This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mortara case article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Mortara case is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 21, 2016. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Tim riley ( talk · contribs) 15:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
It isn't clear to me what this article is doing at GAN. In my view it belongs at FAC, but be that as it may, I am reviewing it against the GA criteria for now, though I expect (and hope) to see it at FAC in due course. I ought perhaps to put on record here that I am long familiar with Cliftonian's work and that both of us have reviewed several of the other's articles in the past.
I have corrected a handful of typos (which please check), apart from which I have precisely two queries:
As a personal stylistic point I wonder about "captivated" in the first sentence. To me, "captivate" means to please extravagantly, to enrapture. Riveting the imagination of a critical public is not how I would use the verb. Perhaps just "captured the attention of" might do?
None of which amounts to a row of beans, and I have much pleasure in promoting the article to GA.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
I learned much from this article, and am very glad to have had the pleasure of reviewing it. I found it fascinating. Tim riley talk 15:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello editors. My wife frequently suffers from insomnia, and one thing we've discovered is that reading from Wikipedia is an effective way of . . . boring her to sleep. To that end, I have been reading Wikipedia articles to her when she needs it and I've got a computer handy. Just after I finished reading List of common misconceptions, I had the idea that I could help out the community by recording the reading of the article, and contributing to the WP:SPEAK project. I plan on recording this article, soon (probably the next time she needs some help sleeping and I've got a computer). Don't expect an amazing reading, but it'll be something. I'm working under the assumption that something is better than nothing. McKay ( talk) 04:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Would it be reasonable to either change the 24 hr. time standard used in the article to 12hr. time. I realize some English speaking countries use 24 hr. so maybe it would be better to include both as a courtesy to American readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eman320 ( talk • contribs) 16:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Despite the GA rating, I think the lede to this article is poor- in addition to the summary, it repeats and expands of=n most of the same facts in the next few paragraphs which are then again expanded in the main body. Any objections to my heavily editing the lede? Wkharrisjr ( talk) 23:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
NO! This is not well referenced. Almost all of the information in the article references works by Kertzer. If you review Kertzer's works you will find that he seems to write almost exclusively rather sensationalistic denunciations of the Papacy. His most recent work attempts to pretend that Pius XI was a good buddy of Mussolini. What we have here is more baloney scholarship, in my humble opinion. I reviewed some of Kertzers other books, and we find that he has one about the summer he spent with the Italian Communists, which further calls his credibility into play. "Comrades and Christians" I am loathe to trust someone who seems favorably disposed towards Italian Communism, who keeps writing books that offer a sensationalistic account of the supposed secret crimes of the Papacy. His book about Mussolini has been challenged for getting things wrong. http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/painting-catholicism-with-the-fascist-brush He did get a Pulitzer prize for the book, but these days those are handed out on a political basis, not a basis of truth. What we have is another "Hitler's Pope" type work, which we know told the exact opposite of truth, and an author that likes to shade and "interpret" facts for us to make someone look bad. He does not give us facts and let us make up our own minds, he gives us facts and tells us what to think. 184.97.166.58 ( talk) 19:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Furthermore, in another of his works America Magazine, generally considered on the left, but by American Jesuits, had this to say:
Lawler, author of many books and editor of several journals, intimately familiar with the ways of the publishing world, examines several of Hochhuth’s heirs, focusing mostly but not exclusively on David Kertzer’s "The Popes against the Jews (2001)". Kertzer argues that several modern Popes—culminating with Pius XI and Pius XII—were anti-Semites who paved “the road to the Holocaust.” Lawler, initially beguiled by Kertzer’s argument, became suspicious, re-examined Kertzer’s supporting evidence and discovered “a flood of errors,” “rhetorical subterfuge,” “slanted paraphrase,” “a potpourri of mistranslations…juggled chronology, and… out-and-out falsehoods.” Before he had ever seen the Vatican archives, Kertzer had already made up his mind about the popes, as he made clear in a New York Times op-ed column: “The explanation of what made the Holocaust possible is to be found in no small part in the files of the Inquisition…. “
Lawler repeatedly demonstrates that Kertzer’s accusatory examples—ranging from Vatican support for the myth of Jewish ritual murder or of anti-Semitism based on a form letter sent in receipt for a book expressing anti-Semitism—are demonstrably false or illogical.
