This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Does Fair Use apply to 598 words from the book's introduction?

We can't police the source of the quotation, but we can question if such a long extract here is a violation of the copyright of the book or fair use here. Please let's have a shorter quote. patsw 01:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

English translation, please

The characterizations Cornwell makes of Pius XII, summarized below, are contended by many other observers of the latter's papacy.

What is being contended? Who are these anonymous many other observers? If this sentence belongs at all, it belongs after the characterizations have been listed. These observers need names. patsw 01:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

What's the point of this article?

Hitler's Pope is a work of biography. What it adds to our knowledge of Pope Pius XII belongs in that biographical article. What's the encyclopedic value of anything else in the book? This article looks merely like a platform for Cornwell's own POV on Pope Pius XII and by extension a platform for Wikipedia's editors' POV on Pope Pius XII -- in short a discussion board and not an encyclopedia. patsw 01:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

patsw, I don't know how to answer you briefly but I paste this from Robert McClenon as on this page :

I am willing to try to discuss differences of opinion reasonably, without mediation. I will make a few non-negotiable demands that Wikiquette be followed, or I will conclude that we do need mediation or arbitration. First, assume good faith. Do not imply censorship when an NPOV dispute is in progress. Do not accuse anyone of bad faith unless you have irrefutable proof. Second, do not use talk pages as soapboxes. Drop the discussion of canon law, unless it is applicable to a published source. As far as I can tell, the discussion of canon law is really only a discussion of the fact that moral errors were made, and is basically an issue of attributing evil motives rather than error to the dead. Third, cite sources for any claim that is disputed.

In particular, please provide a source for the use of the exact phrase "Hitler's Pope" preceding Cornwell. If you do not provide a source for the published use of that exact phrase before Cornwell, then I will have to delete that reference and leave the article only as a discussion of Cornwell's book.

I hope that this is satisfactory. Robert McClenon 14:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC

I can tell you that I thought it very unsatisfactory indeed . I fear you come in here ,patsw , rather late . I take the quote as disingenuously pernickety self-righteous intentional muddling .

Non-negotiable should not apply to reason ;

Recognition of censorship was dependent on irrefutablility within the history ;

Soapboxing , that's a form of ad hominem;

Drop- cheek , it was/is applicable to sources ;

Evil motives- is a statement of POV/ and ad hominem ;

Source was cited to this interposition, and always ;

User's decision to confine article to Cornwell was to ignore sources .

Your postion patsw , seems to be coming in along McC lines earlier and here . I myself would indeed put it all under the main Pius XII page , but I have tried and been blocked from doing so by reverts , so , sorry , don't kick at me . Famekeeper 07:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not asking for your editing history or the history your exchanges with other editors, I'm asking "What's the point of this article?" Book-focused articles describe what the book is about, what's the significance of the book in the public eye, and how the book has been received by the peers of the author. This article isn't doing that and as such probably requires a total replacement rather than minor editing. Famekeeper, what's your outline for the content of a book-focused article? Or what's wrong with my outline? patsw 22:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I can provide my own POV as to why this article should exist. I assume that Famekeeper will tell me that my opinion is unacceptable and that I am blocking him and so on, but here is my view. Hitler's Pope is not so mucn a biography as a criticism in the framework of a biography. The factual events of the life of Pope Pius XII belong in his biographical article. The usual Wikipedia format for biographical articles about people who held high offices (President, Pope) about whom controversies exist is to put the facts in the main biographical article and to summarize the controversies, and to provide another article detailing the controversies at more length. That way, the outline of the life of Pope Pius XII is available for a reader who wishes, for instance, to see the history of the Catholic Church via the biographies of its Popes.

An article such as this one should provide an NPOV summary of Cornwell's POV of Pope Pius XII. It had been my plan to revise this article to provide that. However, to do that, I will have to re-read Cornwell, which I have not done in the past few years, and provide a reasonable summary of what he wrote, and to separate POV from NPOV. I agree that the article as it stands with its neutrality warning is a discussion board. I do think that an article summarizing the book is needed. It is just that this article, as it is, needs a lot of rework, which I have not had time to provide. Robert McClenon 11:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

What is your patsw's outline? I agree with your view that the article as written is unsatisfactory and requires either major editing or a rewrite. Robert McClenon 00:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The very fact that partisans are drawn to this article to call for its deletion attests to the notability of the book, and the worth of having a Wikipedia entry. Brainhell 00:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Double Action as Regards Grave Sin

McC-I'm still hoping you'd answer that question, if not how you come to the question, what then, you think the answer is ? Perhaps an Opus Dei man could answer ?

As to yrs of today , again is this bad-faith ? You will have seen that Cornwell himself wrote his abbreviation , it was published , and should therefore stand as an abbreviation of him as a source . But no , you want to read the book and somehow do better than Cornwell out of Cornwell.... that is really wierd .

As to allowance of Cornwell, or any body else's conclusions concerning the biography or life of pacelli, well , this is just wierd too, because you know that that will not be allowed . The conclusions of Cornwell and the very many references by historians to what a lay-man would call a stitch-up but what grandly could be called a quid pro quo lie in utter contradiction with the saccharine sanctity of this pontiff . You know very well that the truth is completely denied, evaded , disparaged and hounded . That the level of hypocrisy visible on the present pontiff's page and Pacelli'ds is blood-curdling .

Of course if your aim is to seem reasonable (though the logic is that it would prove entirely unobtainable as a result) you might appear so to those who have not tried to balance the reality . The reality is that no allowance of contrition is forthcoming despite 60 years of historical reference to the suborning of democracy by the Church , with the brok analysis being the most very succinct -WAR .

Stop mekking about McC , and if you have a conscience , use it to help the world . If you are of good faith you will join with me in as you say re-writing the main article to the length dictated by the necessity of truth nothing less . Everything sourced from Brok thru Kenney's Tollet , Shirer, Toland, WBennett , margaret Lambert, Rosenberg , Hafner re his boss , Churchill re his boss .

But you can well see that the contradiction is so vast , the analysis of truth so dangerous , as to sunder all the supposed papal snctity of Pacelli . All of Cornwell that is proved must be referenced to cap all that these other's separately with Mowrer testify concerning the story of 32 -33 .

However as I was not allowed to explain, against all policy , without any original research but purely from the above , this is not just about Pacelli . pacelli was just the clever-dick on the tiller, whilst the sleepcaptain provided the destination . lets have the by-your-lady truth , McC ... which is that this was the Church's battle against Communism at whatever the immoral cost , which is where it would then be relevant to really confine the canons within a short summary-but one that you won't throw back in my face .

