User:WBTtheFROG/sandbox/t32q4/TalkPope

Cornwell

Hey guys, there has been some back and forth about the Cornwell book recently. I agree with Savidan that the book is notable and may be mentioned but given the fact that time has passed on and that Cornwell himself has put his work into question that the section should be severely reduced. After all, the book has a whole article for itself. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the section is of an appropriate length. I find it just a little bit off-putting that you seem to want to make allocation decisions in this article based on the impact that you think the material has on the culpability or praise-ability of Pius XII rather than the notability of the material. What you mention about Cornwell slightly modifying his views re: the economist quote (not a retraction of the substance of his central thesis but rather a re-evaluation of what his argument means for an ethical judgment of Pius XII) has no impact on the notability of the material, which is already quite modest in size. I agree that the daughter article will likely be the appropriate place for most future expansion, but think what we have now is a good summary for this article that has been reached with a lot of give-and-take, compromise, re-wording, etc.

Perhaps if you could be more specific about what you would like to see removed (from this article anyway), it would be easier for me to understand your view. Savidan 23:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Savidan,

please seriously reconsider your words: "I find it just a little bit off-putting that you seem to want to make allocation decisions in this article based on the impact that you think the material has on the culpability or praise-ability of Pius XII rather than the notability of the material."

Did I not write "I agree with Savidan that the book is notable and may be mentioned but given the fact that time has passed on and that Cornwell himself has put his work into question"

Where am I talking about "culpability or praise-ability" - I am talking about notabilty which in some cases is not stable over time. Cornwell's book certainly is not as notable now as it was when this was added, especially given Cornwell's comments.

Please retract your unacceptable claims. Str1977 ^(talk) 06:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Cornwell modifying his views at a later date does not change the notability of a book or the controversy/subsequent works that it spawned. If anything, that his more recent statements were deemed notable by the economist increases the notability of the material. Savidan 01:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, admitting that he was partly wrong does decrease the notability to this article which is about Pius XII and not some fictious Hitler's Pope. Sure, the book remains notable for the controversy it created and hence I did not propose to remove him. I am sure that in 1964, The Deputy would have got a larger section on this article (had WP been around) - but now over 40 years have passed. And in Cornwell's case time has passed too. That is the main argument. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That is what I'm disagreeing with precisely. The Documentary hypothesis, for example, is an extremely notable hypothesis which merits quite a large article for itself and a considerable deal of coverage in other articles. If Wellhausen tomorrow were to retract his hypothesis or even say it was all a hoax, it would not reduce the notability of the hypothesis at all. The correctness of an argument/opinion/point of view has nothing to do with its notability. Nor, for that matter, does how long ago it was published. HP/The Deputy continue to be more notable than a handful of more recent works, for example. Savidan 03:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

There are several sections in this article, which could be taken out or shortened such as the story of Jewish orphans, which, as it turns out, has absoutely nothing to do with Pope Pius XII, but reflects shrill accusations at the time. IF we take those sections out,it seems to me, the article will be viewed as partial. Keeping them here in light of their obvous shortcomings, highlights the nature of arguments against Pius XII.

Cornwell's original accusations, which he now relativized, were ridiculous, I agree. But his book does include valuable insights and some good scholarship on the early years of Pacelli. They are hidden under false pretense and an obnoxious title, which I am sure, was rewarding to him in the short run. -:)) --Ambrosius007 (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I very much agree with Ambrosius's sentiments. That's yet another reason not to remove or whittle down material just because we as writers deem a point of view incorrect. Savidan 01:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was never talking about removing Cornwell but about reducing the size and detail of his book's section.

One line I think questionable for content reasons is this one;

"Cornwell's work has received much praise and criticism. Much praise of Cornwell centered around his statement that he was a practising Catholic who had attempted to absolve Pius with his work.[185]"

So the only praise mentioned is this: the author was praised for making that statement? Is that all? Was he really praised for such a trivial thing. Let me also add that there is much doubt about the veracity of that statement.

What does the source quoted actually say?

Also, the extent that Cornwell had access to the archives, or rather to what extent he made use of it, is also a matter of contention. Our wording here seems too credulous about this.

