Talk:Hitler's Pope/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Hitler's Pope. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

"Retraction" pushing

Both of Cornwell's quotes are now included in their entirety. This is the best possible source of information for the reader if they are wondering what Cornwell currently thinks about the book. No one knows what Cornwell thinks better than Cornwell himself. To interpret this quote one way or the other is at best superfluous and more likely plain old point-of-view pushing. There are two possibilities; either: (a) the quote is completely unambiguous in its meaning and lends itself to only one possible interpretation; in that case, the quote alone is informationally sufficient, or (b) the quote is subject to multiple interpretations, in which case it is inappropriate to try to push one of them as much as possible. Short version: let the quotes speak for themselves, and stop pretending that an author making any modification to their views is the equivalent of them recalling their publications and burning the books themselves. Savidan 15:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

We've already resolved this issue. See the discussion above. The quotes alone are not sufficient. Cornwell has a bias, namely to maintain what shreds of credibility he can despite having been forced to make his statement by an avalanche of evidence refuting his shoddy work.Mamalujo (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what your ad hominem attacks against Cornwell do to improve you case. That just seems to be more of a reason why he himself has not retracted the ideas in question. I'm certainly not against well-sourced and attributed criticisms of Cornwell in this article, but is it really to much to ask that we don't try to retract things on his behalf ourselves? Savidan 23:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not an ad hominem attack. I'm attacking the credibility of the work and pointing out his bias in maintaining credibility. Although a plain understanding of English should be enough, I cited above ten reliable sources which described his statement as retracting or recanting. There's no question that is what it is. Mamalujo (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Mamalujo, just as no one can be sure of what Pius XII's intentions were, no one can be sure of what Cornwell's intentions were except Cornwell himself. If others interpreted Cornwell's comments as a retraction, that doesn't make them a retraction. It just means that the comments were interpreted as a retraction (perhaps even widely so).

IMO, the quotes provided do not support the idea of a full retraction but rather one of a weaseling admission that Pius XII may not have been able to do more than he did. Instead of saying that Cornwell retracted his assertions, a compromise might be to provide the Cornwell quotes and then to say that many have interpreted Cornwell's comments as being a retraction with citations to two or three of the more prominent sources who made such interpretations.

--Richard (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you are completely mistaken that it requires a reading of the speaker's intentions to determine if an assertion was retracted. Whether a statement is a retraction of an earlier assertion is more objective than that. If one says "A" and later says, I do not have the facts to say "A", it is a retraction. One of Cornwell's major themes, if not the very theme, is that PXII acted with evil motives; he later says he cannot judge the motives. That is a retraction. There are dozens of articles and passages in reliable works which have deemed this a retraction. That is enough. No doubt Cornwell has read many of the articles and book excerpts which charaterized him as retracting. Certainly if he felt he had been mischaracterized he would have corrected the record by now. I have cited ten sources saying there was a retraction, are there ANY to refute that? And as far as a "full" retraction is concerned. I did not say it was. Many of the sources say it was a substantial or a partial retraction. The fact of the matter is, it was a retraction of the book's central theme. I think one has to be sorely mistaken or intellectually dishonest not to see that. I'm not saying the article has to say that though, but it should reflect that there was a retraction, state Cornwell's words and state the positions that many consider this at least a partial or substantial retraction of the book's assertions. Mamalujo (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, I don't think I'm "completely mistaken" but I will admit that, in this case, it does appear that there is a consensus (uncontradicted by Cornwell) that he has retracted the central thesis that Pius XII could have done more but failed to do so as a result of anti-Semitism. The Vanity Fair article has a different thrust which is that Pacelli deliberately disempowered the German Catholic Church in his pursuit of papal absolutism. This does not seem to have attracted as much attention nor is it obvious that Cornwell retracted that line of accusation. I really think that we need to look more closely at what the book is alleging and what Cornwell retracted to understand the whole picture. I haven't read the book. The Vanity Fair article claims to be an abridged version of the book. Is that a fair characterization or does the book focus more on the alleged anti-Semitism than the article does? --Richard (talk) 04:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a grand consensus; its a collection of newspapers. Sometimes the same AP story gets printed 300 times; thats not a "consensus". I think once again this discussion is being overdetermined by a lack of knowledge about the actual content of the book. Much of the book impugns Pius XII's motives and his views towards Jews. Saying that he was somewhat constrained does not implicate that portion of the book at all. Nor, for that matter, is it a complete reversal of the original thesis as it pertains to his actions. A reversal/retraction would have been to say that Pius XII acted in a praiseworthy manner, not to say that he was incapable of doing so. Savidan 17:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Nor did Cornwell say that Pius XII wasn't really anti-semitic, just incapable of doing more than he did to help the Jews. That, IMO, would have been a real retraction. The bottom line is that there is precious little information to decide what Cornwell really thinks. IMO, Cornwell has thrown a bone to people who want to think he retracted his accusations. Many of them happily report that he has retracted his allegations when, in fact, it appears that he just suggested that Pius XII couldn't have done much more. Based on the quotes cited in this article, I think Cornwell has done a minimal retraction to appease his detractors but has left much of the thesis of his book still standing.

