Talk:Hitler's Pope

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page


Books Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Archive
Archives
  1. June 2005
  2. September 2005
  3. September 2005
  4. September 2005
  5. February 2006

Contents

[edit] edits

I did find it strange that so many tags where attached yet there was nothing in the discussion page--it was all archived. Why do that to the point of making it blank? I guess there is some interesting history here that is trying to be hidden? In anycase, I tried to clean the article up a bit, and I added more about the actual book and its argument, which was so bare as to make it almost non-existent. I havn't look at the edit history yet, so I hope this is not a case of suppression of a subject out of religious motives, simply because its critical of the Catholic Church. That would be intolerable. Giovanni33 09:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Giovanni, I was just going to move your post from Archive 5 to the talk page. Archives are not supposed to be modified, other than perhaps things like fixing a broken link or subst'ing a template to remove the load from the server. I presume it was archived because the discussion had completely died away once the main contributor was banned from Wikipedia. Certainly, nobody has shown much interest in this page recently, so it was quite appropriate archive the messages belonging to a discussion that was no longer active. I haven't been involved in this article, although I have had it on my watchlist for months. But my understanding is that the article should have been simply about the book, but an effort was made not to report what the book says, but to present Cornwell's arguments as if they were fact.
Having just taken a brief look at the article as it stands, I see that you have changed:
However, in the end Cornwell reached the controversial conclusion that Pope Pius XII had, with or without intent, become "Hitler's Pawn" and so "Hitler's Pope".
to
Hence, as the title of the book announces, Pope Pius XII had, with or without intent, become "Hitler's Pawn" and so "Hitler's Pope."
I have explained this to you at least twice on other talk pages, so it's discouraging that I have to explain it again.
"John said it was a nice day" makes a simple, unbiased statement of what John said. It makes no judgment as to whether or not it was a nice day.
"As John said, it was a nice day" makes two statements — one, that John said it was a nice day, and two, that it was a nice day.
Could you please try to remember that? Wikipedia NPOV policy does not allow articles to agree with Cornwell. The articles are meant to report what Cornwell said. Your change made two statements — one that the title of the book announced that Pius XII was Hitler's Pawn and Hitler's Pope, and two that Pius XII was Hitler's Pawn and Hitler's Pope.
It wouldn't be so bad if you just made a few misguided edits that failed to respect NPOV. The problem is that you try to present yourself as correcting the errors of the Christian editors who don't understand NPOV as well as you do. With regard to your insinuation that this might be "a case of suppression of a subject out of religious motives, simply because its critical of the Catholic Church", perhaps you could look into your own motives and your own editing history. An edit history with an average of more than eight edits per page generally indicates that somebody might be here with an agenda. (That, of course, does not count new people, who might have edited one article fifteen times, and nothing else, and would therefore get an average of 15.) A low average of edits per page suggests that someone is interested in contributing to Wikipedia, including articles unrelated to his POV, and that he has no personal axe to grind. My average yesterday (the counter is running a day behind) was 2.29. Robert McClenon's was 3.7. Patsw's was 4.17. Str1977's was 5.05. EffK's was 7.87 under the name EffK, and 9.42 under the name Famekeeper. Yours was a staggering 11.91. It's interesting that those whose edits nearly always try to make Christianity appear in a worse light have the highest average. Isn't it time to stop making remarks about the POV of people who spend a lot of time editing articles that have absolutely nothing to do with their religious or political beliefs, and who therefore indicate that they have less of an agenda than you? AnnH ♫ 10:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Anne. I am probably wrong for thinking outloud in that conspiratorial vein, but I've never seen the entire talk page archived before, even when there is no activity. Any editor, no matter how much later, should be able to read the last series of issues. I am not familiar with the history of this