Str1977 ^(talk) 21:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

What you are referring to is a nearly verbatim quotation from Sanchez. Cornwell said that we was a practicing Catholic, etc. in the foreward of the book and a lot of the early reviews picked up on that. You'll notice that grammatical that does not mean he was praised for making the statement but rather that he was praised, and the praise was related to that. As to Cornwell's use of the archives, please provide a source that makes the claim that you just made. Savidan 01:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't help at all. I know that Cornwell said this. But how can he be praised for being a practicing Catholic (supposedly, as even that has been questioned in the light of earlier statements by Cornwell[1]) and (supposedly) trying to exonerate the Pope - this has nothing to do with the book as it was published. Is there really no praise of the book? And as I said, his assertions about his initial aims is very far from being undisputed, e.g. here.

As for the archives issue: it is partly included in the Hitler's Pope article. The main point is though he was allowed to access the archives, he made little use of it, both by not accessing it very often ("the falsity of his boast that he had spent „months on end" in the archives, when he visited the Vatican for only three weeks and didn't go to the archives every day of that.") and by not making much use of it in the book ([2], [3]). This is mirrored here.

In all these links you can find the passages by searching for the word "archive". Str1977 ^(talk) 08:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a mystery, why a certain well-intentioned but naive Vatican official gave Cornwell access to the documents, written mostly in Italian. Cornwell did not understand the Italian language above the tropo caro level. His only claim to fame was the money making book A Thief in the Night about an imagined conspiracy to kill Pope John Paul I. Cornwell, a journalist had no scholaly publications or ecclesiastical credentials. That Vatican official, a very old person, obvioulsy feeling betrayed by Cornwell's publication, showed me documentation from the signature book, which clearly indicated that Cornwell indeed spent precious little time in the document room. But all this is not really the issue here. A few words can be changed here and there. We want to keep the balance and Cornwell is a part of it. It could be helpful to expand on this and other points raised by Str1977 in the Corwell articles themselves. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 08:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, these things are the issue here because I raised them. I did so because the current text paints quite a different picture.

Expansion is helpful in the "H's P" article. But here, the section is already rather too long. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Why not refer to it in Hitler's Pope and John Cornwell articles and cross reference with this one. A very helpful source would be Ronald Rychlak, Hitler, the War and the Pope who documents Cornwell's anti-catholic biases in earlier writing. He totally contradicts Cornwell's assertions on access to "secret documents" limiting his acutal access instead to beatification papers (pages 285 ff) --Ambrosius007 (talk) 08:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. But also this section here should be reduced. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ambrosius, you reverted me saying:

"But also this section here should be reduced."... see talk page Why enlarge it then with unsources statements?"

I don't understand. Where did I enlrage the section? I removed one of the two problematic bits, saving one paragraph. Please explain your point as I don't understand your actions at all. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You are right on one point (which I missed) that you reduced, but you took out the sentence which happened to be backed up and is correct - he did have access to the beatification papers, and left standing the unsourced sentence about overall anti-semitism. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the sentence has any right to stand as it is. Cornwell's self-potrayal about the archives has been discredited (see above) even if this detail happened to be correct. The length and breadth of this issue belong into the Hs P article and not here.

As for the unsourced bit, I assume that it is a quote from Cornwell's book and hence could easily be sourced from there. Do you have a reason to doubt the accurateness? Str1977 ^(talk) 17:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I am not married to the "concluding statement" and I can live with simply cutting of the paragraph (without merging) as well. Your choice. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

yes, this is better, thanks --Ambrosius007 (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Re, the praise, the HsP article states: "The author has been praised for attempting to bring into the open the debate on the Catholic Church's relationship with the Nazis, but also accused of making unsubstantiated claims and ignoring positive evidence."

I think this is a basis for a better treatment of praise and criticism than the "he was praised for being a Catholic ..." we currently have. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue of who utilized which sources first is important. This is not Cornwell's self-portrayal; this is Sanchez's summary. Sanchez's book is extremely respected, and is certainly not considered a pro-Cornwell work (published by the CUA of all places...). If you have other sources which materially contradict this (yet to be demonstrated, in my mind), it can be presented as such; in no case should it be removed entirely. The issue of Cornwell's identification within the debate as a (allegedly initially) pro-Pius author is also critical to understand how this literature has evolved.