So you answer the by-your-lady question about double action first and then we'll talk seriously . otherwise you act just as a provocateur , with no real desire for relation of truth , no wish to see the Church or its human following benefit and regain some respect , no wish to still the injured hearts of the victims who so terribly suffered . Absolutely outrageous of you to be sort-of mediating , sort-of understanding , sort-of shocked, sort-of moral, sort-of believing YOU understand Cornwell better than himself . All because you supect there may be some way in which vanity Fair and Cornwell are traduced by that website. That is to clutch at the last hair of reason not to get real . Stop making by-your-lady excuses to preserve your morality , stop acting as if Str has the right to deny all the above sources I have produced (and Kenney) as I for one am sick of this dishonesty in defence of total christian hypocrisy , which is to have done this deal against the faith of Jesus Christ Almighty . My faith as of a human being will rise up against this immorality until I have no breath more .Famekeeper 13:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I am answering McClenon's question(s) on the appropriate page which is Theology of Pope Benedict XVI

Shorten the article

There is an article about Pius XII that covers his biography and his dealings with Geramny. This article should eliminate this information and simply link to the main article. 214.13.4.151 16:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Whatever happens, and there is "Wikihistory" reason from editing behaviour for the forking of the subject to this article , the actual historical truth should reign . It does not as yet , but it is inching closer .Famekeeper 08:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I do not understand. Why should this article repeat the biography of Pope Pius XII? Robert McClenon 09:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, FK's reason for creating this page was to use it as a platform for all his "criticism" of Pius XII which he though should be included in the Pius XII and related pages and which he couldn't because of my opposition to what I call "blackwashing". Of course, he's free to create this page in which Cornwell's POV naturally plays a bigger part. But still, this restricts him to Cornwell and his book. What's not in Cornwell has no place here. Also we cannot lower standards of presentation of POV as POV. It seems that he has trouble accepting these limitations to his intentions. This article needs to be reduced to the gist of Cornwell's book and appraisal of that (including the new counter-Cornwell book). I am prepared to give him or others who have read Cornwell time to this. Str1977 19:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

This betrays a regrettable bureaucratic mind-set, not limited to any particular editor, but one I have seen used over and over when deemed useful for squashing facts . As to Str's first point it was he himself , in a seemming dare, who suggested I start the Hitler's Pope article . This is all , like the birds in the field, countable within wikihistory, if anyone cares . As soon as the article was begun , Str began damage control in attempt to indeed limit it to John Cornwell, against the wide common knowledge present on the Allied side since that era. I am particularly irksome to this attempt as I quote source which independantly confirms the Cornwell research . User McC does not understand, as he has not done from the get-go(American ,colloquialism) . This is rather unfortunate . What Str writes above could enable him to do so . This is low level and boring , this particular discussion and possibly only serves to show the wikilimitations as historical tool .

I repeat , Str, please answer the question re KKD't and the secret annexe . Or return to your post justifying earlier complete removal of its secrecy and of its illegality . that would be time better spent. And abandon this strong bureaucratic meddling with history . Cornwell used a common term , not the other way round .Famekeeper 20:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

this page was your idea. i only didn't object.

even if cornwell used a common term, that doesn't change anything.

then this article is about the term and the book. it is definetely not about the whole life of pius, apart from his portrayal of the book of that title, and it is most definetely not about parading your conspiracy stories, if they are not included in the book of that title (and they aren't, as far as i am aware of). Str1977 23:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Answer necessity for full article on Hitler's Pope with suitable Protest

Any doubts as to the necessity for this article , and it's length are abundantly proved by Str1977's edit (of Pope Pius XII) of 20.06 3 Sptember 2005 . I protest, as I have always done and appeal to the dispassionate , who should have numbered one Robert McClenon .Do not remove this my notice of protest. Famekeeper 20:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your abbreviation refers to. If it's the annex section on the Reichskonkordat (as I think it is) than it should be there in a short while. Please understand that I don't have seven heads and ten arms. Str1977 20:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[[Reichskonkordat RKK't /RKKd't , whatever . see above - I am ,again , seeing RED. This is usual apparently co-operative deflection ,this question . You are very naughty, old man but suit yourself, I can't be watching you . G-bye.(hence colour high-light) You always win , because everyone else is too thick/stupid/disingenuous/ill-informed/lazy (they won't study our shared discourse to check the sources provided):You win for these reasons alone-you are great-I salute your endeavour .End. No more . FK watches, having once again tried to repair three articles-Ludwig Kaas ,Pope Pius XII and Hitler's Pope . Do not trust what you read, search all archives Famekeeper 20:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Mr FK, don't flare up. I was typing after I had accessed the RKKt page and thought this to be the meaning of RKKt but I wanted to "make siccar" whether I was correct. No need to see RED. It was just a short question. You now have enough to read at RKKt. I know was a successful day for me, but this doesn't refer to Wiki stuff. But I won't discuss this here, this is beyond your scope.

Only note, that you are personally attacking not me this time but practically every wikipedian ("Everyone else").

Also, colour highlighting doesn't work if you highlight it all.

Goodnight Str1977 21:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

You are beyond belief. I simply dread to think what u have done with the RKKd't , or elsewhere that you chuckle. Just remember contumacy with collaboration,dont answer me again, I will watch you from afar.Good faith is as good faith does, or does not.

I have done nothin with RKKt. Only posted what you asked for (hopefully) on the talk page. NPOV is as NPOV does too. Str1977 22:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Statements of praise for Pius XII deleted from article as irrelevant and moved here

Rabbi Dalin summarizes the motiviation of Cornwell and others as follows:

"Very few of the many recent books about Pius XII and the Holocaust are actually about Pius XII and the Holocaust. The liberal best-selling attacks on the pope and the Catholic Church are really an intra-Catholic argument about the direction of the Church today. The Holocaust is simply the biggest club available for liberal Catholics to use against traditional Catholics in their attempt to bash the papacy and thereby to smash traditional Catholic teaching."

Rabbi Dalin includes in his book comments about Pius XII from his Jewish contemporaries that belie the conclusions Cornwell reaches in his tome:

- Golda Meir

"We share in the grief of humanity [at the death of Pius XII]…. When fearful martyrdom came to our people in the decade of Nazi terror, the voice of the pope was raised for the victims. The life of our times was enriched by a voice speaking out on the great moral truths above the tumult of daily conflict. We mourn a great servant of peace."

- Rabbi Louis Finkelstein, chancellor, Jewish Theological Seminary of America

"No keener rebuke has come to Nazism than from Pope Pius XI and his successor, Pope Pius XII."