Contrary to what gullible cynics might expect, Lawler’s book is no whitewash of the church hierarchy. Kertzer, however, creates a fiction of “aggressive papal support of the hatred that led to the Holocaust” and insists that “a whole-cloth conspiracy against Jews [was] perpetrated by the elders of the Vatican.”
http://www.americamagazine.org/issue/culture/tortured-history
Kertzer is unreliable, and this entry relies entirely on his work for its tale. 20:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.97.166.58 ( talk)
The article contains the following: “the Lourdes apparitions of 1858 having occurred in the same year as his own conversion to Christianity.” This is surely difficult to support, in light of the fact that the crux of the matter is whether or not he was baptized as an infant ( a “cradle Catholic”). Identifying 1858 as the year of his “conversion” to Christianity suggests that he was baptized in that year, which would negate the story of earlier baptism; if he was baptized as a baby, he would be deemed to be a Christian in the eyes of the Church from that moment onwards, which is why the whole incident started. Might it not be better to say that in 1858 he became a practising Catholic? Jock123 ( talk) 13:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
As the article stands the content and references for this article are based almost exclusively on the views of David Kertzer, who is extremely partisan in cheerleading the Jewish ultra-nationalist line on this affair. Another of Kertzer's partisan books in this field, The Popes Against the Jews, has been strongly criticised for deliberately misquoting and cherrypicking of information, so his reliability as a neutral source in this case must also be questioned. He should be used, because his name is now prominently attached to this case, but the article shouldn't just be a podium for his views and essentially a cut and paste of his book from start to finish. The categories "Antisemitic attacks and incidents" and "Antisemitism in Italy" are also dubious.... pretty sure Mortara was a Semite and Pius IX didn't hate him at all, let alone for his ethnicity. Claíomh Solais ( talk) 01:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
This article says:
He received a personal letter from the Pope to mark the occasion and a lifetime trust fund of 7,000 lire to support him.
Does this mean a one-time payment whose interest would support him as long as he lived, or 7000 lire annually, or what? If it's annual, it should say so. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
The article relies almost exclusively on a single source. Other sources that should be used include:
In addition, there should be a discussion of the recent controversy between Catholic integralists and more liberal or centrist types over the case. A lot of sources on that controversy can be listed in the notes for the first few pages of this paper.
So the article fails comprehensiveness and well-researched criteria and if not improved will need to be brought to FAR. b uidh e 09:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
::::San Diego Law Review writes shameful. Reliable source. Very obvious kidnapping of six year old boy is shameful act.--
KasiaNL (
talk) 05:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::So most are ignorant, OK, believe you. But of those who heard of this? You arguing they think it not shameful?--
KasiaNL (
talk) 06:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC) (banned sock puppet -
[1])
GizzyCatBella
🍁 19:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I propose page moved to
Mortara kidnapping. More consistent with events, and sources:
[2],
[3],
[4].--
KasiaNL (
talk) 07:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC) (banned sock puppet -
[5])
GizzyCatBella
🍁 19:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I think the argument here that Napoleon III's Italian policy was determined by his/French outrage at the Mortara case is...overplayed here. The usual narrative is that the Orsini attempt in January 1858 provoked the shift, and by June 1858 Napoleon was well on his way to shifting his policy towards the Italian cause anyway. Could this be phrased in a more nuanced way? john k ( talk) 01:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia claims this artical only availible in 6 other languages when in reality it`s in 21. The reason for this is that in 15 of them the name of the artical is Edgardo Mortara not Mortara case. גוי אחד בארץ ( talk) 22:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mortara case article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Mortara case is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 21, 2016. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Tim riley ( talk · contribs) 15:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
It isn't clear to me what this article is doing at GAN. In my view it belongs at FAC, but be that as it may, I am reviewing it against the GA criteria for now, though I expect (and hope) to see it at FAC in due course. I ought perhaps to put on record here that I am long familiar with Cliftonian's work and that both of us have reviewed several of the other's articles in the past.
I have corrected a handful of typos (which please check), apart from which I have precisely two queries:
As a personal stylistic point I wonder about "captivated" in the first sentence. To me, "captivate" means to please extravagantly, to enrapture. Riveting the imagination of a critical public is not how I would use the verb. Perhaps just "captured the attention of" might do?
None of which amounts to a row of beans, and I have much pleasure in promoting the article to GA.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
I learned much from this article, and am very glad to have had the pleasure of reviewing it. I found it fascinating. Tim riley talk 15:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello editors. My wife frequently suffers from insomnia, and one thing we've discovered is that reading from Wikipedia is an effective way of . . . boring her to sleep. To that end, I have been reading Wikipedia articles to her when she needs it and I've got a computer handy. Just after I finished reading List of common misconceptions, I had the idea that I could help out the community by recording the reading of the article, and contributing to the WP:SPEAK project. I plan on recording this article, soon (probably the next time she needs some help sleeping and I've got a computer). Don't expect an amazing reading, but it'll be something. I'm working under the assumption that something is better than nothing. McKay ( talk) 04:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Would it be reasonable to either change the 24 hr. time standard used in the article to 12hr. time. I realize some English speaking countries use 24 hr. so maybe it would be better to include both as a courtesy to American readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eman320 ( talk • contribs) 16:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Despite the GA rating, I think the lede to this article is poor- in addition to the summary, it repeats and expands of=n most of the same facts in the next few paragraphs which are then again expanded in the main body. Any objections to my heavily editing the lede? Wkharrisjr ( talk) 23:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
NO! This is not well referenced. Almost all of the information in the article references works by Kertzer. If you review Kertzer's works you will find that he seems to write almost exclusively rather sensationalistic denunciations of the Papacy. His most recent work attempts to pretend that Pius XI was a good buddy of Mussolini. What we have here is more baloney scholarship, in my humble opinion. I reviewed some of Kertzers other books, and we find that he has one about the summer he spent with the Italian Communists, which further calls his credibility into play. "Comrades and Christians" I am loathe to trust someone who seems favorably disposed towards Italian Communism, who keeps writing books that offer a sensationalistic account of the supposed secret crimes of the Papacy. His book about Mussolini has been challenged for getting things wrong. http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/painting-catholicism-with-the-fascist-brush He did get a Pulitzer prize for the book, but these days those are handed out on a political basis, not a basis of truth. What we have is another "Hitler's Pope" type work, which we know told the exact opposite of truth, and an author that likes to shade and "interpret" facts for us to make someone look bad. He does not give us facts and let us make up our own minds, he gives us facts and tells us what to think. 184.97.166.58 ( talk) 19:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Furthermore, in another of his works America Magazine, generally considered on the left, but by American Jesuits, had this to say:
Lawler, author of many books and editor of several journals, intimately familiar with the ways of the publishing world, examines several of Hochhuth’s heirs, focusing mostly but not exclusively on David Kertzer’s "The Popes against the Jews (2001)". Kertzer argues that several modern Popes—culminating with Pius XI and Pius XII—were anti-Semites who paved “the road to the Holocaust.” Lawler, initially beguiled by Kertzer’s argument, became suspicious, re-examined Kertzer’s supporting evidence and discovered “a flood of errors,” “rhetorical subterfuge,” “slanted paraphrase,” “a potpourri of mistranslations…juggled chronology, and… out-and-out falsehoods.” Before he had ever seen the Vatican archives, Kertzer had already made up his mind about the popes, as he made clear in a New York Times op-ed column: “The explanation of what made the Holocaust possible is to be found in no small part in the files of the Inquisition…. “
Lawler repeatedly demonstrates that Kertzer’s accusatory examples—ranging from Vatican support for the myth of Jewish ritual murder or of anti-Semitism based on a form letter sent in receipt for a book expressing anti-Semitism—are demonstrably false or illogical.
Contrary to what gullible cynics might expect, Lawler’s book is no whitewash of the church hierarchy. Kertzer, however, creates a fiction of “aggressive papal support of the hatred that led to the Holocaust” and insists that “a whole-cloth conspiracy against Jews [was] perpetrated by the elders of the Vatican.”
http://www.americamagazine.org/issue/culture/tortured-history
Kertzer is unreliable, and this entry relies entirely on his work for its tale. 20:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.97.166.58 ( talk)
The article contains the following: “the Lourdes apparitions of 1858 having occurred in the same year as his own conversion to Christianity.” This is surely difficult to support, in light of the fact that the crux of the matter is whether or not he was baptized as an infant ( a “cradle Catholic”). Identifying 1858 as the year of his “conversion” to Christianity suggests that he was baptized in that year, which would negate the story of earlier baptism; if he was baptized as a baby, he would be deemed to be a Christian in the eyes of the Church from that moment onwards, which is why the whole incident started. Might it not be better to say that in 1858 he became a practising Catholic? Jock123 ( talk) 13:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
As the article stands the content and references for this article are based almost exclusively on the views of David Kertzer, who is extremely partisan in cheerleading the Jewish ultra-nationalist line on this affair. Another of Kertzer's partisan books in this field, The Popes Against the Jews, has been strongly criticised for deliberately misquoting and cherrypicking of information, so his reliability as a neutral source in this case must also be questioned. He should be used, because his name is now prominently attached to this case, but the article shouldn't just be a podium for his views and essentially a cut and paste of his book from start to finish. The categories "Antisemitic attacks and incidents" and "Antisemitism in Italy" are also dubious.... pretty sure Mortara was a Semite and Pius IX didn't hate him at all, let alone for his ethnicity. Claíomh Solais ( talk) 01:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
This article says:
He received a personal letter from the Pope to mark the occasion and a lifetime trust fund of 7,000 lire to support him.
Does this mean a one-time payment whose interest would support him as long as he lived, or 7000 lire annually, or what? If it's annual, it should say so. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
The article relies almost exclusively on a single source. Other sources that should be used include:
In addition, there should be a discussion of the recent controversy between Catholic integralists and more liberal or centrist types over the case. A lot of sources on that controversy can be listed in the notes for the first few pages of this paper.
So the article fails comprehensiveness and well-researched criteria and if not improved will need to be brought to FAR. b uidh e 09:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
::::San Diego Law Review writes shameful. Reliable source. Very obvious kidnapping of six year old boy is shameful act.--
KasiaNL (
talk) 05:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::So most are ignorant, OK, believe you. But of those who heard of this? You arguing they think it not shameful?--
KasiaNL (
talk) 06:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC) (banned sock puppet -
[1])
GizzyCatBella
🍁 19:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I propose page moved to
Mortara kidnapping. More consistent with events, and sources:
[2],
[3],
[4].--
KasiaNL (
talk) 07:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC) (banned sock puppet -
[5])
GizzyCatBella
🍁 19:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I think the argument here that Napoleon III's Italian policy was determined by his/French outrage at the Mortara case is...overplayed here. The usual narrative is that the Orsini attempt in January 1858 provoked the shift, and by June 1858 Napoleon was well on his way to shifting his policy towards the Italian cause anyway. Could this be phrased in a more nuanced way? john k ( talk) 01:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia claims this artical only availible in 6 other languages when in reality it`s in 21. The reason for this is that in 15 of them the name of the artical is Edgardo Mortara not Mortara case. גוי אחד בארץ ( talk) 22:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)