Also, Cornwell does not appear to have retracted anything about Pacelli's negotiation of the Reichskonkordat and the concomitant destruction of the German Catholic Church as a political force.

--Richard (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Whatever his retaction is, it is only at best partial. Maybe we should say he has retracted substaintal parts??? Reargun (talk) 04:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

So... what does the book actually say?

This criticism was made by somebody else back in 2007 (badly) but the criticism is still valid. This article is supposed to be about the book and yet the majority of the text is spent criticizing the book and talking about a possible retraction by the author.

All we know about what the book actually says is summarized into some stuff about "alleged anti-Semitism early on" and the 1933 Reichkonkordat. Um, surely the book says more than this?

I would expect that the amount of text describing the book be at least as long as the amount of text criticizing it.

--Richard (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe the criticism is at all valid. You will see that when it come to discredited works the article is usually more about the criticism than about the substance of the works themselves, i.e. see The Two Babylons or Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Mamalujo (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Your comparison to those works is farce. Not including more of a summary of the book before diving into criticism is just bad writing. I get the idea that many of the contributors to this article have not even been in the same room as the book. Savidan 23:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Savidan that "Hitler's Pope" is not in the same category as the The Two Babylons or Protocols of the Elders of Zion. But, even if it were, the Wikipedia articles on those two works discuss the content of the works quite extensively. The article on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion discusses the work, its history and its usage quite extensively and contains very little criticism or refutation. The article on the The Two Babylons has about the same amount of text describing the work as it does criticizing the work.

--Richard (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Disempowerment of the German Catholic Church

After reading the Vanity Fair article, it's clear that there is more to Cornwell's allegations than the charge of anti-Semitism. There is also the charge that Pacelli's negotiation of the Reichskonkordat on behalf of Pius XI effectively disempowered the German Catholic Church and that it was meant to.

This article documents the idea that Pius XII is seen as having done good things for the Jews (to the point of being considered by some to have been a "Righteous Gentile"). However, we do not document any refutation of the allegations of Pacelli having negotiated a Reichskonkordat that destroyed the independence of the German Catholic Church and thereby eliminated its ability to resist the Nazi regime.

I suspect that there is some hyperbole in Cornwell's charge because it's not clear the German Catholic Church would have been able to resist the Nazi regime anyway. There's a great quote from one of the German bishops "With the Concordat, we are hanged. Without it, we are hanged, drawn and quartered."

Some might argue that Cornwell has interpreted Pacelli's negotiation of the Reichskonkordat in an extremely negative light and that a more neutral or even positive light could be employed. However, we need sources to back up this argument.

--Richard (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Background

I've deleted this entire section, which consisted of three subsections copied directly from Pope Pius XII: Contemporary, The Deputy, and Actes.

Whatever purpose this section served in earlier versions of this article, it is no longer relevant to the article's subject, i.e., Cornwell's book — Metropolitanux (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the deletion. I think the section is necessary for context. Mamalujo (talk) 20:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

What context does it supply? — Metropolitanux (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Pacelli's alleged anti-semitism

The article refers to "anti-semitism" sixteen times, beginning with the statement "He [Cornwell] further argued that Pius was anti-Semitic" in the introduction. As far as I known Cornwell never makes the argument that Pacelli was anti-semitic in the book. The exact opposite would seem to be the case as he discusses Vatican statements that anti-semitism is not consonant with Catholic teaching in several places. Presumably, Pacelli knew Catholic teaching quite well.

Can we establish that Cornwell designated Pacelli an anti-semite from the text of the book? — Metropolitanux (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Search "anti-semitic". Not all the hits are about Pius XII, but it does not take long to find several. Savidan 22:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The Google search for “anti-semitism” in Hitler’s Pope produced 15 hits. I was able to augment that list from the entry for "anti-semitism" in the index of the book. The pages where anti-semitism is discussed are: 24-28, 74, 75, 154, 159, 162, 172, 183, 185-186, 187, 189-92, 190, 197, 199, 203, 208, 250, 251, 252, 280, 281, 295-297, 318, 361, 377

I didn’t find a passage where Cornwell designates Pacelli an anti-Semite. If we can’t establish that Cornwell wrote that Pacelli was anti-semitic in the book, then it would seem we have a straw man, and all statements based on that assumption will need to be deleted or rewritten.

Can you, or some other editor who has time, review the book to find support for the statement that Cornwell argued that Pius was anti-Semitic. — Metropolitanux (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hitler's Pope, Preface to the 2008 Edition, 3rd paragraph, pages xi and xii:

Since the publication of this book almost a decade ago, many a fervent riposte has been mounted against the so-called "Myth of Hitler's Pope," based on the mistaken assumption that I have characterized Eugenio Pacelli as a Nazi sympathizer and a rabid anti-Semite. My portrait of Pacelli carries neither of these imputations, although those who do not get beyond the book's cover might think otherwise. I believe now, as I did when this book was first published, that Eugenio Pacelli was Hitler's Pope not because he favored Hitler (which he did not) nor because he as anti-Semitic (which he was not, although he displayed an anti-Jewishness typical among Catholics of his times), but because he was an ideal church leader for Hitler's purposes. I am not inclined to alter this view despite the many citations of Pacelli's alleged deeds of mercy toward Jews and others, or his private criticism of Hitler, or his cautious, even-handed reproaches against both the Axis and the Allied power during the Second World War.

