Talk:Michael von Faulhaber

message: This page is still miles apart from what should be a presentation of this man. Now, it's some small biographical reference and an over-blown and sometimes biased section on him in the 3rd Reich. It needs a lot of work. I produce here the contents of the German page for later translation and incorporation. 
I agree^^ He has family all over the United States. I know this because my name is Michael Faulhaber and I am Kardinal Michael Von Faulhaber's great great great nephew, I grew up hearing all the stories about Kardinal Faulhaber. I have a chest full of Kardinal Michael Von Faulhaber's things that were given to my family when my great Grandpa died. He was a great man and there is alot more to be said about him. 
Str1977 20:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs work

message: * 
*Kardinal-Faulhaber-Archiv des Erzbistums München-Freising


Faulhaber, Michael von
Faulhaber, Michael von
Faulhaber, Michael von
Faulhaber, Michael von
Faulhaber, Michael von
Faulhaber, Michael von
Faulhaber, Michael von
I agree. The Archbishop's career has been in this writing hijacked in service of Jewish centered evaluation. With every iota of the Archbishop's intrinsic and ministerial value being measured in how complimentary or not he has been to Jews.  Thatcatdavid (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weblinks 

message: Rabbbi David Dalin has described Faulhaber as a "a famous opponent of the Nazis".  Despite this, much of this article puts him in a false light and suggests complicity.  I'm posting the NPOV tag until the misrepresentations can be corrected.Mamalujo (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've edited to remove POV and questionable factual assertions.  Thus, I've removed the tag. Mamalujo (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: I removed the story of Cardinal Faulhaber ordering the placement of yellow armbands with the star of David to be placed on statues of Jesus and Mary throughout his archdiocese. Given the extreme penalties for open defiance of Nazi ideology during the war, I find it hard to believe that Cardinal Faulhaber could have committed such an act without fatal consequences. I have written to some historian friends in Germany, they report no evidence that such a thing occurred. They labeled this story an "American legend".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeldg (talk • contribs) 20:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  yellow armband legend 

message: In 2003, Knopf published A Moral Reckoning, a controversial book by Daniel Goldhagen on the Church's alleged role in the Holocaust, which was heavily criticized by the archdiocese of Munich for tying anti-Nazi Cardinal Faulhaber to the Nazis. ADM (talk) 11:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Book by Daniel Goldhagen

