibliography demonstrates a large number of references, and you have not displayed neutral discourse to the specific validity/invalidity of any of them, but instead refer to the entire process as "junk." When we look at "conspiracy theory", let us not forget (and I include this specifically not to offend anyone, but to demonstrate the misperception of guilt/conspiracy that are often held hand-in-hand) that Pope Benedict XVI was conscriped into the Hitler Youth in his early years, but that in no way supports any prior fidelity or current ideological belief. We all may not like every entry into Wikipedia, but saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT and calling it a "conspiracy" does not support the argument to remove the material. Яεñ99 (talk) 06:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Color me doubtful that the newspaper of the Communist Party of France revealed a secret Vatican-USSR pact. However, if someone can produce the newspaper, I would be glad to read it. That there were discussions about the participation of cardinals behind the iron curtain is clear. You can read about them in standard books on the council, such at John W. O'Malley's What Happened at Vatican II (Harvard UP 2008). That there was a super-secret deal to be silent about communism is a conspiracy theory, and entirely unmentioned in such books. Such a deal would be the biggest news in Catholic diplomacy ever, wouldn't it? It ought to get a full chapter in even secular histories of the Cold War—the Vatican silences an ecumenical council in order to admit a few non-voting observers! Wouldn't that be big news? Well, nonsense. An extraordinary claim about Catholic history requires confirmation—heck mention—in any of the standard histories or reference sources used by Catholic historians. Doesn't it? Use Google Books, Google Scholar or the articles in JSTOR. This topic doesn't exist. Anyway, the notion is absurd. With 2,500 cardinals hashing out the documents largely in the open, and with Vatican II famously going its own way, heedless of what the Vatican offices wanted, it's hard to see how such an agreement would be kept. I'm sorry you think I'm saying "We don't like it" when I ask for reasonable confirmation for such an astounding claim. I find this utterly bizarre. However, it's a piece with the secret pact Wikipedia made with the Soviets. I know nobody else says this about Wikipedia, and it's pretty absurd on its face, but apparently the onus is on you to prove me wrong. Lectiodifficilior (talk) 06:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, we are simply debating. I find your arguments and analogs to be very insightful. Please avoid potential attack statements (some folks are easier to offend) such as; Indeed, I think it's evidence you made a pact with the Soviets as it pushes boundries along WP:PERSONAL, and it is important we discuss matters clearly and with a level-head so as not to prematurely sideline discussions. I will gladly review all of your input, and will try to find the mindset that is motivating you so I can gain a better understanding of your viewpoint. These principles of mutual respect are encouraged on Wiki with distinct and concerted civility Яεñ99 (talk) 06:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. Before you finished your remarks I had changed it to a pact between Wikipedia and the Soviets. This is much more believable, and I have a 1963 French Catholic newspaper that supports the location of Russia on a map. Lectiodifficilior (talk) 06:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can do. Thank you so much for all the information, it will give me quite a lot to read!Яεñ99 (talk) 07:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I find the arguments of Lectiodifficilior convincing. The alleged existence of an agreement of the kind described is based on claims made by writers such as Malachi Martin and Jean Madiran whose attitude is illustrated in the Wikipedia articles on them. Nobody has suggested that works in French (or German or ...) be ignored. The bibliography is far from convincing: for all we know, any mention in some of the works of an alleged "Metz Accord" may have been to debunk the idea. Lefebvre's "Open Letter to Confused Catholics" is listed, but the searchable electronic text of it shows that there is in fact no mention in it of the supposed accord; if Lefebvre had heard of the alleged agreement, he would surely have mentioned it in section "12. Comrades and Fellow-Travellers", where he writes: "Catholics observe with amazement that dialogue between the Church hierarchy and Communists is intensifying. Soviet leaders and also a terrorist such as Yasser Arafat are received at the Vatican. The Council set the fashion by refusing to renew the condemnation of Communism" (emphasis added). Some of the other works in the list may also have been chosen simply as works that present a generic Traditionalist Catholic viewpoint. The allegations about a supposed Metz Accord would perhaps merit a short paragraph in Traditionalist Catholic and a sentence in Malachi Martin and Jean Madiran, but not an article on its own, especially one that begins: "The Metz Accord was (!) an agreement of principle ..." Esoglou (talk) 10:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another good commentary! However, I was wondering what specific WP rationales you are using to support this. There's a lot of very good material that can be found fascinating and intriguing, but the locus for conversation is important. In addition, there is support located here Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov) of Leningrad within Wikipedia itself that the Metz Accord was indeed valid Яεñ99 (talk) 11:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The main WP rationale is the lack of reliable sources for a story that Lefebvre's Open Letter and the absence of reference by reputable historians suggest is baseless. The Wikipedia article on Nikodim is of course not a reliable source. I have no access to the two sources that it cites. Several sources cite the Chiron book in connection with various topics. Googling for the book plus the word "Metz" is non-productive. So there is good reason to doubt that the cited pages 186 and 246 really do state that Nikodim "is recorded as having participated in the negotiations of the Metz Accord, a secretive 1960s agreement between Soviet and Vatican officials that authorized Eastern Orthodox participation in the Second Vatican Council in exchange for a non-condemnation of atheistic communism during the conciliar assemblies", the italicized (by me) part being what would be apposite for the article we are discussing. Esoglou (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is very possible, indeed given the atmosphere of the time likely, that some sort of reassurance was given to observers from the Soviet Union, and other Bloc countries, that the Council or their presence there would not be used as an occasion for anti-~~Catholic~~Communist propaganda. After all, the political stance of the Catholic Church especially in Italy was well known and it would have been difficult for anyone to obtain permission to travel from Bloc countries to the Council unless the state authorities were reasonably satisfied on that point. Exactly the same suspicions and need for reassurance would obtain regarding the attendance of Western representatives at an international conference in the USSR. Hypothetising that such reassurances were given, I can understand that there might be those who argue that the organisation of Vatican II was dominated by liberal elements or even those sympathetic to Communism. But that would not add up to a pact or accord of the sort described in the article, and there would need to be reliable sources showing the existance of a formal agreement with wider application approved at the highest levels of the church. Otherwise it is just a minor detail of Vatican II. --AJHingston (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The claims being made are too grand for the sources making them. We would need much stronger sources to prove that this conspiracy occurred. Shii (tock) 14:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rewrite Can't find any reputable source reporting this accord that isn't simply a clone of Wikipedia. Most sources are conspiracy theory cites or tied to the traditionalist Catholic movement. Definitely a fringe theory with little or no historic reliability. If it is kept, it needs to be rewritten as a conspiracy theory or fringe position.74.124.47.11 (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 15:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite. Based on extensive searches of Google Books, it does appear that this is a conspiracy theory. There was only one source I might consider reliable that mentions a secret Vatican–Moscow agreement: Hebblethwaite, Peter (2000-09-13). John XXIII: Pope of the Century. Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 215. ISBN 9780826449955.. On the other hand, there were two that discuss such an agreement as a conspiracy theory:
- Cuneo, Michael W. (1999-07-21). The Smoke of Satan: Conservative and Traditionalist Dissent in Contemporary American Catholicism. Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 139. ISBN 9780801862656.
- Robbins, Thomas (1997-07-11). Millennium, Messiahs, and Mayhem: Contemporary Apocalyptic Movements. Psychology Press. p. 182. ISBN 9780415916493.