- Rabbi Alexander Safran, chief rabbi of Romania

"In the most difficult hours of which we Jews of Romania have passed through, the generous assistance of the Holy See…was decisive and salutary. It is not easy for us to find the right words to express the warmth and consolation we experienced because of the concern of the supreme pontiff, who offered a large sum to relieve the sufferings of deported Jews…. The Jews of Romania will never forget these facts of historic importance."

- Rabbi Isaac Herzog, chief rabbi of Israel

"The people of Israel will never forget what His Holiness and his illustrious delegates, inspired by the eternal principles of religion, which form the very foundation of true civilization, are doing for our unfortunate brothers and sisters in the most tragic hour of our history, which is living proof of Divine Providence in this world."

- Moshe Sharett (who later became Israel’s first foreign minister and second prime minister)

"I told [Pope Pius XII] that my first duty was to thank him, and through him the Catholic Church, on behalf of the Jewish public for all they had done in the various countries to rescue Jews…. We are deeply grateful to the Catholic Church."

The following additional works are among the many that contradict the evidence that Cornwell cites and the conclusions that Cornwell reaches:

Jimmy Akin, How Pius XII Protected Jews (Catholic Answers, 1979-2005)

Bottum, Joseph (2004). The Pius War: Responses to Critics of Pius XII. Lexington Books. ISBN 0-7391-0906-5.

Anonymous, Persecution of the Catholic Church in the Third Reich (Pelican Pub Co; February 2003). ISBN 1589801377 (originally published in 1941)

Sr. Margherita Marchione, Pope Pius XII: Architect for Peace (Paulist Press, 2000). ISBN 080913912X

Ronald J. Rychlak, Hitler, the War, and the Pope (Our Sunday Visitor; 2000). ISBN 0879732172

Karl Scholder, The Churches and the Third Reich (London, 1987)

Eugenio Zolli, Before the Dawn (Roman Catholic Books; Reprint edition, February 1997). ISBN 0912141468 (author is the former wartime chief rabbi of Rome who took the name "Eugenio" at his Baptism in honor of Pope Pius XII)

AfD result

This article was nominated for deletion on September 26, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

— JIP | Talk 15:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Hitler's Pope-necessitates correction

See: [[1]]

I return to this part of the effort to persuade editors towards truer inclusion of history :

Another point (point 5, if you will) is your "Vatican exchange" section - it needs clarification and editing. This is a really interesting and much more rewarding field for contributing to wiki.

You ,Sir, would not say so if you realised that therein lies a second clear reference to papal secrecy , following the Bruning/Monarchy story. Herein is shown that tendency to evade a paper trail in order to protect the pope from his own actions. The vatican episode does indeed repeat [in 1942/3] , and I shall revisit it, but really apart from revealing papal secrecy practice , it is more shocking for revealing widerstand attitudes and British 'appeaser' attitudes with the papal vision of a Germany allowed to remain without repentance or ,in fact, democracy . The Pope was no less wrong at this time than the remaining british appeasers , but more wrong because he knew of the Hitlerian anti-semitic reality .

Dear FK, thanks for posting a really interesting section. I hope you don't mind that I straigthened it a bit (nothin really big. There are just some question I'd like to ask:

1) this is a fascinating story, but Kaas is rather a minor character in this. Of course, it should be mentioned here, that he was part of it, but maybe the whole thing would suit better in an entry on the "Ochensepp" Josef Müller, of whom there is much more to say - his work as a lawyer and his post-war career as a politician.

2) I don't understand these sentences:

"It seems the British were keen, as power was still with Chamberlain and Halifax and the later corrected vacillation concerning German demands was evident."

"At any rate the implication is that all involved were prepared to foresee some solution based on sufficient German territorial aggrandisement to placate the German people after the "loss" of their "Adolf Hitler" during wartime."

3) I think the following sentence is too much POV. At least it should be explained what was so fortunate.

Fortunately for Europe, the British policy was to swiftly change once Winston Churchill replaced Neville Chamberlain.

3) And I don't really get the last sentence either, especially after "the views ..."

Monsignor Kaas is reported as alerting the British contact, the Minister to the Holy See, Francis D'Arcy Osborne, the views of Hermann Göring in anti-communist sympathy with the opposition.

Kaas was alerting the British ambassador - about what? How is the sentence after "the views of Göring" connected. And who had anti-communist sympathy And what about the opposition

Please consider these questions. Anyway, I really appreciate this post. Str1977 21:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed,I , FK ,never answered these questions brought from Ludwig Kaas' Discussion [[2]], as the questions were answered by the statements themselves, within the language . The editor evidently did not understand the construction .

However I return the epic of dispute centreing on this ghastly subject to precisely this vignette , for the relevance of this ( part of Professor Klemens von Klemperer's analysis in his German resistance Against Hitler ) to the following article , which I consider to be the clearest , fullest , most estimable relation of the actual historical events . KvK is per se dealing with later history , with efforts at opposition to Hitler, which are now adequately recorded , as parties concerned have been naturally quite eager to afford themselves the possible good odour associating with the widerstand .

I have to admit that I was setting a fence up with my inclusion of this the Vatican Exchanges - later episode, in Kaas' life . Now we return to the question of Abraham Lehrer , of the Cologne Synagogue and the Pope Benedict XVI Apostolic Visit , discussed and ,naturally removed, from the BXVI article towards the Pius XII article ( and , illogically removed , as the impertinent Lehrer "question" in fact just as much applies to the Pope Pius XI era ) .

The question was whether the pontiff would now open the Vatican's archives to scrutiny such that history would finally uncover all that therein lies . The history as reported concerning the pontifical role in the Widerstand/ opposition (in briefest description , being the disaffected military ) is relevant because herein lies clear example of specifically verbal involvement designed , as with the Heinrich Bruning /Monarchy dealing, specifically to protect the papacy . Pain-staking effort was made such that the monarchist restoration should not be traceable , so , in fact it is quite likely that should the Lehrer question be accorded, that even then a paucity of documentation would result .

There is dispute that the vatican has already released the archive, but this claim is equally heavily disputed, and Lehrer 's question seems to be the last word : the archive is still as yet closed , meaning that a part is closed , so that effectively documents are held . It could mean that there are no documents , rather than an estimate of many many shelves and rooms-full . But the question was asked by others than Lehrer, specifically by certain accredited , and then disallowed scholastic personalities , given partial access . Partial access has been given to certain periods .

