Jump to content

Talk:Alperin v. Vatican Bank

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

I set this up primarily to collect content from several other pages, where it was scattered without much order. --Joy [shallot] 03:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phrases like "almost mythic" suggest aspects of this article come from sensational journalism, not fact.71.198.183.159 17:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The case is pending in federal court as of 2007 - this can be verified at www.vaticanbankclaims.com or doing a PACER search for Alperin v. Vatican Bank.

What is the real importance of this article?

[edit]

Sincerely, I have never seen in the world press anything relevant about this class action. It seemed more for me like another piece of Serb propaganda here in Wikipedia. Even the case per se could be one, since it was opened just days after the end of the successful Operation Allied Force...

I think this article should be deleted, anyway. It even does not have any kind of trustable references beyond the iste of the claims itself... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.206.228.65 (talk) 09:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with you entirely. It does have one source, but most of it is unsourced. It has had an unref template for six months. I think that's long enough to leave the unsourced material in the article, especially since only one point of view appears to be covered. I'm giving this a few days for comments, then I'm removing the unsourced sections (most of the article). Ward3001 (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The unregistered user's link to Serb propaganda, along with the tone of the comment, is unnecessarily inflammatory and offensive, but I agree that the article should, at least, have the unreferenced material removed. Wikiyuvraj (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about an esteemed Professor of History at a Catholic University endorsement of the lawsuit's premise? See Dr. Michael Phayer, Pius XII: The Holocaust and the Cold War, 2008, ISBN 13:978-0-253-34930-9. More Serb propaganda I suppose? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.193.183 (talk) 12:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The general claims are 95% supported by Dr. Phayer's book. The case is still pending, maybe click on the link to the Fifth Amended Complaint that has an official PACER file stamp on the top? Seems that someone protests too much about Serb propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Resistk (talk • contribs) 12:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]

Someone claims that the last section, "Legal Analysis", is not neutral. I don't see why. It seems to involve decent legal argumentation, with reference to analyses from experts, and references to other legal cases. I do not see how this is not neutral. I think the Non-neutrality warning should be removed from the section. 158.143.65.54 (talk) 09:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of the previous post, I removed the POV-tag. Whoever feels this section is not neutral, should point out exactly which parts. Schlabberbacke (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alperin v. Vatican Bank. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alperin v. Vatican Bank. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alperin v. Vatican Bank. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alperin_v._Vatican_Bank&oldid=1204749442"