Talk:Hitler's Pope/Archive 5

message: 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)
thread_title:  Does ''Fair Use'' apply to 598 words from the book's introduction? 

message: :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)
thread_title:  English translation, please 

message: 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 The reality is that no allowance of contrition is forthcoming  despite 60 years of historical reference to the  suborning of democracy by the Church , with the brok analysis being the most very succinct -WAR .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)
thread_title:  Double Action as Regards Grave Sin 

message: See: []
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)
thread_title:  Hitler's Pope-necessitates correction 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The "Blocking" of this Article 

message: Needs re-positioning to be readable. EffK 21:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 1 Source Mowrer 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Focus on the Subject 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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.  patsw 15:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical analysis 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 : . 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)
thread_title:  Redirect? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Go ahead. I'm sure you'll be amazed to hear that I have no objection? ;-) AnnH ♫ 12:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Birth and early church career 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ONE OF THE WORST ENTRIES IN WIKI EVER SIGHTED!!! 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:MythHitlersPope.jpg 

message: (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)
thread_title:  Criticism of Front Photo 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Hitler'spopeUS.jpg 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: WP:AGF.  Time is better spent simply finding information like that.PelleSmith (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Comment on content, not on the contributor, and start acting the way you demand of others. Jayjg (talk) 02:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm rubber and you're glue ...PelleSmith (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

text: {so fix it} - easily verifiable by a little googling .--Troikoalogo (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economist citation