In effect the vatican exchanges I referred to (1939/40 and 1942/43) are documented exterior to the vatican , since the contacts were with the British . The Widerstand side fell into Gestapo hands by 1944 . They have no direct bearing upon the over-all sense of Hitler's Pope , as there is general agreement that the element of approbation and collusion to which the expression relates is considered (possibly wrongly) to relate to purely the period within which Hitler took power (1933) . However the Cornwell analysis seems to have the historical reality in view, which is that the activities precede this year , and closely relate to Pacelli analysis and Pius XI decision-making from 1925 , with then the monarchist push building from 1928 into its failure during the 1930-32 period . I retain my view as expressed above concerning the underlying character of the Vatican Exchanges, seeing little in them of good , and considering their date, very much bad .

See link repeat of above link [[3]] for that which needs to inform the entire WP German and 20th century history . I note with no pleasure that a remarkable dearth of links between all such WP articles would prevent any such clear view of the history becoming apparent to the reader . This remains a WP scandal, and necessitates wide-ranging correction . EffK 02:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The "Blocking" of this Article

As long as it remains either POV , or "Clean-up" , it is effectively out of circulation- the scrapers for search engines leave it off . A Google result is denied, and we can all go earlier and safer to bed. I congratulate the two last editors , Barlow and Contaldo, and direct them to the fullest study of what is at issue here, which is no less than an attempt to control Wikipedia reflection of this entire subject, whether at Reichskonkordat, Enabling Act , Pius XI & XII, Weimar Republic , Germany, Holocaust, Anti-semitism,Pope Benedict XVI (Abraham Lehrer Cologne call sent to Pius XII), Centre Party Germany,Ludwig Kaas ,The Great Scandal etc . History on these and other articles will show the edit war PEW extends through-out Wikipedia, with the one single thread relating to here.

I am at Trial, if you look at Arbcom closely, and I say that if even John Cornwell came to re-write this, he would have to be banned. As I have come into this arena without even having read Cornwell, and enter from another side-door , the political one, I can tell these last two users where the minimum cut off point is for the Church apologism: 8/9 April 1933' . Any concerns before this date are verboten, desava'o, interdit,POV .

The reason for this is that the Church is well aware that it were Canonically, if no more is considered, unauthorised, nay, forbidden to have effected the quid pro quo with Adolf Hitler as regards his empowerment. However to have repeated the Italian job they did earlier,and effect the demise of the Catholic(as known)Centre Party in Germany -in return for the lousy cash-cow Reichskonkordat(still there) , that , that is not illegal canonically. To tip a parliamentary vote( even a rigged one) and thus empower tyranny breaks the very essence of Christendom, formally and legally (for which there is canonical law). Herefrom stems my battle , this is why the talk pages fill up with myself and the chief defender, one User:Str1977 who appeared on wikipedia at the conclave naming of the new German pope, after the immediately previous vatican New Media Conference, which , you bet, was called precisely to redress such danger as this article, above all, represented. The conference was doubtless aware of the article (I mean it) as it scraped .

If it is POV, if Cornwell, Ian kershaw and the several other contemporary writers are POV and in-admissable hate literature, or "sloppy hatchet-jobbers" or published by small press or classifiable as to be excluded , then this article does not exist in Cyberspace, even though it exists in Wikipedia. But also it is necessary to ban me , as the attempt is being made, because I bring rather different source which begins in, dangerously, May 1932 (folow my refs on Centre pages to Edgar Ansel Mowrer quote ,or Archive 1 here and then clarify with my sourced 'Margaret Lambert 1934 Faber and Faber The Saar, then 1936 Arthur Rosenburg's cardinal History of the German Republic , Wheeler-Bennetts Hindenburg the Wooden Titan, (I hardly touch Avro Manhattan's 1949 reference to the 'Nazi Pope') but included in future should be lately sourced references by Franz von Papen which confirm, confirm a high Vatican policy of synthesis with the NDSDAP/Nazis as late as 1936 . Go then,cruising more easily with the post Nuremburg Trials historians Shirer and Toland .Above all for the apologia there is a problem in the clear statement by the Widerstand expert, Klemens von Klemperer , that Kaas and Papen were the most important figures of all , and that the quid quo pro ,indeed as Shirer and Toland hint, depended on not just political Centre bargaining for favours at the Enabling Act , but states as that Kaas "had a hand" in Hitler's speech at the opening seesion of the Reichstag of that 23 March .This is an OUP source, and must be denied or contorted or minimised .Look at the number of times I have sourced . .

You will find much assent after 8/9 April , but you will find constant dispute that Pacelli's representative Ludwig Kaas was his representative ever in Germany, or was such on April 2 for his effectively secret meeting, ie unrecorded and private , with Hitler of April 2 1933 , let alone that the words of Kaas recorded for some 40 years by Toland, alluded to by Shirer , relate to the period before 8/9 . I leave you and warn you , this is an active problem. I suggest you simply re-write the Vanity Fair abbreviation as you can , whereby you will over-come the copy vio. I am off to my trial. I am sorry that the importance of this subject makes me have to open my fingers at such length . EffK 10:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Archive 1 Source Mowrer

Needs re-positioning to be readable. EffK 21:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Focus on the Subject

More information can be given about the book itself at this point. Since there are a large number of books examining the relationship between the Vatican and European politics-particularily during WWII-perhaps there can be an article about the different readings lauding or questioning Eugenio Pacelli.

1 Good on both accounts, if there is to be such a compendium article. *:2 I have constantly found that off-topic is the recourse to prevent over-all historical clarity. *:3 Therefore the one cannot really be without the other, in your suggestions. *:4 Yet I know the WP needs to clearly arrive at the historical reality as sourceable from Nuremburg. *:5 This I am un-able to enter past the obstructions placed wherever the Articles require it.*:6 The Nuremburg Prosecution's categorisation of the Reichskonkordat as a maneuver intended to deceive emanates from Papen. *:7 The explosive conjunct to his statement of this is his assertion that the highest powers of the Vatican were even in 1936 considering a further synthesis of Nazism and Catholicism.

8 I therefore have to say that it is not enough to corral anything anywhere, or accept limits to relevance of sources or Writers or Titles.*:9 Avro Manhattan is the first to propagate the to him Nazi Pope analysis , and it may or may not be sourced by him, but I believe not.*:10 I do not see that his analysis should be dismissed as hate-literature when the essence of it seems to furnish Cornwell, and it appears Richard Kershaw, and others, with their directions to such source. *:11 This is all complicated and prevented by the Archives being closed, such that the Mowrer 1932 reported order to the Centre party cannot be verified(See Ludwig Kaas.