If Cornwell specifically writes that Pacelli was not an anti-Semite in the Preface to his book, if a charge of anti-Semitism is not a theme of the book, and if the book contains no argumentation that Pacelli was an anti-Semite, then this article should not present the book as having done so.

Cornwell uses the terms anti-Semitic, anti-Judaism, and anti-Jewish fairly precisely, and his usage seems to be consistent with the usage in We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah published by the Vatican. Critical analysis of his usage, and the usage of the Vatican, could reasonably be included, but care should be taken not to refocus the article away from the book's major themes.

May we bump this article up to a more rigorous level with references to peer reviewed publications? First choice among wikipedia reliable sources is to publications that have been submitted to scholars working in the same subject area for review. The review process alerts the original author to areas of contention which need revision or additional supporting documentation and possibly incites reviewers to publish a rebuttal in a scholarly journal with supporting documentation for their criticism. Book reviews and statements of opinion which cite no supporting documentation are not the best possible sources for wikipedia.

Some public libraries provide card holders access to commercial databases of academic, scholarly publications, sometimes providing full text of articles. It would be best if editors made use of them where available. Also, it would be best to work from the text of the book rather than Vanity Fair summary article. Any editor who wishes to contribute to this article should read the book. — Metropolitanux (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please edit the article as you wish, citing sources and attributing as appropriate. Savidan 00:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible primary document of interest

A primary document has surfaced online that purports to be a letter from the Vatican in 1931 discouraging involvement with Nazism. It contains Pacelli's name (among others). At that time, note that most Americans (except those who were Jewish) thought Hitler was "great." We do not know why it seems to have been overlooked by competent researchers, so be wary of that. The document is at http://www.ptwf.org/Downloads/Bavarian_Nuncios_17Feb1931.pdf. Student7 (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic category

Mamalujo has added the "Anti-Catholic publications" category. I think this category should probably be used only in unambiguous cases, and definitely not here. If the book was about why Catholics should not be allowed to vote, etc., you'd hear no argument from me about the category. But it is inappropriate to use it for a book that merely criticizes one Catholic for specific actions in his capacity as a world leader. Even if several sources do indeed allege that the book is anti-Catholic, I do not think that is enough. I think the mainstream consensus would be that the book is not perfect, any many disagree with some or much of Cornwell's argument, but only a select few (and mostly polemicists) would say that the book is downright anti-Catholic. Several books published in university presses by full professors cite to this work as a work of bona fide history. However, even so, I do not think that the use of this category should turn on Wikipedians' evaluation of the consensus of reviews of a work; I think it should be saved for the cases that are clear and uncontroversial. I have no objection to including, in this article, sourced and attributed criticism that the book is anti-Catholic. To stamp the article with the category goes to far, seemingly conveying Wikipedia's judgment that the view is correct. The "anti-Catholic" categories are prone to abuse, but---if used only in uncontroversial cases---are OK. This is not one of them. Moreover, there are WP:BLP concerns, as Cornwell is living. By analogy, it may be that several reliable sources refer to a person as a racist; it does not follow that it would be appropriate to add them to the category "racists." Savidan 19:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I see your point.

Another category was "pseudohistory." This seems a bit more appropriate. Student7 (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It's really almost the exact same problem. Substitute not-so-subtle allegations of bigotry with subjective judgment that a work of history is objectively pseudoscience. In fact, I think that category should probably be deleted. Savidan 16:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Books have to be pov-titled or they won't sell, I suppose. Had the book been named "Examination of Papal-German relations during WWII", I would have liked it better, but no one would have heard of it! On the basis of the title (alone), it seems pseudo-history. He does not purport to demonstrate that Hitler "owned" the pope. Just hoping to generate sales. It's a hard book title for someone interested in npov, to like. Student7 (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

What you may not realize, is that publishers often pick titles with very little input from authors. The same with books and periodical articles. Savidan 21:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The category is not applied to Cornwell which would appear to be prohibited for BLP reasons, but to a book. The category Anti-Catholicism, of which the subject category is a sub-category, bears this note: "This is a category for theories, books, etc. which have a notable connection to Anti-Catholicism. The category also contains subjects that have documented or opposed anti-Catholicism and subjects that have been notably accused of engaging in anti-Catholicism. It does not necessarily imply that the subjects of any articles in the category are anti-Catholic." It would seem for these reasons that the category is appropriate. Also, implication that it is only interested blow-hards who have so labelled this book is incorrect. Philip Jenkins, for example, who is not a Catholic and is a noted historian and scholar of religion and who wrote the preeminent work on contemporary anti-Catholicism in the U.S., has placed the work in this category. That is enough. Mamalujo (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

BLP does not apply only to biographies; it applies to all articles, applying more or less forcefully depending on the context. Where the living person is the sole author of a book, it applies almost as strongly in the article about the book as in a biography. To allege that a book is bigotry is to allege that the author is a bigot. The category self-description should probably be modified if that's how you interpret it, but it does not override this policy. To repeat, I do not doubt that there are reliable sources which make this allegation. But the allegation is far from uncontroversial, and is therefore best dealt with in the text, with citation and attribution, rather than with conclusory categories. Savidan 21:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I realize this comment was made a while ago, but I must point out that categories are not there to label the subject of the article as a part of that category. Sticking something in a category means that the article might be of interest to people who are interested in that category. The Westboro Baptist Church, for example, could be included in the GLBT category. Not because they themselves are glbt, but because they may be of interest to glbt.