And please stop this nonsense about saying that I am not acting in good faith. After all that I've been through to get this article up to FA status and to work with others (including you, on occasion) to maintain that status, I think I've at least earned the right to discuss this with you on an equal footing. Savidan 03:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Savidan,

"And please stop this nonsense ..." I am sorry but how can you expect me to work with you when you chose to answer a point I raised above (that the Cornwell section is too long) with bad faith accusations that I want to remove him because I disagree with him. Please don't give me the "after all I have done" line because a) you admit yourself that I cooperated on that and b) had I not safeguarded this article long before you arrived against loony conspiracy theories you wouldn't have an article to lead to FA status. "Equal footing" is what every editor is entitled too, not just you. And it is what I am asking for, not having my arguments (even if you disagree) brushed aside by accusations. That's all I (and the policy called WP:AGF) am asking for.

"The issue of who utilized which sources first is important. This is not Cornwell's self-portrayal; this is Sanchez's summary."

I don't see how the "source" issue is important enough to warrant inclusion into this article (as opposed to the HsP article), especially since Cornwell's making use of Vatican sources has been questioned. Read what I wrote above with links. And Sanchez' view is Sanchez' view and not fact.

Also, "Cornwell's identification within the debate as a (allegedly initially) pro-Pius author" is disputed to say the least. But more importantly, saying that Cornwell was praised for saying that he was initially pro-Pius is a strange kind of nonsense. Those who praised him, praised him because they agreed with his views (and used the self-identification as an argument to silence allegations about intentions - just as he did). Str1977 ^(talk) 09:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I made my position very clear against removal of documented materials:

You took out the sentence which happened to be backed up and is correct - he did have access to the beatification papers, and left standing the unsourced sentence about overall anti-semitism.

As stated above, I was of the opinion that all agreed to that. I consider the repeated personal attacks against Savidan outragious and insulting. Savidan responded highly properly here. He has been for years the main contributor to this feature article, whose quality he knows to uphold against all kinds of contributors. I hope he will continue to do so, even though, he (and I) may not always find time to respond to improper behavior. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Didn't we just agree above?

I am not sure what you feel "outragious" (sic!) - personal attacks against Savidan? I see none! What I see is bad faith remarks of Savidan against me. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to complicate this discussion further, but I am going to inject another voice into it. I think a whole section on Hitler's Pope gives it vastly undue weight. I believe this would be the case even if there weren't serious issues of shoddy scholarship and his later recanting of the book's central thesis. But in light of those issues, I do not believe Cornwell is a reliable source on these matters. You have serious bias, a well documented lack of scholarly rigor and then his recanting on top of it. What is indisputable is that he is no longer a reliable source with regard to Pius' motives. When you have him saying it is impossible "impossible to judge [his] motives" you cannot cite him as authority for an assertion such as "that Pius was anti-Semitic and that this stance prevented him from caring about the European Jews". That statement goes directly to his motives. I am going to delete it. But I think more needs to be done in the way of the seriously undue weight given to this questionable source. Mamalujo (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not have fundamental disagreements with many of the sources that Str presents above. I believe that where a disagreement exists in the literature it should be stated in the article as such in as neutral and high-level (i.e. summary style) terms as possible. Thus, instead of presenting sources on the talk page with the goal of removing existing material, why not try to work those into the existing article without removing any of the currently cited material. e.g. "Some say X; others say Y". Keep it neutral, keep the sources high quality, and i doubt that i or others will have a problem with it. I will note quickly that I think the source presented to disagree with the claim that Cornwell was the first to have access to the archives does not truly dispute it as a factual claim, they just dispute that his work is more credible as a result of it.

As for claims of undue weight, I think that anyone as familiar as I assume most on this page are with the literature is kidding themselves if they claim that Cornwell's work was nothing more than a temporary blip on the PPXII radar. For better or worse, it is the single most notable wor about PPXII. It is the most cited, the most summarized, and the most discussed. I have no interest debating the correctness of Cornwell's thesis here or even the effectiveness of his prose. But I think that we would do this article a profound disservice not to provide a good summary of the importance and significance of the work. I think that most of the specific points of the praise and criticism of the work can be flushed out in the daughter article (small points of no significance to PPXII's bio, like the flamewar over the cover, are similarly well moved from this article). But the basic things about placing the original context of the book and its author, and situating the work on the timeline of where primary sources became available, and providing a basic summary of his original thesis are a must.