12 The IJCHC Commission has not approached this part of the subject, and I myself have not been concerned to source anti-semitism or the Holocaust related affects ,*:13 and at the maybe misnamed The Great Scandal I divide, as it should be divided, the scandal into its two respective pontiffs.

14 Altho there is active attempt to prevent me from ever touching any of these inter-related subjects, except with some mentor(!) *:15 I say to you that you are pretty much the first sign of a community notice building forwards on this, and I may not be in a position to assist. *:16 I have never read Cornwell , nor Kershaw nor the others , but I could perhaps oversee the structure of events under review as I have in great measure sourced contemporary and subsequent historical report.

17 I have to say that I believe that denialism will continue whatever is done on WP, *:18 and that I have sufficiently explained why it will continue, which is to prevent the scandal being shown to rupture the very Magisterium of the Church . *:19 This is categorisd recently at arbcom as having no place in WP, but I did not enter it into articles and only develope it as a guide to our (and their) understanding as to motives for denials . *:20 It seems quite plain that only BXVI can make the next moves towards the documents , and *:21 I know precisely the document Mowrer would wish to see confirmed from May 1932 *:22 It will otherwise and until then, be practicably impossible to do other than characterise a conspiracy-theory as remaining historical questions. *:23 I at present would like to see no more than a correct WP historical labelling of how Hilter rose to power by proofs of un-impeachable source. *:(4)& 24 This appears solely to emanate from the Nuremburg Trials so I say that wherever any Article goes, it must relate back to clear exit from the Trials , however subject to closure of documented trail .

25 The conjecture I will add here is that Pacelli, indeed in banal fashion , protecting assets he had placed in german Heavy Industry , knowing then of the conspiracy between the Rhenish-Westphalian Industrial Magnates suckered himself in wishful parallel thinking, to further this old-school-boy type network conspiracy, to bolster his own selfish vatican reputation as financial descendant from his vatican influential Grandfather, allowed himself to co-ordinate it with the pontiffs natural and rabid anti-Communist Fatima-bolstered policy . Here christian schism meets marianism meets high finance meets anti-semitism meets totalitarianism and re-conquest of russia meets international banking meets multi-nationals meets Wall St. I conjecture that Pacelli was dis-abused of this wishful thinking within 4 months of the pontiff receiving Goering on 10 April, and that is why we see a statement from him retreating backwards. This retreat has continued up until this very day, and is still active on WP, as I write .

By the way, obstructive blocking has forced me to blether on talk pages and prevented me from any contribution but the most repetitive and strained, so I shall not be offering to write anything much whilst I am actively sabotaged and vilified. Thanks for your attention.EffK 18:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

EffK 18:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Critical analysis

This section has serious problems. Its only citation praises the Pope's personal actions without addressing the book that is the subject of this article. This points to an ambiguity in the article as a whole: is it about the book or about the man?

To what extent may it be said that the clergy's general silence as the Holocaust unfolded reflected the Pope's example? Does the book present any evidence of internal pressures within the church hierarchy? If so, how convincing are its arguments? What happened to individual clergy members who attempted to protect people from the Holocaust? How many were arrested, and of the ones who were what did the Church do in their defense?

This issue is a complex one. Although the Pontiff saved individual Jews in Italy and should be commended for having done so, the accusation that religious leaders underused their moral authority is not a baseless one. Arguably the Nazi regime's early years (1932-1935) were a window of opportunity as it solidified its power and policies.

It would not be amiss to question why charges such as this focus on the Roman Catholic church. Germany has a roughly equal number of Lutheran Protestants whose clergy were equally silent as the regime led the country to moral collapse. Yet the public frames the issue as a Roman Catholic issue. Perhaps this represents religious bias.

Best wishes with a difficult subject. Durova 19:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Added NPOV tag. After reading more about this and related articles it appears that there is an effort among some Wikipedia editors to slant related articles so that they portray the Roman Catholic Church in a positive light. While I agree with presenting the church's defense well, I do not agree with the undue weight given to its defenders.

This whole article has problems as I wrote above. [4] patsw 15:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Does this last User seek an answer to that question? It appears quite rhetorical. At present a google search for Hitler's Pope produces no link to this article in the first 2 pages of results. This has been the case since worried catholic editors pounced on here and placed sufficient tags as to google-nullify it. Now if you add wikipedia to this title, you receive a result which says it refers to Hitler's Pope, but the page you automatically receive is that of Adolf Hitler. This is slightly strange, except that,like myself, you happen to think strange things are made to happen on Wikipedia by strange people. Perhaps Jimbo does this, but I doubt it. I see other strange things- user's pages that suddenly don't google. Or convert to a talk result. Or User's that don't google after clever tinkering.

To answer this question . This page I put up as it was suggested by Str1977, so that all this horrid info should go somewhere like this rather than be filling up the eccelesiastical snow-white Artciles. I certainly never decided , as I think you Sir,do, that this page was to be no more than a link to one writer. It was rather to be a place where all the threads of Hitler's pope, the Nazi Pope, as he/they was described in 1949, could go. I think that certain user's are entirely un-willing to allow the slightest report of this history which is far more than the title of Cornwell's book. I think it is totally disengenuous to suggest this is purely Cornwell's literal title. This more than answers the question, but I am willing to amplify.

I am un-willing to be intellectually baited by un-Wikipedia behaviour, and I am not prepared to work for the broadening of the WP whilst I am so constrained by denialist clerical revisionism . Neither here nor anywhere else. My last edit was made on Adolf Hilter's Article and was hypocritically , and therefote dishonestly removed at once . Hypocritical as proved by the link I made back to the same editor's admission that historically he accepted the central thesis of this subject that I had confined to that which he accepted. The user in question is a complete obstructionist under white robes of apparent virtue. He had six months ago assented to another user's clear judgement of a purely historical nature, emanating from a source of apparent distinction, upon which both user's agreed it proved that at any rate Hitler's Pope (the whole apex of the Catholic Hierarchy) connived in a quid pro quo to the auto dissolution of a major German political party , the Centre Party Germany. This has been referred to also as a 'classic kick-back scheme', which is American for quid pro quo. The Party was subverted at least from the opening of official negotiations, official that is when the ashamed Franz von Papen was un-masked as visiting the Vatican in secret, on 9 April 1933.