message: I have added the NPOV tag again, and renamed the "Opponent of Nazis" to "Alleged Opponent of Nazis".   There is very little support in the article or the citations that Faulhaber was an opponent of the Nazis per se.
The opinion of Kenneth Scott Latourette is cited as supportive, but he is a Christian missionary and as such his opinion is hardly unbiased.
The Goldhagen v. Pius XII citation links to catholiceducation.org, which claims that the book "American Intelligence and the German Resistance to Hitler", edited by Jürgen Heideking and Christof Mauch, shows Faulhaber to have been a staunch anti-Nazi fighter, but that book does not appear to mention Faulhaber at all.
Goldhagen's extensive criticism and opposing view is not explored in the article; only articles opposing Goldhagen's views are cited.
Another expert who denies that Faulhaber was an opponent to Nazis is Deschner; he too should be cited.
Faulhabers documented public statements in support of Hitler and the Nazi regime are not mentioned or quoted either.
Faulhaber's stance is likely better viewed as ultramontanism, a long-standing issue in German politics, not specifically opposition to Nazism.  And Faulhaber evidently was willing to ally with the Nazis in the fight against atheism and Bolshevism, and for negotiating favorable treatment for Catholics. 
The entire section should be rewritten:
* The section cannot present the idea that Faulhaber was a staunch opponent of the Nazi regime as fact, since that assertion is clearly in dispute among experts
* The title should be changed to "Relationship between Faulhaber and the Nazi Regime" or something like that
* Clearly biased opinions should not be cited as factual support
* The section should include Faulhaber's public statements in support of the Nazi regime and the Fuehrer
* The section should explain Faulhaber's sympathy to the anti-atheist and anti-Bolshevik stances of the Nazis
* The section should include references to both critical and supportive sources of the view that Faulhaber was anti-Nazi
* The section should include citations about Faulhaber, Ultramontanism, and its relationship to Nazism
:: As much as the title is concerned (which I'll change therefore), it is a plain fact that Cardinal Faulhaber was an opponent of the Nazis. However staunch, the article may say something about; but this is not disputed among experts. The only thing that is even in dispute among those unfriendly to him, is whether he should not have opposed them more; there is absolutely no ground for saying he did not at all. Ultramontanism is, by the way, a catchword for opposing statolatry, totalitarianism and nationalcentredness; hence, stating Cardinal Faulhaber was ultramontane makes him directly and without possibilty of intermixtion an opponent of the most important principle of Nazist ideology which is: you are nothing, the people is everything. As for antisemitism, he was an important Amici Israel figure in the 1920, something that is also not yet present; also, the German Wikipedia has Friedländer's (who is a serious source; something that cannot be said about either Goldhagen or Deschner) citation in a somewhat more favorable completeness. --93.133.207.99 (talk) 14:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just calling Faulhaber an "opponent of the Nazis" is ambiguous and misleading, because it makes him sound like some kind of resistance fighter.  Faulhaber was an "opponent" of the Nazis in the sense that he had different political views: he preferred a Catholic monarchy, i.e., a monarchy subject to the Vatican's spiritual authority, and he also spoke out against some Nazi policies. But Faulhaber worked with the Nazi government as the legitimate government of Germany and negotiated the Reichskonkordat, under which all German Catholic bishops and priests explicitly swore an oath to loyalty to the Nazi government. There were far stronger "opponents" in mainstream Germany, including the SPD and KPD, who took much greater personal risks opposing the Nazis. Jcarnelian (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: "In Munich, Cardinal Faulhaber testified as follows before an Anglo-American investigative committee: I as Cardinal shall do everything in my power to convince the Catholics of Bavaria that they must eradicate the last remainder of antisemitism from their hearts. A Germany without Jews is unimaginable. We have to have Jews in Germany, Jews have just as much right as I do live here in peace. I had hoped I would see German Jews returning to Germany."
The whitewashing of the yellow badge--Domics (talk) 10:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This was after the war? What was it Mandy Rice-Davies said ?Sayerslle (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  faulhaber testify to the Anglo-American investigative committee 

message: More unsourced and/or non-neutral text rv. Some clearly sordid and pedestrian apologetics going on. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup (June 2011)