This Economist quote has been misinterpreted in multiple ways in this discussion already. It is not an admission that he isnt reliable or a recanting of his work, merely a modification of his judgment of PPXII as an individual in light of his original thesis. It's true significance can indeed be flushed out in that article as well. His quoting in such a source so many years later strengthens the notability of the original work rather than diminishing it. Savidan 21:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Savidan, I agree with you in so far it pertains to the HsP article. I wouldn't want to remove anything there, just add to it to achieve the full picture.

But here, matters are different as this article is about the man Pius XII and Cornwell is only a small detail. And Undue Weight has always been the cornerstone of my argument.

Cornwell was current for a while but now he should be treated like other past works are. That doesn't mean removing him - I never called for that - but restricting the size of his treatment to what is essential. And taking out the two problematic bits would already make for progress. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think its fair to say that there is substantial disagreement over what the quote means for the thesis of the book. I think that the first sentence of the quote makes the context pretty clear. Having limiting capability means that one's motives have fewer ethical implications not that they are more difficult to determine. In either case, it's hard to see why we can't summarize the thesis of the book as a result of Cornwell later modifying his views. This is particularly true now that the quote itself is included. I think the burden should be on the side of removal because this material is the result of a long-standing comprise and was in the article both when it was a FAC and a FARC. Let the reader decide for themself what the quote means for his thesis (and its hard to do that without even providing them with his original thesis). Savidan 22:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Isn't

"He said he coudnt JUDGE his motives not that he couldnt determine them; not that any of this makes a plot summary of the major PPXII work less necessary?"

nitpicking, trying to keep something in the article that - at least according to the remover - goes against a statement by the author? Str1977 ^(talk) 08:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Now that the quote itself is included, I don't see what the further issue is. One sentence saying what the thesis of the best-selling/most-cited/most notable work about ppxii; one sentence saying what the author's current views are. This leaves the reader completely free to determine whether Cornwell has "recanted" his views etc.; removing the summary of the book would simply make this section incomprehensible. I don't see how it can be discussed without at least establishing what the argument of the book was. M.'s most recent rationale is that "Cornwell is not a reliable source...". So what? We are not stating his thesis as fact; we are merely summarizing in the most basic way possible what his argument was, using what is probably the most neutral third party source to boot. This section is very small as it is compared to the daughter article. Savidan 02:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I am all right with that. My objection was to the faulty argument presented above. Str1977 ^(talk) 06:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As for the sentence about Cornwell being the first to access many documents being "undue weight" nothing could be farther from the truth. As should be clear from the context and for those familiar with the Vatican archives, gaining access to such documents is a rare feat. Critics of Cornwell have claimed that he abused the trust inherent in this process; other (even those who dont agree with his thesis) consider this part of his work to be important. Sanchez devotes quite a bit of ink to it. This is a featured article; the sourced material in question is the result of numerous compromises and voluminous discussion. It was present when the article was reviewed both at FAC and FARC. Whole-scale removal of such material is unlikely to be the optimal solution. Removing it with abbreviated comments without first achieving consensus is a tad disruptive. Savidan 23:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Savidan, that the content of this particular quote should stay for the reasons mentioned. Removing agreed upon sourced material of this FAC and FARC article is highly disruptive.--Ambrosius007 (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Article Section - Original

Hitler's Pope and The Myth of Hitler's Pope

Main articles: Hitler's Pope and The Myth of Hitler's Pope

In 1999, John Cornwell's Hitler's Pope criticized Pius for not doing enough, or speaking out enough, against the Holocaust. Cornwell argued that Pius' entire career as the nuncio to Germany, cardinal secretary of state, and pope was characterized by a desire to increase and centralize the power of the Papacy, and that he subordinated opposition to the Nazis to that goal. He further argued that Pius was anti-Semitic and that this stance prevented him from caring about the European Jews.