However this information was removed within minutes of its placing where it also belongs, in the trajectory of Adolof Hitler, who profited immensely from it. The user knew this to be hypocritical of him following his earlier admission. The User is a chum of the User who continually asks this rhetorical question , and who has personally joined in vicious ad hominem attack of me as a User of Wikipedia. I do not therefore take the questioner very intellectually seriously , but I answer this question because I have a duty of good faith to Wikipedia.

I as a sourcer of historical text have conclusively sourced texts which not only entirely confirms that which the other two users confirmed and assented to, from 9 April 1933, but also have sourced a weight of evidence showing that Hitler's Pope indeed is a subject which plunges farther back in time. That the scandal of the history has garnered considerably greater notice than any of these three user's have been prepared to tolerate. All these four users are confessed catholic wikipedians, as now it appears possible to be here . I am extremely irked by certain of them, there are in fact two more such, but between them they have demonstrated a clear willingness to join forces here and throughout Wikipedia as a cabal in denialist clerical revisionism precisely to defuse the bomb that this subject exemplifies. Whatever rule they can avail of to do so, they all use. They all have combined in attacking me, and I combine with myself in attacking back. I try and keep a reasonable mouth on me, but in no way tolerate their dreadful behaviour. The rhetorical question I have to say suggests that this user questions thus in order to prevent this subject from being fully dealt with. If his angle is to suggest that this information should be included upon the particular dual(there were two Hitler's Popes) Articles, this is disingenuous as he knows that this will not be tolerated. He himself does not tolerate this Article, or he would have seen that it be finished, rather than have tolerated the tagging and thus the google-disappearance of it. If I am wrong to accuse this editor, well his action here and now can show me to be wrong. A simple in-the-user's-words re-write of the Cornwell abbreviation would clearly suffice to strengthen the article. However the user knows very well that I would if I were allowed, source even more than that from Cornwell, and turn this Article into the clear history noted in all source.

I do not believe this question leads to that answer. I therefore cannot edit here or on the plethora of other linking Articles . If this user wished to apologise for his ad hominem(when you can't attack the subject, get the proponent of the subject) and assure me that he is not a denialist but entirely open minded towards me and towards this subject, he would have to immediately defend me from his chums to prove his good-will, and he could do so by going to the monstrously stupid claim made at Arbcom that this is EffK pet theory, and add his proper historical weight against that illogical ad hominem argument straight-away. Or will you User, go and add yourself to the ad hominem against me ? My experience here is so extreme that I , like these denialists, add links showing the baherrant nature of their actions. the last such shows anyone who delves into 15 december's very last perversion, the pure hypocrisy , here is the route :[[5]],http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence#3_December_2005

Redirect?

Looking at the Pope Pius XII article, it appears that this article amounts to a POV fork. I would support a merge/redirect to the parent article. The scholarship there is better. Durova 01:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Durova -Are you going protect the info from these guys , wherever it goes? This McClenon is outrageous to accuse me as he does. He's out of line and his editing shows it. One cannot even place the Atkins and Tallet conclusion of User John Kenney on Hitler's page, how do you expect they'll take to having Avro Manhattan on Pius XII ? I ask this quite seriously , and find it hard that what is meritorious in your words is so abused and traduced to you without remark . You are allowing this to happen without proof given , and I feel threatened by this ad hominem , as I am sure you would , were it you being so attacked. You would not like it if I appeared to agree with or support or tolerate such behaviour.... i have had actual direct words of source twisted, I have been told endlessly that I misinterpret that which is abundantly clear . This is serious, very serious. I have requested that the Arbcom include the above user in their deliberations . Obviously the history should be included on all relevant pages, but these guys , in my Arbcom, are suggesting that ecclesiastical articles be managed by the respective faith- and certainly that I be forbidden from going anywhere near them, that I be instantly knocked off discussions. I am outraged by this user, and his allies . I had better tell you Durova that this is the user who takes me to Arbcom for pushing a pet theory "EffK is accused of "engaging in an extended effort to use Wikipedia to present a theory of Roman Catholic Church complicity in and active support of Adolf Hitler." . I am sorry that they will target you repeatedly. I realise that WP cannot win, as the directive is clear(as are the diffs) to prevent this knowledge. Their line is this: The HP article should not exist and it's forked for a person who wouldn't accept the editing consensus in the Pope Pius article.Take a look at their consensus of 15 December re Atkins and Tallet. I would far sooner be banned from WP than take this. If this wrong runs WP, so be it on their own heads. Even my notice of complaint is evidence against me : [6]. It is as you and Bengalski are thus far alone in recognising , and not as simple as filling in Pius XII at Pius XII . it should be, but is not. I have called for arbitration about this since before McClenon was born here, and he is most noteable for his over-the-top calling me mentally ill. Be advised EffK 08:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

While Pope Pius's motives can be debated, many make the case against him based upon results. Many of the Nazis were Catholic and committed unparelleled acts of brutality including the murder of children, killing of women, and the extermination of 6 million Jews along with others. By virtue of its organization, the Church had a comprehensive system for providing and disseminating information; thus, the notion that no one would have learned or followed the Pope's statements or directives seems far-fetched. While the evidence of direct antipathy towards Jews is scant, the evidence that the Pope could have done much more, and accomplished little in preventing brutality, is compelling. During most of its rule, Nazism was a military, enconomic, and political success; its primary failure was morality, and for that we can justly look to the moral and religious leaders of the time including Pope Pius.(68.196.71.213 (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2008 (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 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."[7]." 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:

"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.
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.
"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.
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)

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).
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. [8] 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 --[9]

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.
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:

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.
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.
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.
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Removed links

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

web page contrasting the scholarship of John Cornwell, author of "Hitler's Pope", with that of David Dalin, the author of "The Myth of Hitler's Pope" .
Review of Hitler's Pope

Cornwell recants his thesis

User:Mamalujo has been claiming for some time that Cornwell "recanted his thesis", and editing the article to reflect his view.[10] Claiming that an author has "recanted his thesis" is a serious charge, and I consider this to be a WP:BLP issue. Please bring reliable sources stating that Cornwell "recanted his thesis", thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that "recant" or "retract" are interpretations of whatever he actually said. So, I agree, we'd need some reliable authority for that interpretation. Even the quote itself concerns me, since I can't find any neutral sources discussing it (and much of the discussion of it on the net references wikipedia!). The meaning of the quote is incredibly difficult to assess without context. And for now, I'd say it is safe to leave the quote on the article without any editorialising whatsoever - caveat lector.--Troikoalogo (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(Cross posted from BLP/N). Ugh. I looked into the Economist piece used to reference the quote, which is itself from a more recent book. The Economist doesn't claim anything about "recanting" the original thesis, which seems to be an over the top piece of Wikipedian editorializing. However, the Economist's writer does describe the quote in question as a admission by Cornwell of now understanding that he was not "fair-minded" in writing Hitler's Pope or at the very least that it "lacked balance". Here is the text:

Devil's advocates were supposed to be fair-minded, and in the past Mr Cornwell, a prolific writer on Catholic matters, has at times been anything but. As he admits, "Hitler's Pope" (1999), his biography of Pope Pius XII, lacked balance. "I would now argue," he says, "in the 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 the Germans."