Retracted/Recanted/Partially retracted etc.

The lede will not state that Cornwell "retracted" or "partially retracted" or "recanted" etc. his thesis, unless Cornwell himself explicitly states he has done so. Mamalujo, read WP:BLP very carefully. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

And yet, we would be presenting an incomplete story if we omit mention of Cornwell's later statement about Pius XII. Instead of arguing over the words "retracted" or "recanted", why not simply say "Cornwell subsequently stated...." and quote him verbatim? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 01:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

...which, in fact, we have done. The problem here is that editors keep trying to characterize what Cornwell said, rather than letting him speak for himself. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

heh, heh, excuse me while I remove the foot from my mouth. I should have taken a look at the article first. I haven't been watching it in recent months. Yes, it's clear that the lead does already quote Cornwell in the way that I suggested and I agree that words like "retract" or "recant" are potentially problematic unless Cornwell himself used those words. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Reference does not support statement

In the article summary there is a sentence stating: "The author, himself, has since retracted a number of his accusations, ..." which shall be supported by this reference. The whole text particular to the Cornwell book is copy-pasted here:

The same cannot be said for John Cornwell's "The Pontiff in Winter: Triumph and Conflict in the Reign of John Paul II." This mean-spirited hatchet-job, which appeared shortly before its subject's death, is the latest diatribe by the author of "Hitler's Pope," a sensationalist and one-sided character assassination of Pius XII. Remarkably, there is a partial retraction of "Hitler's Pope" in this new book: "I would now argue ... that Pius XII had so little scope of action that it is impossible to judge the motives for his silence during the war, while Rome was under the heel of Mussolini and later occupied by the Germans." So why has Mr. Cornwell not withdrawn his book, or at least altered its hateful title?

Mr. Cornwell's charge against Pius was that he watched callously as the Nazis carried out the Holocaust. His charge against John Paul is that "he has run the papacy as if he were a Superman." No pope, whether active or passive, is good enough for this biographer. Mr. Cornwell finds space for the novelist Graham Greene's glib comparison of Wojtyla and Ronald Reagan ("They were both world leaders who were in fact just actors") but devotes next to no space to John Paul's doctrinal legacy - his encyclicals, or the new catechism, or the new spiritual movements. Even undisputed achievements, such as the pope's part in the fall of communism or his rapprochement with the Jews, are interpreted maliciously or conspiratorially. Perhaps he should have called this book "Reagan's Pope."

from which is clear that this reference does not support that sentence. The "there is a partial retraction of ..." are not Cornwell's words, rather the ones belonging to the person who wrote this article. This is rather an arbitrary interpretation of Cornwell's text. The author, Daniel Johnson, is a columnist of the New York Sun and this article is published in the Sun Opinion section. --71.178.110.141 (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The words don't have to be Cornwell's words for it to stick. The source is a reliable source, hence we can use it for statements. It stated that Cornwell made a partial retraction, and thus we can cite it and state the same thing. There is no valid reason to question the sun as a source. In fact, since it is a secondary source, in wikipedia, it is preferred over a primary source.Farsight001 (talk) 01:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Given the fact that it's merely an opinion piece by Daniel Johnson in The New York Sun, and given how Johnson has failed to include the rather critical caveat regarding Pius XII's "prevarications and silences ", it's an inappropriate insertion, and at the very least needs to be cited to the person making the claim. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary (Mis)interpretation of Quoted Text

The full text, arbitrary interpreted by this reference and its author, came from The Pontiff in Winter: Triumph and Conflict in the Reign of John Paul II by John Cornwell, Random House Digital, Inc., 2005, Chapter Twenty-Four

I would now argue, in light of the debates and evidence following Hitler's Pope, that Pius XII had so little scope of action that it is impossible to judge the motives for his silence during the war, while Rome was under the heel of Mussolini and later occupied by Germans. He left no private diaries or correspondence with clues as to what was going on in his hearth. But even if his prevarications and silences were preformed with the best of intentions, he had an obligation in the postwar period to explain those actions.

Really, no need for any comment here.--71.178.110.141 (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Pointless claim not supported by given references

This sentence, aimed to prove that he 'has since retracted a number of his accusations', makes no sense for the references counted and quoted, are not a proof of any retraction.