Cornwell's work was the first to have access to testimonies from Pius' beatification process as well as to many documents from Pacelli's nunciature which had just been opened under the 75-year rule by the Vatican State Secretary archives. Cornwell's work has received much praise and criticism. Much praise of Cornwell centered around his disputed claim that he was a practising Catholic who had attempted to absolve Pius with his work. While works such as Susan Zuccotti's Under His Very Windows: The Vatican and the Holocaust in Italy (2000) and Michael Phayer's The Catholic Church and the Holocaust, 1930–1965 (2000) are critical of both Cornwell and Pius XII, Ronald J. Rychlak's Hitler, the War and the Pope is critical as well but defends Pius XII in light of his access to most recent documents. Cornwell's scholarship has been criticized. For example, Kenneth L. Woodward stated in his review in Newsweek that "errors of fact and ignorance of context appear on almost every page." Five years after the publication of Hitler's Pope, Cornwell stated: "I would now argue, 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 Germany".

In his 2003 book A Moral Reckoning, Daniel Jonah Goldhagen asserts that Pius "chose again and again not to mention the Jews publicly.... [In] public statements by Pius XII . . . any mention of the Jews is conspicuously absent." In a review of Goldhagen's book, Mark Riebling counters that Pius used the word "Jew" in his first encyclical, Summi Pontificatus, published on October 20, 1939. "There Pius insisted that all human beings be treated charitably — for, as Paul had written to the Colossians, in God's eyes "there is neither Gentile nor Jew." In saying this, the Pope affirmed that Jews were full members of the human community — which is Goldhagen's own criterion for establishing 'dissent from the anti-Semitic creed.'"

Most recently, Rabbi David Dalin's The Myth of Hitler's Pope argues that critics of Pius are liberal Catholics and ex-Catholics who "exploit the tragedy of the Jewish people during the Holocaust to foster their own political agenda of forcing changes on the Catholic Church today" and that Pius XII was actually responsible for saving the lives of many thousands of Jews.

Article Section - Older

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Savidan at 22:48, 19 August 2008. This will be shown to participants in the "Extra Article Text" condition. You might notice that the last paragraph has some repetition; that's in the original.

Hitler's Pope

Main article: Hitler's Pope

In 1999, John Cornwell's Hitler's Pope criticized Pius for not doing enough, or speaking out enough, against the Holocaust. Cornwell argued that Pius's entire career as the nuncio to Germany, cardinal secretary of state, and pope was characterized by a desire to increase and centralize the power of the Papacy, and that he subordinated opposition to the Nazis to that goal. He further argues that Pius was anti-Semitic and that this stance prevented him from caring about the European Jews.

Cornwell's work was the first to have access to testimonies from Pius's beatification process as well as to many documents from Pacelli's nunciature which had just been opened under the seventy-five year rule by the Vatican State Secretary archives. Cornwell's work has received much praise and criticism. Much praise of Cornwell centered around his statement that he was a practising Catholic who had attempted to absolve Pius with his work. While works such as Susan Zuccotti's Under His Very Windows: The Vatican and the Holocaust in Italy (2000) and Michael Phayer's The Catholic Church and the Holocaust, 1930–1965 (2000) are critical of both Cornwell and Pius XII, Ronald J. Rychlak 's Hitler, the War and the Pope is critical as well but defends Pius XII in light of his access to most recent documents.

Cornwell's scholarship has been criticized. For example, Kenneth L. Woodward stated in his review in Newsweek that "errors of fact and ignorance of context appear on almost every page." Cornwell himself gives a more ambiguous assessment of Pius' conduct in a 2004 interview where he states that "Pius XII had so little scope of action that it is impossible to judge the motives for his silence during the war". Most recently, Rabbi David Dalin's The Myth of Hitler's Pope argues that critics of Pius are liberal Catholics and ex-Catholics who "exploit the tragedy of the Jewish people during the Holocaust to foster their own political agenda of forcing changes on the Catholic Church today" and that Pius XII was actually responsible for saving the lives of many thousands of Jews.. Five years after the publication of Hitler's Pope, Cornwell stated: "I would now argue, 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 Germany".

