Talk:Alleged plot to kidnap Pope Pius XII

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Catholicism (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Catholicism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 

"he maintains establishes the plot as historical fact"[edit]

"he maintains establishes" is bad writing, plain and simple. Kurzman claims and argues that the plot was real; others claim and argue that it was not. They would all "maintain" that their writings are factual. It adds nothing to say that a writer argues that they are correct; nor it is particularly relevant what an author's opinion of the significance of their own work is. Stop the presses; apparently one party to a historical dispute believes they are correct! It is beyond me why Mamalujo insides of inserting this particular poorly-crafted phrase into the article at all costs. In any case, I am unable to accept such bad writing. Don't use a complicated series of verbs when a single, simple verb will do the job just as well or better. Savidan 02:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Please refer me to a quote from the book where Kurzman claims he has "proven as fact" and to another source which mentions this as a notable aspect of his book. I don't see how this differentiates him from any author who has ever had a thesis. They all think they prove their case. They are notable for what they argue, not for their own impressions of their work. Savidan 02:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

von Loringhoven[edit]

This is definitely an interesting account. However, this is a not a "recent development" by any stretch. vL gave his testimony at Nuremberg and his son gave a substantially similar account in 1972. Various Catholic news sources may have decided to publish an article in 2009, but that doesn't make it news. Should be addressed with the other primary sources. Savidan 21:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

What makes "History in Review" a reliable source?[edit]

This source does not appear reliable to me. The website gives no indication of the identity or credentials of its authors, including this author, or the nature of its editorial oversight, if any. The relevant policy is WP:SPS. "Anyone can create a personal web page . . . . For that reason, self-published media, such as . . . personal websites [and] personal or group blogs . . . are largely not acceptable as sources." There is an exception is the author is "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." A google search for Simone Bonim does not establish such to be the case. Savidan 17:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Publisher's Weekly review[edit]

Here is the publisher's weekly review. It is currently cited for this: "In contrast to Deak's review in the New York Review of books, other reviewers felt that Kurzman proved his case."[9] Publishers Weekly writes: "Kurzman demonstrates that Hitler wanted the Vatican neutralized because he thought the pope had aided the overthrow of Mussolini in 1943 and feared that the Church's leader would denounce the Final Solution in general and the imminent deportation of Rome's Jews in particular.[9]" There is no indication that the review "felt that Kurzman proved his case." The one paragraph, five sentence review just states the "plot" of the book, without endorsing it one way or the other. "Kurzman demonstrates" is no different than "Kurzman argues", "Kurzman says", or "Kurzman claims." There's simply no analysis in the review at all. Only the last sentence does anything other than plot summary: "Kurzman does a good job of telling a suspenseful and little-known story of WWII intrigue." I'm replacing the quote with this one. I'm also moving it to the section on Kurzman's book. It's foolishness to claim that someone who wrote less than 200 words did much of anything, i.e. making any comment on Wolff's credibility directly rather than Kurzman. Savidan 01:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)