The author, himself, has since retracted a number of his accusations,[citation needed] saying that it is "impossible to judge [Pacelli's] motives"[5][6] and that "his scope for action was severely limited", but that "[n]evertheless, due to his ineffectual and diplomatic language in respect of the Nazis and the Jews, I still believe that it was incumbent on him to explain his failure to speak out after the war. This he never did."[7]

Consequently, removed.--71.178.110.141 (talk) 00:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, there is a "Sanchez" reference, which was given by this name and a page, which is actually not reference.--71.178.110.141 (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please, please, for the love of God, look up how references work on wikipedia. It is painstakingly obvious that you have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER what's going on. In addition, you have continuously blatantly flouted WP:BRD.Farsight001 (talk) 04:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me we have one person making an unusual claim unsupported by anyone else and one person rejecting these claims. Don't they kind of cancel out? Why is the first person to make a WP:FRINGE claim entitled to an article anyway? Student7 (talk) 13:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually you are a Farsight's supporter pretending neutrality. "Unusual claims unsupported by anyone" are all about false interpretation of references. So, you are here not to discuss, rather to disqualify others pointlessly calling upon some Wikipedia rules, the same way as Farsight does it.--71.178.112.40 (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah. The ol' disparage-anyone-who-disagrees-with-you-tactic. That's new. Do you have anything constructive to add, or are you just pissy about not getting your way like a spoiled five year old?Farsight001 (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF and avoid attacking other editors. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 13:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

More about the book itself

It seems to me that something should be said about the book itself. The format of the article suggests it was "scholarly/academic." Is that actually the case? The tabloid-like title suggests that it was produced for public consumption. For example, was it a "best-seller"? If so, how many copies were sold? Student7 (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Up until now I have avoided the book since I disliked the polemical tone of title. Since looking at the talk page I have now ordered the book with the intention of rewriting the reception section to take account of Rychlak's criticisms and Cornwells reported answer to them, placing the emphasis on the historical content rather than a common wikipedia editor approach which concentrates on attacks against the man and so on. Cornwell has indeed written material that has been published in journals and does have an academic background but because of the books title up until now I always presumed it was aimed to make money, but then again it is used as a reliable source even in books that defend Pius and not just as evidence of Pius bashing Yt95 (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Citations check

The article currently states: "Some commentators have characterized the book as having since been "debunked".[2][3][4][5] " On checking the multiple sources I couldn't find the text to support this so deleted it but Farsight001 disagrees. Could he or anyone else copy the text they say is present in the multiple sources given, indeed in the form of a quotation "debunked". If no response then it ought to be deleted.Yt95 (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Since no response am going to delete the sentence. Yt95 (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I also disagre and I'd suggest you reread the cited sources, because the do say that. Also, the deletion of the well sourced material is against consensus. Also, what is the name of the other account that you edit under? Mamalujo (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

But since I can't see what you claim why not just simply paste the "debunked" text you say is supported by the citations? Anyhow I have asked for help on the adminstrators notice board and given the link on your talk page. As the for the other account you think I'm editing under - I don't know what you are talking about, or the nature of your suspicions, but I know there is some place on wikipedia where you can ask to have this verified by a particular type of admin. If they happen to think you grounds are a bit thin or even consider it as an attack on me then please assure them, by bringing their attention to this edit, that I would be happy for them to verify to put your mind at rest. Though I use, apart from yesterdays friends computer, a public library I think the chances of there being anyone else editing in the areas I work in as being very remote Yt95 (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Night of the Long Knives

While Fritz Gerlich, a German Catholic, was murdered for political, rather than for specifically religious reasons, his Catholicism hardly "protected" him, and would hardly give heart to anyone who might even begin to think that Hitler was "open to reason." And that was early on (1934). Student7 (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

POV

I'd like to echo some of the previous comments:

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!!!

All claims are visible and far from being resolved ever. The most article degrading text is the one in the introductory paragraph"

Some commentators have characterized the book as having since been "debunked".[2][3][4][5][6] In 2004, the author while maintaining his position that the Pontiff was silent, retracted to some extent[7][8][3], stating that "I would now argue in light of the debates and evidence following Hitler's Pope that Pius had so little scope of action that it is impossible to judge the motives for his silence during the war, while Rome was under the heel of Mussolini and later occupied by the Germans." [9][5][6] He similarly stated in 2008 that Pius XII's "scope for action was severely limited", but that "[n]evertheless, due to his ineffectual and diplomatic language in respect of the Nazis and the Jews, I still believe that it was incumbent on him to explain his failure to speak out after the war. This he never did."[10]

What I see here is a pointless someone's claim stating that Cornwell "retracted to some extent". Cornwell never did it nor the quoted text can be used to prove any retraction of any of his statements about this Pope.

--71.178.112.40 (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Still don't understand how it works around here? My suggestion to brush up on policy was not just an attempt to get rid of you. I was really trying to help you. An excited exclamation filled rant does not help, especially when your main criticism is against one of the most well cited paragraphs in the entire article.Farsight001 (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The book seems fairly WP:FRINGE anyway. The author may not be the best example of WP:RELY material under encyclopedic guidelines. More of an example of anti-Catholic propaganda, rather than information.