message: A recent string of edits tends to paint Faulhaber as not having been an opponent of the Nazis and draws heavily from a controversial and minority view. The mainstream view is that Faulhaber was an opponent of the Nazis. The very first sentence of the Encyclopedia Britannica article on him notes: "German cardinal and archbishop of Munich who became a prominent opponent of the Nazis." 
:: The "Encyclopedia Brittanica article" is a short wiki-like entry with no attribution and no sources and apparently based on user contributions itself. This reference violates three of the four criteria for Wikipedia authoritative sources, and I have removed it. Furthermore, the whole debate about whether he was or was not "an opponent of the Nazis" is a false dichotomy. Nobody is claiming that he didn't oppose some Nazi policies and that he wouldn't have preferred a different form of government, but his "opposition" clearly was not as strong as that of many other prominent Germans. And Faulhaber was also an "opponent of" the Weimar Republic and democracy, and for much the same reasons. To avoid misinterpretations, I believe the article should be consistently precise about what Faulhaber did and did not oppose, what practical form that opposition took, and how it compared to the actions and risks other opponents of Hitler took. Feel free to add to (and correct if necessary) the forms his opposition did and did not take, but don't add deliberately vague statements. Jcarnelian (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct in pointing out that too much of the article now relies on Lewy and that the abundance of citations to him is WP:UNDUE. This minority viewpoint is overwhelming the article. Suggestions on how to remedy the situation? – Lionel (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mamalujo has referred me to the talk page for Lewy being a "fringe" source. This I haven't heard before. The text he dissaproves of, and has deleted, reads "In 1923 Faulhaber declared in a sermon that every human life was precious, including that of a Jew. Guenter Lewy notes that during this era German Roman Catholic bishops did speak out against Nazi glorification of blood but had little to say about practical anti-Semitism that was then widespread, and that this "highly ambivalent" attitude towards the Jews by the Church can be traced back from early Christianity up to Hitler's rise to power." But Lewy is only expressing a common view, perhaps more moderately than most, that whilst religious anti-Semitism didn't cause the Holocaust, it did condition the response of people to Nazi racial teachings. My own books confirm Lewy's pov but please try google books where am sure you will find much similar sentiments. If you think Lewy and these people are a minority then please give scholarly refutations in order to determine due weight. I'm in the process of going through Mamalujo's edits but it will be next week before I can reply. Please also note Lewy book relies heavily on Faulhabers very own words. Mamalujo doesn't want Lewy because of that - it contradicts what pietistic works say about him and which have percolated into semi-scholarly books by people who are no specialists in the subject and whom he would rather rely on Yt95 (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite your quotation marks, I did not call Lewy a "fringe" source, or anythin like that. If he was fringe, he wouldn't be included at all. I'll grant that he is a reputable source, just not the consensus or the mainstream (a point easily demonstrable) - which means he and his viewpoint deserve less weight. I don't have a problem with his POV being stated, but it can't be predominant view expressed in the article. The mainstream historical view takes that position. Even with my edits, the article still gives undue weight to the view dissenting from the mainstream. More editorial work is in order. Mamalujo (talk) 03:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  It should have read minority opinion. You are involved with the Hitler's Pope talk page, as I am, and my mental notes merged you with another editor who used "fringe". Could you please point out what parts of the article cited to Lewy are not mainstream in your opinion? I have no problem at all in reaching agreement with any valid point you bring up. The only one you did mention in an edit comment I have pasted above. If you think he is way out of line then just put your evidence down and I will do the same. If there are other passages you think are wrong paste them here as well and we can discuss. I have a lot of notes in preparation regarding the edits you made to the article but please be assured that later this week when I post them they will be supported with scholary opinion. Yt95 (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: To the extent Lewy's work paints him as not being a vocal opponent of the Nazi's or not being repulsed by their racism, it is outside of the mainstream. He is certainly a prominent and reliable source, generally, but his position should not be given undue weight. The predominant view is that he was a vocal opponent of the Nazis and disgusted by their racism. I think the article still tends to give undue weight, indeed more weight, to the dissenting view. Mamalujo (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Daniel Goldhagen is another writer who calls him an anti-semite - just random , on amazon I typed his name in and came across this sentence in David Clay Large's book on Berlin - "Munichs cardinal Faulhaber called Berlin the embodiment of babylonian mongrelism - "  now whose language does that remind one of? - far right I reckon - Maybe Daniel Hastings book on 'Catholicism and the roots of Nazism' has things on him - just from the one sentence about babylonian mongrelism I think Faulhaber's already done a bit of self portraiture right there.Sayerslle (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a reason Goldhagen is not included as a source in this article. He is not reliable on this subject. (See the article on A Moral Reckoning). That Faulhaber was a noted opponent of the Nazis is the mainstream historical position. It is the very first sentence in the Britannica article. Mamalujo (talk) 21:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

