Talk:The Deputy

Conspiracy theory?
The article actually presents a conspiracy theory as fact. I see no proof whatsoever that Erwin Piscator wrote The Deputy. The article suggests it without presenting any evidence, supposedly to defend Pius XII. As far as I know, no German literary critic seriously considers that Piscator acted as ghostwriter for Rolf Hochhuth. Piscator being a "devout communist" and Hochhuth taking a critical stance on the Roman Catholic Church is certainly not enough to present a conspiracy theory as fact. 87.169.43.125 21:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The article never said that Erwin Piscator wrote The Deputy. The article includes recent information that has been written by someone in the know. There are no conspiracy theories involved here. The information you don't like is sourced. Dwain 21:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Which doesn't mean the source is reliable. I think I don't have to tell you that you can find sources for almost every obscure theory on the web. Now these claims made by an intelligence officer sound rather like the plot of a Tom Clancy novel to me. Also I still think that the text in its present form suggests that Piscator was involved in writing the play, because it implies (in a context otherwise inexplicable) that Hochhuth didn't have the ability or the education to be a playwright. The whole article is POV because it cites only critical responses to the play as references, which doesn't reflect the actual response to The Deputy at all. 87.169.66.213 10:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have been working in the Piscator archives in Carbondale and Berlin etc. for months and personally know Hochhuth from extensive talks in Berlin. There is definitely no point to Pacepas obscure claims and in addition a number of 'facts' on Piscator are strongly misrepresented by Pacepas (Piscator has NOT "founded the Proletarian Theater in Berlin" in 1929. He led a small Berlin company under that name in 1920/21)! You refer to Pacepa's untrustworthy testimony and obviously haven't read any reliable academic source on Piscator let alone undertaken research. Of course Piscator as a leading director of his days has tried to influence Hochhuth's fictional (!) text in fall 1962. But already back then Hochhuth would predominantly react obstinate. Piscator later claimed that Hochhuth's "revised text ... was fundamentally based on the Berlin stage version" (Letter of Piscator to Hochhuth, Aug. 16, 1963). Still Piscator exerted just a minor influence on Hochhuth's since 1962 substantially finalized text. I wonder why you trust - of all people - an ex-communist if you seem to despise them so vitally... Diggindeeper 20:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand both points of view. However


 * 1) Wikipedia is clear on its strictures against original research[], however frustrating that can seem to those who are working on something ("personally know Hochhuth" writes an editor who has not yet set up a user page)
 * 2) W asks us to base contributions on previously published material
 * 3) The National Review is a substantial and highly respected source - and their article on this play has attracted a lot of attention (indeed it is probably the main reason people, certainly those uninterested in international theatre, will come to The Deputy page in 2007) - so the W argument for comprehensiveness suggests reference should be made to it


 * I have therefore proposed a compromise, drawn directly from the wording on the Pius XII page