While we have to have an article Protocols of Zion, we are not really obliged to see how much of it was accurate or how nearly accurate it was, line by line. Student7 (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you ought to tell Ronald Rychlak. He is indeed critical on particular points that John Cornwell makes but goes on to use him as a reliable source in his own book on at least seventy occasions I found on a quick scan. If you think Rychlak is unreliable do you think all his criticism that appears in this article should be deleted?Yt95 (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

To Student7. You have to learn that Wikipedia guidelines are not just a handy tool for disqualifying everything you do not like. The book was a best-selling book, cited and referenced thousands times, found in libraries of most prestigious academic institutions across the World. All this article is written following a single goal: disqualify Cornwell and defend Roman Catholic Church and her Pope.--71.191.22.174 (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Who gives a shit if it was best-selling and found in libraries all over? So is Harry Potter. Student7 understands things just fine. Wikipedia guidelines are against you here. I know you don't like it, but tough shit. That's the way it works around here. If you don't want to follow the rules here, then found your own wiki and make your own rules. This article reflects scholarly sources on the subject. That is the way every single article on wikipedia should be. If you cannot provide us with scholarship that overturns the apple cart, then there is nothing to be done. End of story.Farsight001 (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Language

I replaced 'Cornwel's work' by 'Book content' for all book is the Cornwell's work. Moreover, 'alleged', 'argued' are the words that Cornwell did not use in his book. These words are apparently point of view of someone who wrote this text. I replaced them by completely neutral: 'said'.

Then, under 'Cronwell's current views' is this text:

According a 2004 article in the The Economist, Cornwell's historical work has not always been "fair-minded" and Hitler's Pope specifically "lacked balance". The article goes on to state that Cornwell, "chastened", had admitted as much himself, in a later work

If something is according to The Economist, then these views are The Economist views. That statement shall be completely removed. --71.191.22.174 (talk) 00:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Still saying it "shall be" this and that? Surely you understand by now that wikipedia is about collaboration, not what you think it "shall be". The economist is a reliable source. It stated a fact, not a view, hence there is no need to attribute it specifically to the Economist, not counting citation. There is no need to state it as a view when it is not, and there is definitely no need to remove the statement entirely. There are long standing reasons and policies for the words used, especially the word alleged, which as you should already know from your time on the catholic sex abuse cases article, is often a legal necessity so wikipedia doesn't get sued. It does not matter if they are not the words Cornwell used. It is what Cornwell did, and we describe that.Farsight001 (talk) 21:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

- There is no 'long standing policy for any words used' nor it makes sense. There is no 'legal necessity' for distorting someone's ideas and it does not matter who shall distort them. Wikipedia policy, as any encyclopedia policy is all about impartiality, factuality, and completeness. So, the inserted words 'alleged' and 'argues' are somebody's disagreement with Corwell, which goes to the POV distortion of the Cornwell's work. Certainly, collaboration is not name calling (troll, hopper) nor imposing nonsensic and arbitrary rules to such 'collaboration'. A word more about Cornwell's 'current views': those 'views' (in The Economist) are not authored by Cornwell, therefore not his views.--Eleven Nine (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Completely false. They are required. This has been explained to you time and time again, and you have been shown the relevant policy pages multiple times now. If you're just going to blatantly ignore anything that disagrees with you, then you really have no place here. Also, as I have already explained, calling someone a troll or an ip hopper is not name calling. They have technical meaning here. Once again, I highly suggest you actually read the rules and policies of wikipedia. It will help you out. Until you do, you're not really going to get anywhere, especially since refusal to familiarize yourself with policy is basically giving a big middle finger to collaboration efforts. Farsight001 (talk) 11:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Ugh... I agree with Farsight001 that one of the most critical principles of Wikipedia is collaboration. However, I do think we need to be careful to understand that much of what is quoted from The Economist are the views of the author of the article (and to a lesser extent, those of The Economist). When the article in The Economist says Cornwell's historical work has not always been "fair-minded", this is a view. When the article in The Economist says "Cornwell, "chastened", had admitted as much himself,", this is an interpretation of Cornwell's statements and writings. Now, I'm not saying that author of The Economist article is wrong in what he writes. Most people would trust The Economist to provide reportage that is not overly biased. But we cannot assume that everything reported in it is rock-solid truth. We need to be clear what is fact and what is opinion and to clearly identify each as being what it is. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The above should not be construed to support the proposal to remove the text that is sourced from The Economist article. Wikipedia SHOULD report opinions about authors. It just has to make clear whose opinion it is so that the reader can evaluate the reliablity of the source. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

- - To Farsight001: I do not have to read rules and policies of anything. You are not able to understand a very basic thing: Wikipedia rules are not written to be interpreted frivolously nor a handy tool for attacking others. Someone shall help you in overcoming these two obstacles you are facing now.--Eleven Nine (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, if you refuse to familiarize yourself with policy, you will get nowhere. You're not even formatting your posts properly. When people try to help you, you should accept their help. It will help a lot. I'm not using them as a tool for attacking others. I'm abiding by them as I have always tried to do, and enforcing them. If you want to get anywhere, you need to abide by them like everyone else, and to do that, you first have to understand and know what they are. Thus far all you have done is accuse me of civility violations and personal attacks without knowing the wikipedia-specific meaning of the terms. This helps no one, least of all you.Farsight001 (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Cornwell and Fattorini

In the article it seams that only Ronald J. Rychlak reacted at the "time bomb letter".. Maybe it will be interesting to know that was the same Italian historian who had a very strong reaction against Cornwell threatening a lawsuit against him. Anyway leaving aside the legal issues, let's read what Fattorini said about Cornwell in this interview: "Some racist elements there are therefore in this letter, we ask to Fattorini: "Sure, but it must be read with philological correctness and must be viewed historically. Was not Pacelli to draw that description, is a hearer of the nunciature that relates it to him. And then the 'attitude of Pacelli in those years should not be forced within the limits of that letter, in order to read the conditions of a propensity to support the movement of Hitler. A little later Pacelli will work to convince the German bishops to accept that the Catholic Centre allies itself with the Social Democrats to form the Weimar Republic. No historian can today legitimize the 'wild use of documents in which Cornwell perfoms. "[1]--Domics (talk) 10:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you should edit the article accordingly. Mamalujo (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Book's cover photograph

I've moved the recently inserted material to Talk: for discussion.