text: WEll he is still a person - you keep wanting to remove from the record any writer who questions your POV, but thats a bit fascist. the lead should suggest that there is some dissension to the picture painted in the Eb, - the other sources are from very old, very generalised histories - hardly authorities on faulhaber - the EB  bit I read the lead that you point to is pretty weak imo - it says that he pointed out Christianity deived from JUdaism - brilliant, hardly deniable, Jesus being leader of a Jewish sect and all, - but i read somewhere he went on to say that XTy had superseded JUdaism after Christ or summat and that it 'no longer had a place', very sinister -  idon't know anything about him, 'the mongrelism' quote sets off alarm bells - his working with the americans after the war , when they presumably were more focused on the Cold War means they would have worked to present his past in a  favourable light, we know they worked with former Nazis when it suited anyhow, -  you can't just say -oh goldhagen is unreliable -  mention the dissension - let the reader know there is variety of regard of this bloke etc. I know yuo won't , but anyway - I'm going to read the book about catholicism and the roots of Nazism, see if that has anything - -the lead needs looking at a bit again anyhow, becuse it has stray commas and parantheses - you are so eager to get your  far right POV on pages you  make typos like that - same as on the red terror page you started as prat of your anti-left campaign Sayerslle (talk) 23:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Quit calling me fascist and far right, you brain dead jackass. Can you ever use a talk page without engaging in ad hominems? And I don't want to "keep wanting to remove from the record any writer who questions your POV". About half the article is sourced to Lewy - a controversial source. I have no problem with stating the varying POVs, they just need proper weight. As to Goldhagen, his problem, on this subject at least, is not his viewpoint but his reliability. You're right that the lede should included a reference to the dissenting viewpoint. I will add it. Mamalujo (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Gerald Steinacher -"Bishop Hudal (who is this ? a Nazi catholic priest?) - cardinal Faulhaber referred to his episcopal colleague as 'court theologian of the NSDAP' - even though he himself had for a long time maintained  bridges between fascism and the Church " Steinacher is reliable?  'a noted opponent ' - or a 'maintaner of bridges' ? - the White Rose were noted opponents of the Nazis. quit calling me a brain dead jackass you very POV warriorSayerslle (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad to keep it amicable on the talk page. So let's discuss the issues. If you refrain from calling names, I'll certainly do the same. Mamalujo (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Yes, well like I said, I dont know anything about him so can't discuss the issues further at the moment, but I'm curious about him-  I just typed his name  in at amazon and came up with a few discordant  quotes about him - Peter Pulzers book gave up this sentence - 'Faulhaber - later to be harassed by the Gestapo for his links with the anti-Hitler resistance..' whatever, - I like the lead better when it suggests some dissonance of opinions. Sayerslle (talk) 00:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Have you read Faulhaber's Advent sermons, mamalujo? Sayerslle (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have. As to your comments, about the White Rose above, are you aware that it was a sermon of Faulhaber's collegue, the Blessed Cardinal Clemens August Graf von Galen, which was the inspiration for the The White Rose and its first pamphlet? Mamalujo (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Are you aware of the fate of Sophie Scholl? Doesnt resemble Faulhabers does it ? I only asked if you'd read the sermons becasue I read a blog that quoted the sermon and it read in part " from the CHurchs point of view there is no objection whatsoever to racial research and race culture" and then after speaking against rejection of the Old testament , which as an orthodox Xtian you kind of have to don't you?,  he then went on apparently to say " BY accepting these books Xty does not become a Jewish religion, THese books were not composed by Jews;(!? - my addition)) they are inspired by the Holy ghost ...Antagonism to the Jews of today must not be extended to the boks of pre-Xtian JUdaism.. So that reads like  he wants to speak up for texts ahead of people!! But i have only read this blog article which may be quoting wrong. but then I read the other quote about Berlin being the embodiment of 'babylonian mongrelism' and it's curious language.   Sayerslle (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

text: That looks an interesting book too.I just 'looked inside ' on amazon, the first 2 mentions of Faulhaber  mention a)- a meeting of Hitler and Faulhaber in 1936 where Hitler  "impressed the cardinal by his reasonableness..' and the second reference, p.129 that he told Hitler how anti bolshevist the Church was and accepted the line on the Spanish civil war and gave succour to the talk of a 'judeo-bolshevik' threat ' - anyway the book looks interesting too - there seems as much appeasement as opposition to nazism here - Sayerslle (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Looking at the edit history this article has been fought over  before - in early 2008 mamalujo turned his attention on it - i put some writing in recently and this has caused some repetition of information , I will  re-work what I added to fit in with what is already there - surely it should be possible to convey the tensions of interpetation, without a  see-sawing of text. The blamires book cited is using words written by Rychlak -- if writers with a strong desire to whitewash the archbishop are quoted this should be made explicit which writers are being quoted and not disguised as  an 'encyclopedia of fascism' speaking. Sayerslle (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

text: I am responding in a new section. Mamalujo (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits not NPOV, not academic consensus and give undue weight to opinion of controversial minority views. 