Article Section - Older AND shorter

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Savidan at 22:48, 19 August 2008. Shortened by WBT by removing the last paragraph. This will be shown to participants in all conditions except for "Extra Article Text" (those participants see it with the last paragraph, as above).

Hitler's Pope

Main article: Hitler's Pope

In 1999, John Cornwell's Hitler's Pope criticized Pius for not doing enough, or speaking out enough, against the Holocaust. Cornwell argued that Pius's entire career as the nuncio to Germany, cardinal secretary of state, and pope was characterized by a desire to increase and centralize the power of the Papacy, and that he subordinated opposition to the Nazis to that goal. He further argues that Pius was anti-Semitic and that this stance prevented him from caring about the European Jews.

Cornwell's work was the first to have access to testimonies from Pius's beatification process as well as to many documents from Pacelli's nunciature which had just been opened under the seventy-five year rule by the Vatican State Secretary archives. Cornwell's work has received much praise and criticism. Much praise of Cornwell centered around his statement that he was a practising Catholic who had attempted to absolve Pius with his work. While works such as Susan Zuccotti's Under His Very Windows: The Vatican and the Holocaust in Italy (2000) and Michael Phayer's The Catholic Church and the Holocaust, 1930–1965 (2000) are critical of both Cornwell and Pius XII, Ronald J. Rychlak 's Hitler, the War and the Pope is critical as well but defends Pius XII in light of his access to most recent documents.

Cornwell's Book

Hey guys, this section has undue weight and is inaccurate. I think we should remove some of the material about Cornwell's book. A lot of time has passed since it was popular and controversial, and Cornwell himself has put his work into question (admitting that he was partly wrong), so this section should be severely reduced. Also, the article says that Cornwell had access to the archives, but he didn’t really make use of that access, and he couldn’t understand the Italian above a basic level anyway. This ridiculous book has a whole article for itself, we should cut most of this section out here. This article is about Pius XII and not some fictitious Hitler's Pope. Sure, the book remains notable for the controversy it created and hence I did not propose to remove him, but time has passed and new knowledge is available. -TR

I think the section is of an appropriate length and is a good summary. Cornwell modifying his views has no impact on the notability of the material or the controversy/subsequent works that it spawned. If anything, his more recent statements increases the notability of the material. The correctness of an argument/opinion/point of view has nothing to do with its notability. I think what we have now is a good summary. Please provide a reliable source that makes the claim about the archives access. -VD

Here is a source for "the falsity of his boast that he had spent “months on end” in the archives, when he visited the Vatican for only three weeks and didn't go to the archives every day of that" and that he did not make much use of it in the book ([2], [3]). The current text paints quite a different picture. We can put details on the Hitler's Pope article but this section is too long and should be reduced. -TR

A few words can be changed here and there. We want to keep the balance and Cornwell is a part of it. It could be helpful to expand on this and other points in the Cornwell articles themselves. -VD

I removed two problematic bits, leaving only one paragraph. Why did you revert me? -TR

You are right on reducing one point (which I missed), but you took out the sentence which happened to be backed up and is correct, that he had access to archives. -VD

I don't think the sentence has any right to stand as it is. Cornwell's self-potrayal about the archives has been discredited (see above) even if he did have access. The details of this issue do not belong in this article. Of course, I am not married to the "concluding statement" and I can live with simply cutting of the paragraph (without merging) as well. Your choice. -TR

Yes, this is better, thanks -VD

Cornwell's Book

I just don't think the article as now written is accurate, because Cornwell has retracted some of his statements and some others (like those about how much time he spent at the Vatican) were discredited. I've got no more time for it, but this article is just plain terrible as written, it's so misleading in so many ways, gives so much weight to a biased and inaccurate source, that it should not even be in the encyclopedia, it's doing more harm than good. I'm not going to fight it all out, but the readers are really getting a bad deal here. -TR

I am unfamiliar with any full retraction, although I know that the author did reinterpret his conclusions. We need to show all notable views, and even if Cornwell isn't correct (which I don't want to debate here) his book was still notable for all the controversy it stirred up. This book was way more than a temporary blip on the PPXII radar. For better or worse, it is the single most notable work about PPXII. It is the most cited, the most summarized, and the most discussed. I have no interest debating the correctness of Cornwell's thesis here or even the effectiveness of his prose. But I think that we would do this article a profound disservice not to provide a thorough summary of the content, importance, and significance of the work. -VD