—howcheng {chat} 17:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The articles on Nikodim (Rotov), Eugène Tisserant and Johannes Willebrands each give the same two citations for their alleged participation in the Metz Accord:
1. [_] Chiron, Yves, Paul VI: Le pape écartelé, Perrin, Paris, 1993 ISBN 2-262-00952-X p. 186 and 246. The author fr:Yves Chiron seems to be at least a substantial source, although "close to traditionalist Catholics" may indicate that he is not completely impartial. The ISBN links to a book at Google books & Amazon, but the text is not available online, so we cannot easily verify what Chiron actually wrote about the matter. The placing of the citations in the article may indicate that the book only confirms that the named people met; only Malachi Martin is specifically cited for what they are alleged to have agreed.
2. [_] Interview with Paul-Joseph Schmitt, Archbishop of Metz, in Le Lorrain, 9 March 1963. Le Lorrain of the same date is also cited in this article. According to French Wikipedia, the Catholic daily newspaper fr:Le Lorrain (quotidien) ceased publication in 1945, so this cannot be the source cited. Metz is a diocese so there are bishops of Metz rather than archbishops. These points call into question the credibility of the cited sources.

These citations were all added by user:Stijn Calle, one of the main contributors to this page Metz Accord, in 2010.

The French page on Nikodim, fr:Nicodème (Rotov), includes a quotation (and I translate), "the Kremlin could accept the presence of observers from the Russian Orthodox Church at Vatican II, if the Vatican can ensure that this council is not an anti-Soviet forum." That is cited from Stepanov (Roussak), Svideltelstvo charges certificat. M., 1993, tome 3, page 17. I do not know what that citation refers to, so I have left a note for the French contributor. If anyone else can identify it, please do.

Even if there was just about enough material from reliable sources, I think this article still falls to be deleted as non-notable. Diplomatic sensitivities always apply to condemnations of ideologies or countries; where this page completely falls down is the claimed impact, implying that 20 years of official Catholic silence on communism stemmed largely from this private meeting of bishops. – Fayenatic London 18:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At least recent edits—not by me—took out the implication that Vatican II could have brought down the Soviet Union. Lectiodifficilior (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even with the few sources mentioned by User:Howcheng, I still don't see it receiving "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:GNG). First Light (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- I look at the article as it now is, and without knowing much of the subject. It seems to refer to a relatively small piece of diplomacy between two of the major Christian Communions. My concern is not about its verifiability, but its notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, hoaxes often make notable claims. Shii (tock) 00:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - ... but do not necessarily become notable. This has acquired currency only among more extreme traditionalist Catholics. Esoglou (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.