article or the archives but I did notice that the page still had mutiple problem tags. This is what made it look strange: old issues, resolved, POV pushing user gone, and yet all tags remain? I presume the problems were fixed? About the number of edits per article, I don't think there is any correlation and certainly no cause/effect between number of edits and having an agenda. I happen to think the EVERYONE has an agenda, EQUALLY, so, too. The question is what is the agenda and how does it manifest itself (related)? My agenda is to push for the implementation of Wikipedia's established guildelines: nuetrality, NPOV, balance, accuracy, clarity in language, full coverage and fair and accurate characterizations, as informative as the scope of the article permits. Coupled with this fact is that I also think that EVERYONE has a bias, no matter how hard they work to avoid it. Its important to try to avoid it, but I don't think its possible even with the help of others. Its utopian. However, perhpas the best way to come closest is to have people of different perspectives (biases) acting as checks and balances on each other, and so to have an article refelect the content according to academic consensus (the current bias of the academy), but also all the other areas within a subject, including language, accuracy, presentation, even subtle. I won't lecture as I'm a newbie compared to yourself. However, if it seems I'm editing in only one kind of direction (what you percieve as making Christianity appear in a bad light), it is only because I've seen a need for balance in that direction: not to be a whitewash or a blackwash in either way (and striking that correct balance is not always clear). But, I've tried to do this for various passages, in various articles that interest me. I think we should not try to shine any light shined on anything, positive or negative per se, as a function or purpose of the edit, but only a conequence of the nature of the thing that is being reported in a full and accurate way--for all POV's.) But, if I see something that is unbalanced in the other direction (even if its own POV, but contrary to the policies of balance, neturality, and NPOV), I will be happy to edit in the other direction. However, I'm sure that that many good Christian editors will jump on that and fix it before I do. Because of our culture (our collective bias), it is probably easier to detect. Lastly, I think everything is political, but if it seems I conentrate more on political theory, history, and such, its because those are my intersts. I also have made edits to articles such such as Vitamin C, which is also just as political in its own way.
My high number of edits is probably because when I look over an article I make changes as I see them, and I go back and often keep seeing things to fix; often times simply minor copy edit changes, while other times I simply decide to make changes to my own edits for improvements, better flow. This is how I usually edit and its probably what accounts for my high number of edits per article.
About the use of "as," yes, I remember you making this point before about language use, and I did think about it. It occurs to me that the usage of the word "as" is not as simple as you suggest. Certainly, in the example you give above, this is true. It changes the meaning to make two statments. 1. John said it was a nice day, and 2. it was a nice say (as John said). However, this is not the limit or how I use "as" in my edit. Rather I use as in the definition of "To the same degree or quantity that. Often used as a correlative." For instance, consider the sentence, "The situation is not so bad as you suggest." Here the "as" indicated you are suggesting it. The same is with using it at the beggining, like: "As Cornwell suggests (argues) , which clearly previoulsy identifies its the authors views, and thus using "as" in this way is merely a correlative word to suggest a logical congender, to his continuing line of thought and its reults. It suggests only an equivalent, a parallel that leads to his title of the book. X argues this and, "As his title suggests," leads him to y. This is not different from asserting a POV as in your example above. But, if all this doesnt make sense I'm you still think I'm wrong, please make an edit to fix it, based on your understanding of the NPOV requirement. I'll go over it to make sure its not making these language mistakes. Giovanni33 10:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Kecik33, you've again violated WP:3RR through puppetry.Timothy Usher 21:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
No he (or she) hasn't. Your constant personal attacks against this user is very bad and violates both Civil and Assume Good faith. Its time you stop.Giovanni33

[edit] edit war over intro

I have not jumped in this edit war, but I do agree with Gio and his statement that folks should be talking about their disagreements here instead of playing the constant revert game. Or else this article is bound to get locked. I see Gio intitally did an overhaul of this article and improved it much. Then after making a minor change Musical Linguist seemed not to have any issues with the into, which remained the long standing version. Just recently she made a number of changes. Some of these were positive and I see that Gio kept these but I agree with Gio regarding the two versions of the introduction. The reason is not just balance but also the fact that they are deleting a referenced statement. This can be considered vandalism, I think. The statement that is being deleted is this:

"The book has been highly praised among numerous book reviews."[1]." Is this statement not a fact? It is as its referenced with book reviews. Since this is about this book and it did recieve these reviews, why is this information being deleted? I oppose that and support Gio's keeping it.

The other part of the dispute, it seems is about NPOV and being accurate, and I also support Giovanni on this. One version says:

"Others have criticized it for making unsubstantiated claims and for ignoring the praise lavished on Pius XII for his role in saving many Jews from Nazi annihilation..."

vs.

"Others have criticized it, claiming the book contains unsubstantiated claims, and ignores praise from Jewish leaders given to Pius XII,..."

Why is "praise lavished" better than "praise given to"? And, why is wrong with using language that states these are claims of the critics, only.MikaM 01:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"I oppose that and support Gio's keeping it. The other part of the dispute, it seems is about NPOV and being accurate, and I also support Giovanni on this."
Of course you suppport Giovanni, as you are merely him operating under a different username.Timothy Usher 01:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
No, I only have one user name, and this is it. Guess when you dont have any argument to make it all comes down to saying things like this, eh?MikaM 02:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Mika. I commend your positive wiki-spirit of refusing to join in a pointless edit war, but sometimes there is a point; joining in and reverting in conjuction with using the talk page is sometimes needed in order get the other side to stop. The reason for this is that it becomes clear they can't get their way by edit warring if many other editors will also revert them so this forces them to the talk page and discourages further edit warring. So, I encourage you to not be shy to use the revert option. I do hope that the other side will use the talk page themselves to work out disputes instead of trying to gang up and push their way around. I note that it appears Timmothy has wikistalked me to this article and a new trend is to have AnnH, Str1977, and Timothy to show up on any article where I'm editing on something related to Christianity and revert me. Its as if they are the new elite special forces anti-gio divison of the alleged Christian cabal. hehe I think I read somewhere that Wikipedia is not a battleground so lets all use the talk pages, and work out our differences so as to avoid these silly revert wars. As I said, its sets a bad example esp. for an admin. Even though you are self-professed devout Catholic, and I am an Athiest, we should put aside our personal bias and allow all POV's, which means including those that do praise this book, as well as those that don't. The latter I made sure to cover; I do not oppose the contrary POV, so lets not censor the other side, howeve much we may personally disagree with it. Its not our job. It only our job to report all sides. Giovanni33 03:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Mika or Kecik are Gio's puppets, his version is still an example of (quite weasely) POV pushing:

  1. "explores the charge that the Catholic Church assisted ..." - no it doesn't, it is focused on the Pope and not on the Church in general.
  2. Reading this now thoroughly, the whole passage is wrong. Cornwell does not blame Pope or Church for Hitler's coming to power. That's a leftover from someone's pet theory.
  3. "book has been highly praised among numerous" is another of these over-the-top laudatory language that you, Gio, like to use when describing someone in agreement with your favoured POV - "welcomed" however is perfectly neutral. A link to the Liberals-hate-the-Church website doesn't help in this.
  4. OTOH, you introduce the word "claimed" (the ultimate registred weasel word) when describing those that criticized Cornwell. Ann, please correct me if I am wrong, but "to criticize someone for doing something" doesn't imply that the charge is true, just that they say what they say.

Str1977 (smile back) 09:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

  1. Distinction without a difference. Who is the head of the Catholic Church? The Pope. Since the book is about the Pope and his actions as Pope though the institutions of the Catholic Church, its perfectly accurate. But if you want to say Pope instead, I dont have an objection. I think "he" is not clear as to who he is refering to (the author or the Pope).
  2. You removed the passage that says "and explores the charge that he assisted in the legitimization of Hitler's Nazi regime in Germany through the pursuit of a Reichskonkordat, leading to the marginalization of Germany's Catholic Centre party." This is all it says not that he blames the Pope for Hitler coming the power. There is a difference. But even if you think its the same, the point as stated is an accurate chracterization, not a "pet theory." We are not in the job of puting out pet theories here, we are in the job of reporting what the book claims. Have you even read the book? Here is a review from the Library Journal: Relying on exclusive access to Vatican and Jesuit archives, an award-winning Roman Catholic journalist argues that through a 1933 Concordat with Hitler, Pope Pius XII facilitated the dictator's rise and, ultimately, the Holocaust. Copyright 1999 Reed Business Information, Inc. [2] Do you argue that the Library Journal has got it wrong, too? What are your sources? Your own beliefst that the book really doesn't make this point are not enough for us to disregard the evidence of my own eye, and what I read in the book itself, and other reviews, and just accept what you say on blind faith. To accept that proposition, I'd have to be hallucinating and so are all the other reviewers who have read a book. Using logical princials like occams razor, I'd have to say that you having it wrong is far more likley.Giovanni33 15:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

And here is the editorial review by Amazon.com, which provides further support for the point you deleted:

"This devastating account of the ecclesiastical career of Eugenio Pacelli (1876-1958), who became Pope Pius XII in 1939, is all the more powerful because British historian John Cornwell maintains throughout a measured though strongly critical tone. After World War II, murmurs of Pacelli's callous indifference to the plight of Europe's Jews began to be heard. A noted commentator on Catholic issues, Cornwell began research for this book believing that "if his full story were told, Pius XII's pontificate would be exonerated." Instead, he emerged from the Vatican archives in a state of "moral shock," concluding that Pacelli displayed anti-Semitic tendencies early on and that his drive to promote papal absolutism inexorably led him to collaboration with fascist leaders. Cornwell convincingly depicts Cardinal Secretary of State Pacelli pursuing Vatican diplomatic goals that crippled Germany's large Catholic political party, which might otherwise have stymied Hitler's worst excesses. The author's condemnation has special force because he portrays the admittedly eccentric Pacelli not as a monster but as a symptom of a historic wrong turn in the Catholic Church. He meticulously builds his case for the painful conclusion that "Pacelli's failure to respond to the enormity of the Holocaust was more than a personal failure, it was a failure of the papal office itself and the prevailing culture of Catholicism." --Wendy Smith --[3]

  1. You removed factual statement that the "book has been highly praised." You may not like the fact that it was highly praised but its a referenced and factual statement. As such there is no reason to suppress this fact. The website is a source that links to these many reviews that give high praise. The fact that you regard it as a "Liberals-Hate the church" is not important and not an excuse for you to censor it.
  2. Lastly you say that "to criticize someone for doing something" doesn't imply that the charge is true, just that they say what they say." It doesnt imply that the criticism is true but it does imply what you are critizing has a factual basis, rather than merely a claim that is being alleged, i.e. it contains in it an unstated premise, which is assumed to be true. We can't do that and its a way to sneak in a Pov and endorse it as a fact. Lets use a hypothetical example. Lets say you were in the Army. You are innocent and didnt do anything wrong. Yes, I report that "xxx has crititized Str1977 for killing civilians in Iraq." Its true that there is someone who says that of you, but its not true that you did that. Would you think its fair for me as an objective, neutral reporting body to use such a wording, "Str1977 has been critized for killing a number of Iraq civilians." Yes or no? Shouldnt it say something like "critized for alleged killings,?" This does not assume the object of the criticism is valid or true.Giovanni33 15:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Short replies to your objections:

  1. no, there is a difference: the Pope is a single man, the Church is a large body. Yes, the Pope is the earthly head of the Church and can act on behalf of the whole Church. But not everything he does is done on her behalf. In any case, the thing is that Cornwell addresses the Pope and not the Church. Hence, even if there were no difference it would still be more accurate.
  2. I removed this because to my knowledge that is not the charge that Cornwell makes. I obviously made a short, maybe not accurate reference to that issue. Re "pet theory": I am quite familiar who created this page and it was his pet theory and, frankly, the only reason he created this article.
  3. Your factual statement is not a factual statement in the way it was included. It probably was highly praised some but not generally or universally. Hence a toning down of the positive reception of some was in order.
  4. Regarding the last point I might be wrong. However, "claim" is certainly not the word to use here. You know this!

Str1977 (smile back) 19:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I will assume good faith that, as you say, "I removed this because to my knowledge that is not the charge that Cornwell makes," however you removed it again after I provided sources above that does show this is exactly the point that Cornwell makes in the book. Yet, you still remove it? So you can not claim ignorance here. Also, even if you do, that does not give you a reason to remove it, unless you know its false. Simply because you didn't like or trust the editor who created this article, or that it was his pet theory, or what motivtated him--all this is not relevant, or a valid reason for you to remove it. I will be restoring that, ofcourse. Your other excuse for deleted the part about the book reivews also is not sustained by your argument. You say that you removed the factual statment because the praise is not universal. Who said it was universal? That is was not universal is clear as the article openly presents the critical POV and review. Your removal of both factual and accurate points supported by referenced material points to your pet POV pushing.Giovanni33 20:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Birth and early church career

I have removed some spurious stuff from the section "Birth and early church career".

I also removed truisms that have no impact on the article (loss of land and infallibity).

I tagged other things with "fact tags". Is it true that Pacelli believed in absolute leadership? Or is it Cornwell who argues this? Was Pacelli involved in the drawing up of the Code of Canon Law in 1917? Does Cornwell argue this?

In how far is this merely biographical information that is not actually relevant in this article?

Isn't the entire section superfluous?

I will wait a week or so and then proceed accordingly. Str1977 (smile back) 07:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No one responded so I will proceed accordingly. Str1977 (smile back) 12:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead. I'm sure you'll be amazed to hear that I have no objection? ;-) AnnH ♫ 12:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that what you removed (date of Pacelli's ordination, role he played in drafting Code of Canon Law, etc.) was kind of irrelevant to an article about the book. But you're lucky that Tawkerbot4 didn't catch it, because he (it) invariably reverts the removal of a section, and sends a warning to the user's talk page. The poor bot has a very high accuracy rate, but in cases like this, he can't distinguish vandals from genuine editors! AnnH ♫ 12:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] ONE OF THE WORST ENTRIES IN WIKI EVER SIGHTED!!!

Resolved.

Must be seriously cleaned up!!!! or DELETED!!!

Reads like CATHOLIC APOLOGIA and EXCESSIVE POV!!!

THIS IS NOT your private "Review," or "Critique" forum!!!

It's supposed to be about THE BOOK!!!

Not YOUR POV about the AUTHOR OR BOOK!!!

So much IMMATERIAL CRAP attacking the author and his "faith" or lack thereof!!!

STICK TO FACTS, give DETAILS about THE CONTENT of the BOOK and IT'S THESIS!!!

NOT your PRIVATE BITCH, dredging up EVERY possible CRITICISM by and large!!!

THIS ENTRY SHOULD BE DELETED DUE TO the most MONUMENTAL BIAS & POV!!!

This is a rather polemical addition to the discussion. However the point is taken that any criticisms of the book should be limited to those that address the argument made by the author and the facts that the author cites to make his argument. The faith of the author is not central.IanThal 15:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:MythHitlersPope.jpg

Image:MythHitlersPope.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Front Photo

(removed this section from the article as unsourced and probably non-notable)

The front photo deceives the average person, by insinuating that Pius XII is leaving a meeting with the Nazis. The photo is from 1927, when then Cardinal Pacelli, was leaving a diplomatic meeting with President Hindenburg. The American cover further crops and blurs the photo reduce evidence of its date. Adolf Hitler did not become Chancellor of Germany until 1933.

If the above is both true and discussed by WP:RS then please cite those sources. Benjiboi 08:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Hitler'spopeUS.jpg

Image:Hitler'spopeUS.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed links

I removed these from the article but they may be good as sources. Benjiboi 02:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)