Really, the decision what to put in there, and what to take out, seems quite arbitrary on your part. Does it only matter if it used to get a lot of attention, instead of if it still does, or if it's even accurate? That ensures the article will follow wild goose chases and attend to skeptics and propaganda. That ensures it will be inadequate. The article is about Pius XII and not some fictitious Hitler's Pope. The book has an article for itself. If this is how you’re going to apply the policy, and this is what the article’s going to be, I don’t want any part of it. But I will tell you, you are missing a huge amount of good information and contributions from me. -TR

Cornwell's Book

Hi, I think we should remove some of the material about Cornwell's book, because this section is unduly long. Time has passed on and Cornwell himself has put his work into question, so this section should be severely reduced. Plus, the book has a whole article for itself. -TR

It looks fine to me as is. I find it just a little bit off-putting that you seem to want to make allocation decisions in this article based on something other than the notability of the material. We don't need idiots like you removing good content from Wikipedia. -VD

VD, please seriously reconsider your words: "I find it just a little bit off-putting that you seem to want to make allocation decisions in this article based on something other than the notability of the material." In case you are as clueless as you appear, notability can change. Cornwell's book certainly is not as notable now as it was when this was added, especially given Cornwell's comments. Please retract your unacceptable claims. -TR

Please stop this nonsense about saying that I am not acting in good faith. After all the work I've done on this article, I think I've at least earned the right to discuss this with you on an equal footing. -VD

I am sorry but how can you expect me to work with you when you chose to answer a point I raised above (that the Cornwell section is too long) with bad faith accusations that I want to remove him because I disagree with him. Please don't give me the "after all I have done" line because I have worked on this article just as much as you. "Equal footing" is what every editor is entitled to, and it is all I am asking for. That's all I (and the policy to Assume Good Faith) am asking for. You have no idea what you’re doing, don’t know what even the author is saying about his OWN WORK!, and by giving this piece a whole long section, you are just misinforming the public. -TR

I’m sorry you feel that way, but you obviously don’t know how Wikipedia works, and you can't remove content just because you disagree with it. -VD

Cornwell's Book

Hi, I think we should remove some of the material about Cornwell's book and fix what’s left to be accurate. A whole section on Hitler's Pope gives it vastly undue weight because so much time has passed on from the initial controversy it generated, and Cornwell himself has admitted he was partly wrong. Cornwell's ridiculous book certainly is not as notable now as it was when this was added, especially given Cornwell's comments. Plus, the book has a whole article for itself.

This section is wrong and misleading. It says that Cornwell had access to the archives, but he didn’t really make use of that access, and he couldn’t understand the Italian anyway. It also says, "Cornwell's work has received much praise and criticism. Much praise of Cornwell centered around his statement that he was a practicing Catholic who had attempted to absolve Pius with his work." So the only praise mentioned is this: the author was praised for making that statement? Is that all? Was he really praised for such a trivial thing, and how is that “much praise?” Let me also add that there is much doubt about the veracity of that statement. What does the quoted source actually say?

Cornwell was current for a while but now he should be treated like other past works are. That means restricting the size of his treatment to what is essential. I believe this would be the case even if there weren't serious issues of shoddy scholarship and his later recanting of the book's central thesis. But in light of those issues, I do not believe Cornwell is a reliable source on these matters. It is seriously biased, has a well documented lack of scholarly rigor and then his recanting on top of it. I think more needs to be done in the way of the seriously undue weight given to this questionable source.

This section should be severely reduced. The size and detail of the book’s session should be cut significantly. The article is about Pius XII and not some fictitious Hitler's Pope. -TR

translation to french proposal

This section is here so that there's a section header to show part of when taking the screenshot of "ignored complainer."

Hi there, I'd like to get in charge of translating this purpose that interests me that much. To keep our use efficient, i'm just trying to brief. By the way, I'm not aware of the process to figure out my project. Anyway, I'm up to. Regards ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gambi 13 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I haven't understood what you just said. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe he was offering to make a French page correlating to this one. He didn't want to make the entire thing, just key parts. -- Homo Logica (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)