message: I am responding the the last post in the previous section here. Is the Encyclopedia Britannica a source "with a strong desire to whitewash the archbishop" as editor Sayerslle says of World Fascism: a historical encyclopedia. article on the Cardinal does not even mention the minority/revisionist point of view and likewise notes him as a prominent opponent of the Nazis. Why don't they mention the minority/revisionist approach to Faulhaber? Because they are, and wikipedia is also supposed to be, a mainstream encyclopedia, which means "writers and editors on Wikipedia should strive for articles that would be appreciated as being of the highest quality by a consensus of experts in any field of science or scholarship.  However it does not mean that Wikipedia content is based on a popularity contest.  In many debates, the most popular view is different from the scholarly or scientific view.  In such cases, Wikipedia simply depends on the most reliable sources to verify content. Thus, what is considered "mainstream" for Wikipedia may be the minority view in society." It also means "Wikipedia gives the most space and prominence to descriptions of a subject that conform to the expert understanding while marginalizing in space and prominence the minority understanding. To do otherwise would create an encyclopedia that experts would not accept as being of the highest quality." Also: "Many statements made in Wikipedia can be reliably sourced as being disputed by somebody somewhere. This is irrelevant to our task of writing a mainstream encyclopedia, and should not be used as justification to create an article that differs from that of a mainstream encyclopedia. ...Is this situation fair? Perhaps not. But it is the situation we must tolerate if we are going to take Wikipedia being a mainstream encyclopedia seriously."
It is not only World Fascism: a historical encyclopedia and Britannica, but every single encyclopedia which mentions Faulhaber which omits the minority/revisionist view and his “nefarious” collaborative  role or “anti-Semitism”. Indeed, when antisemitism is mentioned in tertiary sources he is called an opponent of antisemitism. See for example 
Merriam-Webster's collegiate encyclopedia, The HarperCollins encyclopedia of Catholicism and Encyclopedia of Modern Christian Politics.  The Holocaust encyclopedia only mentions him as an aside, but curiously fails to mention his nefarious role. Is the Merriam-Webster's collegiate encyclopedia a “Catholic apologist, too? They call him a “prominent opponent of the Nazis” who “despite attempts on his life, he vigorously criticized Nazism”. I'm not saying the revisionist position shouldn't be mentioned, but it is still here being given undue weight and Sayerslle keeps expanding that nonmainstream content in the article. Mamalujo (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The World fascism encyclopedia stuff was written by Ronald Rychlak - is he not an apologist? in the meantime -  the writers like -griech-polelle, spicer, lewy, phayer, these are the academic sources on the subject arent they? are they minority positions? you look for mainstream experts understanding  in funny places - you wont find the expert mainstream undertsanding in 'Catholic heroes of the holocaust ' websites etc. but thats not really what you're looking for is it?   - I was saying 'surely its possible to convey the tensions of interpretation of this mans words and actions'  not to an editor like you, a disastrous POV pusher imo - I was saying it to editors of good faith who could look at ways of stopping the see-saw. - sermon 4 " Notwithstanding all the guidance of divine grace Israel did not know the time of her visitation.  - The great majority of the people rejected the Messias with the cry: 'His blood be upon us and upon our children' (matt 27, 25 ) sermon 4 december 1933.  "Antagonism to the Jews of today must not be extended to the  books of pre-Christian Judaism."  His sermons are pretty horrible don't you think?- Is beth Griech-Polelle , the source for the 'minority viewpoint' stuff I added on the 1936 meeting, less mainstream than Michael Burleigh ?  How do you decide on this? To me its not mainstream/minority its more right/left, older/newer,  apologetics and non-specialists/specialists and scholars .Sayerslle (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Beth Griech-Polelle's work on Faulhaber’s colleague von Galen, which is cited in the article, is described here by her own publisher as “provocative and revisionist”. Provocative and cutting edge scholarship is fine and good, but encyclopedias are not about the provocative, cutting-edge and pushing-the-envelope scholarship. They should first be mainstream, and then notable and reliable dissenting views should be stated with due weight. Lewy, Griech-Polelle and Steigmann-Gall (not cited in this article but dealing with the same issues) are all admittedly are arguing against the consensus on these issues. That Catholic Heroes article was cited one time and isn't even in the article anymore. Meanwhile, the article is littered with citations to Lewy's "controversial" and "provocative" work and more like it. Mamalujo (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