This is from a source that was already referenced in this section. I agree that Mamalujo is clearly taking it too far in claiming recantation of the original thesis, but Jayjg does not seem to have made any attempt either to look at the sources and accurately describe them. This is POV pushing on both sides during a slow edit war. I still say this can be resolved by a compromise that accurately reflects sourcing.PelleSmith (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Good work. I've tried a neutral fix. What do you think? Is it fair?--Troikoalogo (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly, when Cornwell says he can no longer judge the pope's motives, it's pretty clear that he has recanted or retracted a, if not the, major theme of the book. You have a book, Hitler's Pope, which ascribes evil motives to Pius XII with regard to the Holocaust. Then, after authors like Ronald Rychlak point out to him myriad factual errors, mistranslations, ommissions and misinterpretations in his book, he says that he can no longer judge the pontiff's motives. If words have their plain meanings, this is recanting or retraction. First he says bad motives, then he says I can't judge his motives. This doesn't appear to need a source, it's a recantation or a retraction on its face, at the very least in part (a very significant part). Although I don't think a source is needed to say he's recanted or retracted, there are numerous sources that do: Righteous Gentiles at p. xiii, The Myth of Hitler’s Pope at p. 138, the New York Sun, the Washington Times, Frontpage Magazine, Human Events, Seattle Catholic, National Review, Homiletic and Pastoral Review and First Things. Some of the individuals who have called Cornwell's statement recanting or retraction include professor of history and polical science Rabbi David Dalin, UCLA Law Professor Steven Bainbridge, writer and law professor Ronald Rychlak, and philosopher Michael Novak. Mamalujo (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

When all we had was a quote, then editorialising was best avoided. What may seem like an obvious interpretation to one editor may not seem so to another, so we stick with the hard facts of what was actually said in the sources. However, it does seem to me that the sources you've come up with are sufficient to speak of Corwell as having retracted at least key ideas of his work. I'm happy for you to put that into the article, citing the best of the sources you quote. (The Washington times is the clincher for me). Good work. It is always better to have someone bring sources than us just continue with the shouting.--Troikoalogo (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It is one element (the alleged motives) that was retracted, not all he wrote. And while the "recanted" version seems somewhat acceptable, the more complex version is better. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Cornwell as ex-seminarian and catholic historian

I have a problem with various epithets given to Cornwell:

"ex-seminarian" used to be here: yes, he once attended a seminary and this may be informative regarding his views on the Catholic church but if that is relevant it should be clearly spelled out, not merely implied by such a word. It is one detail of his biography (and is covered in his article) but doesn't need to be repeated again and again. (I see no opposition regarding this but wanted to use this opportunity to explain that as well.)
"catholic" it is very problematic to given Cornwell's lapse catholic faith such a prominence. It implies that he somehow writes from a catholic perspective. Therefore it should not be there.

Note also that a very aggressive editor has removed comments about Cornwell's faith [11] - if his faith has no business of being here, neither has the misleading epithet "Catholic".

While I oppose the inclusion of the above two, matters are different regarding the third:

"historian": yes, it is true that various papers call Cornwell a historian. My question is, does he have the academic qualifications that justify this term? Merely citing newspaper usage is not enough for that. From what I gathered from his article, he earned titles in other fields and then entered journalism. I am very open to be educated about this but until then I remain sceptical.

Regards, Str1977 ^(talk) 09:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not just papers that call him that. And it's true that if he had a PhD in history and was teaching history at some university it would be helpful in making the determination. But regardless, when it comes to how we decide if someone is an historian, we should do it the Wikipedia way; that is, describe him the way reliable sources describe him. If reliable sources describe him as an historian, then we do too. Now, there is an important caveat; if other reliable sources insist he is not a historian, or in other ways explicitly call into question his status as an historian, then we'd have to use some other word. But barring that, I don't see us as having any other choice but to describe him that way. By they way, please stop removing the quotations from the sources used; they are required for verifiability. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, one does not become a historian by a RS calling one that. One becomes that by having the proper qualifications. And this is what I am asking for. Note that I did not simply remove historian but fact tagged it. The references you added were not satisfying my request. All I am asking for is that the tag stays until the actually made request is met. And no, I will not have this article's note cluttered up with oneliners from articles that are easily accesible by the links. Verifiability does not call for such quotations. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia, however, relies on what reliable sources say, not on the determinations of Wikipedia editors. Also, regarding the quotations, not only are not all of them "easily accessible by the links", but links die or disappear on a regular basis. That's why quotations are required as well, for verifiability. Please don't remove them again. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I restate my rational behind having no quotations. They clutter up the article and are overkill in regard to their simple aim, to notify the reader that X has been called Y by source Z. Simply writing an introduction in the ref, that Cornwell has been called historian by ... does the trick. Note that a ref on WP is not required to provide the actual text. Of course, now this all is an academic question since a contradicting source has been found. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

NYT is generally a reliable source. The problem, however, if you look at his biographical article, is that he has a masters degree in literature or something of the sort, not history, and this is sourced. The fact that some reporter colloquially and blithely calls someone a Catholic historian does not make him so if there is verifiable authority that he is neither of those things. Moreover, despite the fact that his purported Catholicism was used to sell the book, he, by his own words, was an agnostic and a longtime apostate of the Catholic Church.Mamalujo (talk) 00:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

How are you able to determine he's not a historian? Many sources say he is. Is there an official association somewhere that licenses historians? Should we thereby consult this association to determine if someone called a historian is indeed a "historian"? --C S (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Only the sources that call him that are merely newspaper articles and we all know how sloppy they can be. Of course, from the information now given (his masters degree) we cannot say that he is NOT a historian. This is why I tagged the passage and did not remove it. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, except that it's more than one reliable source that describes him as a historian. And while academic degrees are generally important, not every historian has them. The Catholic popular historian Paul Johnson, for example, has no degrees in history, but happens to have written 18 books of history. As I said above, if other reliable sources insist Cornwell is not a historian, or in other ways explicitly call into question his status as an historian, then we'd have to use some other word. But barring that, I don't see us as having any other choice but to describe him that way. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If he doesn't have a degree in history, he is not a historian. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I went to Harvard's history department website, clicked on a few names, and didn't take me long to find Emma Rothschild[12] who does not have a degree in history. I guess this distinguished professor of history is not a historian, eh? Shame on her for pulling the wool over everyone's eyes! --C S (talk) 08:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What kind of an argument is this? My point remains true regardless how many Emma Rothschilds you bring up. Do you think I care about Emma Rothschild?

