Talk:Pope Pius XII/Archive 4

message: Looking at the rival edits, I have to say that Flamekeeper's fail NPOV by a mile. The language is biased and POV-loaded to a serious degree. It states as fact John Cornwell's analysis, must of which, as with any historian's text about events he personally did not witness, is by definition supposition. All historical writing is always treated with caution and critical analysis. (I'm a historian myself BTW). John's allegations need to be covered professionally in this article. Flamekeeper's version fails to deliver that. 
Specifically
Although an individual of self-less habit , he was a believer of the absolute leadership priciple . he more than anyone promoted the concept of absolute papal rule , diminuishing the earlier collegiality of the church councils . Modesty of appearance belied great subtlety and cunning as he inherited his forbears desire for the papacy to once again exert all powerful control over the church through ecclesiastical and international law . — all unsourced opinion. 
It would also allow for imposition of the new Canon Law in the land of Martin Luther who had nearly 400 years previously publicly burnt a copy the canon law in act od defiance of centralised papal control . — irrelevant and pointless hyperbole. 
.Pacelli noticed the repulsiveness of the Jewish leader Eugen Levine and of his followers and thence grew a suspicion and contempt of Jews for political reason — chronic and franky laughable mispresentation of what Cornwell wrote. 
:And what Cornwell wrote already was a misrepresentation/mistranslation of what Pacelli wrote in his letter.
Pacelli also campaigned for Allied troops to not include colored soldiery in the occupied Rhineland, and in the aftermath of World War II repeated this demand of the Americans entering Rome — breaks cardinal rule of historiographical writing — never single out as remarkable attitudes of someone if they were reflective of contemporary attitudes. Pacelli's attitude were, unfortunately all too typical of the attitudes of most white people of his generation. If a pope today held those views when society doesn't it would be newsworthy. But all he was doing was reflecting contemporary attitudes. 
Pacelli spent in all 13 years trying to re-write the German State Concordats one by one — deliberate mispresentation of fact out of context. The Vatican decided to rewrite the concordats. Pacelli was given the job. That misleading sentence implies he personally did it off his own bat. 
:And "rewriting" was needed since even where concordat existed, they were with the monarchies. The revolution overturned the whole situtation and hence new concordats were needed.
He routinely involved himself in complicated territorial disputes following WWI ,trading Vatican support for German control under terms advantageous to the vatican Concordats . However the overall Reichskonkordat eluded him because both the catholic and the protestant population resisted this new authoritarian papal control . — POV mispresentation of what Cornwell and other historians actually say. 
:And certainly, Catholics did not oppose a concordat. Quite the contrary.
Pacelli's long-standing house-keeper , Sister Pasquilina Lehnert , stated after Pacelli's death that Kaas regularly holidayed with him and was linked to him in "adoration , honest love and unconditional loyalty ." The slightly younger Kaas became an intimate collaborator in every aspect of Pacelli's vatican diplomacy in Germamy . Kaas served as secretary from 1925 and then with Pacelli's encouragement took the chairmanship of the influential catholoc Centre party Germany in 1928 . Officially Kaas , also a specialist in canon law , was the representative of democratic civil party , but one who was so attached to Pacelli that he became vitually his alter ego — Innuendo-filled mispresentation of  what Cornwell actually wrote. 
In the memoirs of the Chicago Daily News bureau chief for Berlin reference is made to an actual letter in 1932 , from Pacelli enjoining the Centre leadership to the papal wish for the success of Adolf Hitler . The letter which not been found , confirms essentially the Bruning meeting  — if the letter can't be found then the charge cannot be made as there is no substantiation to prove it. History requires evidence. 
:the letter is only mentioned by the journalist in question in his memoirs. But even he has not seen it. A Centre Party friend told him about it. And what he told him actually does not necessarily warrant what is in the above paragraph.
The spring of 1933 brought a thaw of approbation towards Hitler from the Vatican and from the German Hierarchy. — Without explaining the context of German politics in 1933 that sentence out of context constructs a false impression. 
All was conducted in secret and over the heads of the German Bishops and faithful by Kaas, Pacelli and Hitler's catholic associate ex-Centre Foreign Minister ,Franz von Papen — misrepresentation of what Cornwell says. 
Pacelli demanded the imposition of the new Canon Code of Law upon all catholics , as well as various educational measures  — The Canon Law code was binding on all Catholics since 1917!!! 
I could go on with the other mistakes. Many are mispresentations of claims by Cornwell and others. Many are distortions. Many suggest that Flamekeeper is, to put it politely, inexperienced in how to wrote in an NPOV manner and how to write history. In addition the standard of English in the edit is appalling. Links are all wrong. Context is wrong. The understanding of Catholicism is all wrong. The grasp of what a diplomat does (and for much of the time Pacelli was a diplomat) is all wrong. The understanding of the context of the 1930s is non-existent. Historians follow a basic rule — analyse events in a time period taking into account the nature of the time period, eg, don't make a big issue of someone in the 1920s holding rascist, homophobic or sexist views; they were the norm then. But they would be a big issue in the 1970s or 1980s, when they were not the norm. Don't demand that someone possess an insight that we only have by knowing the outcome of events. Use the knowledge of what happened later to judge the wisdom of past decision, but don't demand that people who did not know what the future would bring that they act as though they know the future. 
Quite frankly, Flamekeeper's edits are so POV-driven, so heavy-handed and on occasions so OTT as to be appalling. An article with so much conjecture, inaccuracy, POV and misdirected analysis could not possibly be let stand in an encyclop�dia. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So the situtation is worse than I imagined - worse for FK, that is, and slightly better for Cornwell. Still, even if Cornwell had said all this (and appearently he doesn't), it cannot be simply stated as fact. Str1977 21:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, better for Cornwell.  I have not re-read Cornwell within the past few months, but my recollection of what I did read is that much of what FK attributes to Cornwell is not what Cornwell wrote.  Cornwell, for instance, does take into account the basic historian's rule as stated above, of noting that anti-Jewish sentiments were common among both German Catholics and Italian Catholics, and places Pacelli's thinking in that context.  Cornwell, while very critical of Pacelli, presents a much more nuanced view than FK quotes him as presenting.  Robert McClenon 23:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