text: yes i've just got her book from Amazon, looks good, the jacket blurb finishes with  '..and discusses the implications of this for the myth of Catholic conservative  "resistance" constructed in post-1945 Germany. " . what are the mainstream scholarship sources - eb stubs? Rychlak? Burleigh? catholic heroes of the Holocaust.com renewamerica.com?  who are the mainstream scholars you have weighed in the balance and found not wanting? Who publishes Griech-Polelle? - Yale University Press, Indiana University Press. who publishes the 'mainstream scholars' you use?  Our Sunday Visitor (Rychlak),  Regnery Publishing Inc 'the leading  conservative publisher in america' (David Dalin)  Sayerslle (talk) 02:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

text: what did it say in 'th catholic conservative newspaper' die tagespost,(mainstream?) about faulhaber being a member 1925-28 of amici israel - couldn't you print here what it said and the date - lecture me about 'mainstream' - yu yourself are free to use catholic conservative newspapers, oh well -   Sayerslle (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

text:  michael c. thomsett? who he? mainstream scholar?   Sayerslle (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

text:  Generic descriptions of Faulhaber as "an opponent of the Nazis" are misleading and vague; the article should be precise. I also find this debate about "mainstream scholarship" to be dubious. Faulhaber speaks clearly and without much room for interpretation and his actions are well documented, so it is best just to present and compile sources with little interpretation. Much of the scholarship is also not neutral but linked to the church in some way, so I'm not even sure who would constitute the "mainstream". Jcarnelian (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article should take a mainstream approach and give prominent reliable minority positions due weight. 

message: May I start by stating that I am motivated not by desire to defend the Cardinal per se but the neautrality of this article.  It appears that the article has been hijacked by someone with a strong anti-Faulhaber agenda.  There appears now to be far more criticism of Faulhaber than factual information.  There also appears to be extensive presentation of opinion as though it were fact.  Some of the claims would appear to contradict orthodox opinion and common sense.  It appears that someone has been contributing to the article with the aim of attacking Cardinal Faulhaber rather than simply presenting a historically accurate picture of him.  I would hence appeal to readers to be wary of statements in this article that appear sensationalist or biased.  It would also be wise to be wary of jumping to any conclusion that Faulhaber was a Nazi sympathiser as other sources paint him as an empassioned opponent of Nazism.  It is possible that there are grave falsehoods in this article.  I would recommend that the article be supplemented by more defence of Faulhaber in order to balance it out.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.26.178 (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted your changes because I noticed you'd chopped off the quote  "even though the cardinal had neither commented on Nazi antisemitism" - leaving it  illiterate - and another sentence looked like this 
 so i just assumed all your edits were just idiotic and reverted to the article as it was before you intervened.
If you make it neutral - please source what you add and don't leave quotes in a mess - either delete them or leave them so they make sense. 92.13.84.181 (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sensationalism and bias in this article 

message: The article says "In 1935, Nazis called for Faulhaber to be killed.[31]" That is highly unclear. Did the Nazi government call for Faulhaber to be killed? If not, how is this relevant? Jcarnelian (talk) 03:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification Needed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Michael von Faulhaber. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071109201820/http://www.crisismagazine.com:80/january2003/feature1.htm to http://www.crisismagazine.com/january2003/feature1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Michael von Faulhaber. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131015110012/http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0015.html to http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0015.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071205124405/http://www.catholicleague.org/research/history_as_bigotry.htm to http://www.catholicleague.org/research/history_as_bigotry.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.crisismagazine.com/january2003/feature1.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091016114240/http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/the-holocaust-what-was-not-said-10 to http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/the-holocaust-what-was-not-said-10
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Michael von Faulhaber. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050406205504/http://www.erzbistum-muenchen.de/EMF072/EMF007159.asp to http://www.erzbistum-muenchen.de/EMF072/EMF007159.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified