Talk:Hitler's Pope

Archives
June 2005 September 2005 September 2005 September 2005 February 2006

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interest in this page recently, so it was quite appropriate archive the messages belonging to a discussion that was no longer active.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."[1]." Is this statement not a fact? It is as its referenced with book reviews. Since this is about this book and it did recieve these reviews, why is this information being deleted? I oppose that and support Gio's keeping it.

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

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

vs.

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

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

"I oppose that and support Gio's keeping it. The other part of the dispute, it seems is about NPOV and being accurate, and I also support Giovanni on this."

Of course you suppport Giovanni, as you are merely him operating under a different username.Timothy Usher 01:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I only have one user name, and this is it. Guess when you dont have any argument to make it all comes down to saying things like this, eh?MikaM 02:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mika. I commend your positive wiki-spirit of refusing to join in a pointless edit war, but sometimes there is a point; joining in and reverting in conjuction with using the talk page is sometimes needed in order get the other side to stop. The reason for this is that it becomes clear they can't get their way by edit warring if many other editors will also revert them so this forces them to the talk page and discourages further edit warring. So, I encourage you to not be shy to use the revert option. I do hope that the other side will use the talk page themselves to work out disputes instead of trying to gang up and push their way around. I note that it appears Timmothy has wikistalked me to this article and a new trend is to have AnnH, Str1977, and Timothy to show up on any article where I'm editing on something related to Christianity and revert me. Its as if they are the new elite special forces anti-gio divison of the alleged Christian cabal. hehe I think I read somewhere that Wikipedia is not a battleground so lets all use the talk pages, and work out our differences so as to avoid these silly revert wars. As I said, its sets a bad example esp. for an admin. Even though you are self-professed devout Catholic, and I am an Athiest, we should put aside our personal bias and allow all POV's, which means including those that do praise this book, as well as those that don't. The latter I made sure to cover; I do not oppose the contrary POV, so lets not censor the other side, howeve much we may personally disagree with it. Its not our job. It only our job to report all sides. Giovanni33 03:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Short replies to your objections:

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

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

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

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. Benjiboi 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.[4] 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 [5] - 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[6] 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 [7].--Troikoalogo (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"Retraction" pushing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So... what does the book actually say?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disempowerment of the German Catholic Church

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

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

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

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

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

Background

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

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

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

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

Recent comments of retraction

In re this section, the following quote from the last paragraph of Cornwell's Preface to the 2008 edition of Hitler's Pope seems pertinent:

I have read more or less everything that has become available since the publication of Hitler's Pope, and I have weighed the criticisms as well as the praise. I have learned much, both about the period and about Pacelli, as well as about papal apologetics pressed into the service of history. I remain convinced that, in the light of the pluralism of viewpoints and judgments about undisputed facts, Eugenio Pacelli was not a saintly exemplar for future generations, but, as I have written in the last line of this book: "a deeply flawed human being from whom Catholics, and our relations with other religions, can best profit by expressing our sincere regret."

The above, coupled with the last quote in the section from September of 2008, would seem to answer the quote in the 3rd paragraph of this section:

In light of such remarks, one commentator asked: "So why has Mr. Cornwell not withdrawn his book, or at least altered its hateful title?"

i.e., he still considers the book valid.

The retraction, recantation, revision quote is from page 193 of The Pontiff in Winter. What is the immediate context of the quote and what is the subject of the chapter in which it appears?

In the meantime, may we move this entire section to the talk page until the meaning of the quote is clarified? — Metropolitanux (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Pacelli's alleged anti-semitism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possible primary document of interest

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

Anti-Catholic category

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

I see your point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reference does not support statement

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary (Mis)interpretation of Quoted Text

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

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

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