text: FK's turgid and detail-heavy writing tends to overstate Cornwell IMO. There was accomodation between the church and the Nazis in 1933 but this steadily degenerated. Wyss 22:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: outside view

message: I ask  Michael Hardy to please lock this page permanently , and do whatever has to be done to achieve this . Anything further to be said can fight it out on Hitler's Pope and the future battleground  of Pope Pius XI's article .Famekeeper 15:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lock this page now [[Permanently]]

message: Can someone please unprotect this page after taking appropriate action to block the vandals against whom it was being protected?  Robert McClenon 16:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Please unprotect this page

message: There's no justification to cast doubt on the report of a kidnapping plot.  These were German documents discovered in January 2005 and therefore not accessible in the Vatican prior to then.
There's been no report casting doubt on the authenticity of the original story of 'Operation Rabat' since it was first reported, so it doesn't need to be created here in the Wikipedia.  patsw 03:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wolff and the Kidnapping Plot

message: An anonymous editor made a long series of edits to this article.  The edits did have the effect of deleting considerable material.  Noitall then reverted the edits with the summary of 'rv blanking vandalism'.  I do not think that the edits were vandalism.  They did appear to be good-faith if reckless and poorly summarized efforts to remove material that the editor in question thought was out of place.  I don't think that it was vandalism.  On the other hand, it does appear to have been reckless editing.  Can we try again? Robert McClenon 11:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A Long Series of Edits Reverted

message: Famekeeper writes "Certainly the article as written presently is at one point just crashingly badly edited, quite  stunningly so."  Would he please identify the portions that he thinks are badly edited?  
I will not respond to the remainder of the diatribe, but I would appreciate a response as to what portions are badly edited.  Robert McClenon 18:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Str1977 forbad this at 20.06 September 3 2005]] Famekeeper 
Let me just state that I don't have authority over FK and hence am not in the position to forbid him anything. If he says, he's not telling the truth. I don't know what keeps him from responding. But there's no reason to slander me.
Str1977 21:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any post by [User:Str1977|Str1977]] at 20:06, 3 September 2005, GMT, anyway.  Please show it or admit that that claim was not only silly but mistaken.  Robert McClenon 22:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Crashingly Bad Editing

message: I protest in good faith and denounce bad faith editors and I am truly shocked at these closed minds circulating my requirance of clear ,linked and  explained wikitruth.Get behind me
:I see no linked and explained wikitruth, only a big empty link. Robert McClenon 01:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If Famekeeper thinks that Wikipedia consists of a community of closed minds who are rejecting his presentation of truth, he should do one of four things:
*  Summarize his proof of the truth, which is the evil intention of the Catholic Church to cause the Holocaust, or whatever the evil truth is.
*  Request a mentor or advocate to assist him in summarizing his proof of truth, since he has difficulty in summarizing because he is angry.
*  Give up on Wikipedia.  If he really thinks that we are all stupid or thickheaded or closed minds, then he should find a community of open minds somewhere else on the Web.
*  Post a Request for Arbitration, since he has long been saying that arbitration would be necessary.  If he can prove to the ArbCom that 1977 is "very naughty" or that I am "untrustworthy" and a "bully", then perhaps the Arbcom will ban us and vindicate him.  If the ArbCom rules against him, he can always appeal to Jimbo Wales.  Robert McClenon 01:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Famekeeper Protest