However, in contrast to Mr Cornwell, Mrs Rothschild has been appointed to a post in a historical faculty, indicating that she is accepted as a historian by fellow historians.

But we cannot simply call anyone historian because they write about history. Anyone can do that. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Then what exactly was the point of saying if he doesn't have a degree in history he is not a historian? Are we to infer from this that if he is a historian, he must have a degree in history? Apparently not, given your reaction to my Rothschild example. Or are we to infer that if Johnson went back to school and got a history degree, then he would automatically become a historian in your eyes? If not, then what was the point of bringing up that "if he doesn't have a degree in history, he's not a historian"? What meaning is there in that assertion? After all, "anybody" can get a degree in history too just like "anybody" can write 18 books of history by reputable publishers and be consulted by major periodicals. --C S (talk) 09:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

We cannot call just anybody a historian. As I already told (and you seem to ignore this) without a degree in history you are not a historian. And no, it is much easier to simply write and publish a book, especially if you are already a well known journalist, and to earn an academic degree. And I have no intention of discussion this simple fact further. And the point? The point is to give a truthful picture instead of bolstering Cornwell's reputation by laurels he does not posess. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand we cannot call any joe off the street a historian. What do you mean ignore? I responded directly to your assertion assuming you were saying that. But you denied saying any such thing. If you are now saying that is indeed what you were saying, then my respond about Rothschild is a clear refutation. She is a historian, according to you, yet she does not have a degree in history, which according to you disqualifies her from being a historian. Do you get that there is a contradiction? You have stated both: 1) Rothschild is a historian because she is a professor of history 2) Rothschild is not a historian because without a digree in history "you are not a historian". --C S (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

What you are ignoring is, that I already replied to you about the requirements for beign called historian. After that, you claimed I was unclear. I am not.

I also have explained the Rothschild case. She lacks the degrees but has been accepted into a historical faculty by historians, who apparently deem her qualified. I have said that much above. Please act in good faith and spare me "clear refutations".

And since Emma Rothschild is absolutely of no interest here, I am asking you: how does Cornwell qualify for being a historian? Just because some papers are lazy and call him that?

Apart from that, stop pestering me. I have explained myself clearly. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(Came here because of Jay's post on the BLP/N) Are there any academic sources calling this man a historian? Are his books reviewed in peer reviewed history journals? Has he ever held an academic position as a historian? A researcher and writer of history may be called a "historian" in the popular press (including the NYT) but that does not mean they meet the academic qualifications of being a historian. All sources are not reliable for every type of information either. Just because the NYT is considered a reliable source for news does not mean we should take our queues on who is and is not a historian from its pages.PelleSmith (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is the third time now in this thread that I've pointed out that it's not just the New York Times who refers to him as a historian. Also, I don't think you've addressed the more salient issue, which is not whether they "meet the academic qualifications of being a historian", but rather, whether the description meets Wikipedia's standards for verifiability. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, not just the NYT, also a few other newspapers. I agree with Pelle above: an academic source would satisfy me. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It's rather frustrating to have to point out, as has already been pointed out before, that it wasn't just "a few other newspapers" either. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That still doesn't make it true though. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, I did not make an argument one way or the other, I asked a series of questions. For instance, book reviews in peer reviewed journals in the field of history are more reliable than the NYT, so one thing I asked was if his books have been so reviewed. It appears that this book has indeed been reviewed by historians, and mostly with a lot of criticism. I have found no reference to Cornwell as a historian in this setting however. Notably, one historian reviewer specifically refers to Cornwell as a "non-historian" and a "journalist". Here is the full text:

"The most widely read, and perhaps most influential works on Pius XII have not been produced by historians. From Hochhuth's controversial play "The Deputy" in 1963 to the recent study with the inflammatory title Hitler's Pope, non-historians have shaped this pope's image. While Hochhuth depicts Pius as an avaricious anti-Semite, the journalist Cornwell describes him as authoritarian and obsessed with preserving papal primacy."

The full reference here is as follows: Coppa, Frank J. (2000) "Review of Hitler's Pope: the Secret Life of Pius XII." A Journal of Church and State. 42(2):379-80. The fact that historians bothered reviewing the book certainly speaks to something, but I'm not sure he's exactly being accepted into the "club" and he certainly doesn't have the traditional credentials. I hope that helps.PelleSmith (talk) 02:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

So my suspicions were wellfounded. Thanks for digging up the quote. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What "suspicions"? One author has described him as a "non-historian". Others have described him as a "historian". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The suspicions that Cornwell is no historian. As it happens, the one author destroys the hitherto apparent consensus, leaving any assertion on WP that Cornwell is a historian without basis. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that clears up Jayjg's concern above. As there is clearly no agreement here that Cornwell is a historian, we should go with the titles there's no disagreement about - "journalist" or "author".--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if true, however, does not justify your complete reversion of my edit, which also re-inserted the WP:BLP claim that he "recanted" the books thesis. Fortunately for you, the WP:BLP violating material was removed by a later editor. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Economist citation

Currently this article cites a specific article in The Economist, but doesn't provide an article name or page number. In order to comply with WP:V, could both be provided please? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Time is better spent simply finding information like that.PelleSmith (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF? I merely asked for an article name or page number; the citation was incomplete and improper, and did not satisfy WP:V. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

So, did you try to verify it? Seems to me you are too experience to mistake this for something unverifiable, which is what WP:V is about.--Troikoalogo (talk) 23:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I quote from WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." It's right at the start of the policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I quote from elsewhere:"Honestly examine your motivations. Are you here to contribute and make the project good? Or is your goal really to find fault, get your views across, or be the one in control?"--Troikoalogo (talk) 10:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Good advice for you, at any rate. I quote from a page that's far more relevant, and policy too: Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

As if. Good faith requires doing what's good for this project and completing a reference instead of grasping at straws and demanding that others do the work. Give it a rest.PelleSmith (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the contributor, and start acting the way you demand of others. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm rubber and you're glue ...PelleSmith (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

{so fix it} - easily verifiable by a little googling [13].--Troikoalogo (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)