Criticism has also been leveled against the misleading use of the photograph featured on the book's cover. The photograph depicts a smiling Cardinal Pacelli emerging from a German government building, surrounded by uniformed soldiers, in an apparent attempt to portray Pacelli as cozy with the Nazi government. The picture was taken in the late 1920s, when Pacelli visited the democratically elected President von Hindenberg.^[1]

To begin with, the wording obviously doesn't comply with WP:NPOV - it states, in Wikipedia's voice, that the photograph was used misleadingly, and that it was "an apparent attempt to portray Pacelli as cozy with the Nazi government". In addition, the criticism is written by Robert Royal (author), who, according to Wikipedia's article, is "a Catholic author and the president of the Faith and Reason Institute" and "editor-in-chief of The Catholic Thing". It's not clear if he's qualified, or his views notable enough, to include this material. Please discuss, keeping WP:BLP in mind. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You removed it, as the edit summary said, due to blp issues. There is in no way any sort of blp issue involved. Even if there potentially was, it is properly sourced. Royal has a relevant PhD and is an accomplished author and professor. He is clearly qualified, which you should know if you'd given his article a cursory glance. There was simply no reason to remove such a paragraph other than in an attempt to hide it from public view.Farsight001 (talk) 06:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

That's right, a WP:BLP issue. You've used Wikipedia's voice to claim a living person deliberately used a photograph misleadingly, citing a source that may not meet Wikipedia's WP:RS requirements. That is, without question, a WP:BLP issue, so you'll discuss it here, or risk being blocked. Now, respond to the issues raised in my initial post. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all, completely and utter bullshit that it may not meet rs. Of course it does. A well and relevantly educated editor in chief with multiple books, years of experience, and the respect of the community, but not a reliable source? What horseshit are you trying to feed people?

Second of all, as it is described as a criticism, then it doesn't really matter. It is the perspective of the criticizer that it may have been intentional. Since this is obvious from the context, there is in no way a blp issue.

Third, I added it ONCE. You do not place warnings on people's pages after one add. Look at ip hopper 71, who has made at least a dozen blatant blp violations across several articles and multiple times and yet...no warnings about blp issues. Yet you jump at any excuse to tag me? No offense, but that makes it pretty obvious that you're making me a target.

So try this one more time - provide a valid reason for the completely relevant and properly cited paragraph to be removed. I'll give it 48 hours, and you're lucky I'm giving it that long because I don't believe for a second your purpose is honest.Farsight001 (talk) 12:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all, whether or not he's reliable on this subject depends on a whole bunch of things, including his professional background and where he published it. Second, since it was described as factual, in Wikipedia's voice, it really does matter, and it really is a BLP issue. Third, when someone states something is a BLP issue, you don't revert even once. Regarding the rest of your comment, Comment on content, not on the contributor. It is you who needs to provide evidence that this is a reliable source, not me, so your 48 hour "threat" is irrelevant, unless you really are looking to get blocked. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me ask these question: 1) Where did the photo come from? If it dated from the Nazi period, fine, and you've made your point. 2) But if it was from an earlier period, why was it used?

The author himself may not personally be responsible for this picture. Possibly both the title and the photo were placed by the publisher to "sell books", the main intent of a publisher. At least that might be slightly more reassuring than assuming the supposedly unbiased author selected both. Student7 (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

None of this is relevant, because Wikipedia really only cares what reliable secondary sources say about a topic. More importantly, though, I've stated this is a WP:BLP issue, so if you do that reverting thing again you may well be blocked. Please don't get yourself blocked. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you all realize that the allegation was already in the entry, as having been made by another critic? I added the fact that Royal has made the same allegation to the entry. There should be no BLP issue there. It is fully attributed and makes no commentary in Wikipedia's voice about the photo. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Good work, thanks! Jayjg ^(talk) 20:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the fact that no person is accused of intentionally misleading anyone in the paragraph in question. If it's a blp issue, who exactly is the blp issue with? The author is not mentioned. Maybe it was the publisher or whoever chose the cover or any number of a hundred other people who may or may not be living. But without a named living person, there is no blp problem. There's just you trying to hide relevant information. Notice how the paragraph says that criticism was leveled against the book? Is the book a living person? No. Again, no blp issue here, and I don't believe for a second you don't know that.Farsight001 (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Gallo's book voices some suspicions that may be pertinent.Nishidani (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let's make this VERY clear for all you people who don't have access to the book: I'm holding it in my hands right now. It's a FIRST printing. It's hardcover. I actually bought it over 5 years ago (secondhand) and DID bother to read it back then. The cover is the mentioned picture with the pope (before he was pope) walking out of a place with german-looking soldiers around him. Now this is a FIRST print, so no far-right loonie came up with criticism to add this in. This is LITERALLY what the backend of the cover says: "Front jacket photograph: Eugenio Pacelli, before his election to the papacy, leaving a reception for President Hindenburg in Berlin, 1927 (Keystone/Sigma)" This is what it says, I even got the capitals and the punctuations right. I can actually put a pic online if you need to keep hating the truth. (Oh and btw, I don't see why someone claims he's smiling in the picture...he's NOT). To cut this story REAL short: any nutjob claiming Cornwell didn't proper reference his pics is crap at finding references or is outright lying. Here, let me quote the article: "Rychlak also alleged that Cornwell manipulated the photograph on the front cover of the American edition of the book, and incorrectly dated the photo as having been taken in March 1939". This is an outright lie and I have the proof right here next to me in hardcover. Rychlak is lying,TOTALLY. And yes you can quote me on that.Crusty007 (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, stuff it. Here's the pic of the reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:John_Cornwell%27s_%22Hitler%27s_Pope%22_jacket_references.jpg In case you didn't think I was serious about holding the book in my hands.Crusty007 (talk) 05:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

the article by rychlak says some of the early british editions mis-dated the photo - If rychlak accuses cornwell of god knows what, then he does -, thats what the article says pretty much isn't itSayerslle (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Scope of the pope

A lot of this is designed to "play into" historical hatred by the Protestants for the pope, whom, they presumed, was behind all their problems, real or imagined. The pope, over the centuries, while "head" of the church, has had an important impact at times, but usually is a marginalized figure. This was true in the early church - the Spaniards tended to dominate the church (and pope). True when the popes were imprisoned by the Emperors when they stupidly showed up for church councils and disagreed with the party (Emperor's) line. Captive of the Germans and French in the middle ages. Driven from Rome by invaders, etc. Nearly winked out of existence in 1800. They put on a good show in time of peace, are very cautious in time of war, usually urging "peace" but not quite able to bring it about. In WWII and earlier, more focused on Catholics, than today, perhaps.

A pope does not explain his decisions. That is part of the job. He certainly wouldn't say, "I was afraid of ...." And definitely not after WWII when nearly everybody was afraid at one time or another. Student7 (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm! What about this?

Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler, Bormann were all Catholics. How about the Catholic primate of Germany who ordered the Requiem sung after Hitler's suicide? Why are their names still on the rolls of the Catholic Church? The Catholic Church had no compunction in excommunicating every Communist party member after World War II ended. Why not Nazis? Why did the Vatican and the Catholic Church compound their offense by offering the Nazis the Croatian Rat Line and other escape routes, operating in Rome from a Vatican Catholic college, to flee Europe to Catholic havens in South and Central America?

from Custom Maid Spin for New World Disorder: Political Dust Storms, Corrosive Money and Slick Oil by Peter De Krassel; CAL Books, 2005, page 199

Just because Hitler etc . were raised Catholics doesn't mean they were genuinely Catholic in any meaningful sense (which also means they couldn't be excommunicated, because they weren't part of the Church to begin with. Stalin was an ex-seminarian, should the Georgian Orthodox Church thus be held responsible for the gulag? Historian932 (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is entirely true. I think that Hitler remained officially Catholic (even if he didn't always practice this faith) until the end of his life. Also, the Catholic Church (or at least some prominent members of it) did help Hitler come to power by helping to push through the Enabling Act (1933) into law. Likewise, AFAIK no prominent Catholic official (in Germany and/or in the Vatican) vocally condemned the Holocaust to the same degree as Clemens August Graf von Galen vocally condemned the Nazi Aktion T4 program (which actually did stop this program, although the Nazis continued some of their activities in killing disabled people underground afterwards). I don't think that one can claim that the Georgian Orthodox Church in any way helped Stalin come to power and commit his mass killings of millions of innocent people. Futurist110 (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

You say, A lot of this is designed to "play into" historical hatred by the Protestants for the pope, whom, they presumed, was behind all their problems, real or imagined. Right you are.

--71.191.22.174 (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Student7, I'm sorry, but I don't understand the point of your comment; are you proposing any changes to the article, based on reliable sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

My point is "not scholarly." "Hitler's Pope" is not a scholarly title for a serious work of a scholar. Once you have a non-scholarly title, everything else follows - no rules, diatribe, etc. Once a comment is allowed (the title itself), how can we screen for WP:FRINGE? It's nearly all fringe! Note IP's unsigned comments above. That is the type of attention this article gets.

Note the "serious" treatment of this book as opposed to Jack Chick. Granted Chick makes the mistake of maligning too many groups instead of confining himself to one. Had he confined himself to the pope, I guess he would be considered a "scholar"! :) Student7 (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Cornwell is a respected author and journalist. Do not state or imply again that his books are like Chick tracts, per WP:BLP. Also, please review WP:NOTAFORUM again; are there any changes you wish to make to this article, based on reliable secondary sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

26,188 bytes

Does the book deserve so much place? Wikipedia shouldn't promote poor reasearch.Xx236 (talk) 06:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

^ [2]

[1] [2]

[1]