Testbed 05:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Testbed
 * There is nothing wrong about a critical approach to Hochhuth's play, and if it may take the form of a conspiracy theory, as long as it is relevant. My objection was that the Wikipedia article doesn't really reflect Hochhuth's standing in German literature. The article before the edit presented Hochhuth as a kind of political hack who tried to whitewash himself of Germany's nazi crimes by blaming the Catholic Church, someone who can be put in the wrong easily and is not to be taken seriously. The article doesn't even contain the fact that Hochhuth disputed the idea he could have been influenced by communist intelligence officers. But whether he is appreciated or not, Hochhuth remains an important German post-war writer, and his play caused a serious debate that shouldn't be ignored by an encyclopedia. I would appreciate an article that reflects these facts in a NPOV manner. (As I am not a native English speaker, I would prefer it to be done by someone who is really fluent in English - and informed on Hochhuth and the controversy in general -, because I believe there are enough German speakers who try to write English articles that are barely understandable on en.wikipedia.org.) --87.169.53.210 20:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Misguided attempt at adding "historical background"
Hello User:Testbed, your continued attempts at 'adding historical background' to the article on Hochhuth's play The Deputy with untrustworthy sources bring about no improvement but a degradation of the article. As I have exposed at the page on Rolf Hochhuth the established German conservative (!) press, if willing at all to comment on Pacepa's anachronistic cold-war-style allegations, has strongly challenged the plausibility of Pacepa (Hochhuths Quellen. War der 'Stellvertreter' vom KGB inspiriert?, in: F.A.Z., April 26, 2007). German conservative historians find numerous „inconsistencies“ in Pacepa's central argumentation on Hochhuth's play. I have demonstrated above a number of additional errors of Pacepa's article which can be verified by any number of scholarly publications on German theater history (e.g. John Willett, The Theatre of Erwin Piscator. Half a Century of Politics in the Theatre. London 1978.). WP's guideline of comprehensiveness does hardly suggest to base its articles on feature pages with central investigative errors and biased publications instead of on mainstream scholarly knowledge. --Diggindeeper (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added the FAZ reference which certainly improves the article: thank you for drawing attention to it, although it was a little hard to discern in all your angry typing (your comments sound a little as if you may get into difficulties with WP:NOR so you might want to read up on this). It is always difficult to contribute to Wikipedia across a langauge barrier so I congratulate you (although I might question en-4). Perhaps you missed the overtones in the word "alleged" which would be clear to most readers. Anyway, this point is much better now: I do not agree with removing sources as respectable as either NR or FAZ.Testbed (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I wonder why noone makes an effort and delves into the readily available research literature on Hochhuth such as Eric Bentley, Lucinda Jane Rennison, Margaret E. Ward etc. Consulting these book publications on Hochhuth would contribute to the substance of the article in a way that polemic press articles rarely can as far as the achievement and validity of Hochhuth's work are concerned. Furthermore, I have trouble understanding your reference to WP:NOR. In his 2007 article on Hochhuth, Pacepa e.g. writes:
 * "In 1929 [Piscator] had founded the Proletarian Theater in Berlin, then sought political asylum in the Soviet Union when Hitler came to power [...]"
 * I cited an arbitrary piece of research literature on Piscator (Willett, The Theatre of Erwin Piscator. London 1978) to show that these pieces of information by Pacepa are incorrect. Actually, the research literature on Piscator disproves several of Pacepa's statements. On my part, I wouldn't exactly call published research literature "original research". --Diggindeeper (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarized?
The summary of the acts of the play seems to come from a book entitled Pius XII and the Holocaust: Understanding the Controversy by Jose M. Sanchez. It is not listed in the references. Take for instance the summary of IV found on wikipedia:

Pius, with a "cold, smiling face," "aristocratic coldness," and an "icy glint" in his eyes[3]voices his concerns about the Vatican's financial assets and the Allied bombing of factories in Italy.

Compare that to selected parts of Sanchez's summary found on page 26 of his book:

The Pope is characterized as having a "cold, smiling face," "aristocratic coldness," and an "icy glint [to] his eyes" (p. 195). He is concerned about the Vatican's stocks and securities and about the Allied bombing of Italy's factories.

There are other examples and it appears to me whoever wrote the summary did so only after reading Sanchez and not the actual play. 147.226.158.141 (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Is this how I sign?


 * I did use Sanchez to find quotes but thats not "plagiarism". Savidan 22:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Your response does not make sense. Quotes are defined by Webster's online dictionary as "to speak or write (a passage) from another usually with credit acknowledgment." You admit that you got quotes from Sanchez, but you will not give him "acknowledgment." Additionally, Plagiarizing is defined as "to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source." This seems to be what you did and what you have admitted to doing. Not only that, I still question whether you have read or seen the play. I sincerely doubt that you have, but I could be mistaken. 98.226.173.207 (talk) 04:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Is this how I sign?

I've read the play and watched the film adaptation. However, I thought it would constitute original research for me to choose the quotes myself. Feel free to cite Sanchez if you think it adds something or edit the article yourself. Savidan 01:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Serious catholic bias of recent edits
What currently is happening in the articles Rolf Hochhuth and "The Deputy" is everything else but encyclopedic work. Why do you think the renowned "Goethe Akademie zu Weimar" will hold an Interdisciplinary Conference on the Person and Collected Works of Rolf Hochhuth from September 25 to 28, 2008? In Weimar, the center of classic German culture? You think dozens of renowned international professors would be willing to speak at a conference for an alleged "Holocaust denier"? In which remote spheres are cold warriors and wannabe secret agents such as User:Ambrosius007 actually dwelling? Is there no more commendable task for aggrieved venerators of Pope Pius XII than slander? --Diggindeeper (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

incoherent passage - "The Deputy in the context of Holocaust denial"


During World War Two, Rolf Hochhuth was a member of the Hitler Youth. He did not comment on his indoctrination, attitudes and activities during that time, nor was he much expected to, given his age at the time. The Deputy, in which an cold-blooded, oportunistic pope was confronted by two morally upright German Protestant SS Officers Gerstein and Ernst von Weizsäcker, raised sensational interest at the time. The Deputy clearly put much of the blame for the Holocaust not on Germany or the Germans, but on the doorsteps of the Vatican. In March 2005, Hochhuth's political views were highlighted, when he defended  David Irving  in an interview with the German weekly Junge Freiheit. Irving had been sentenced in Britain (2000), Austria (2006) and Germany (1993) for his Holocaust Denials. Germany also barred him from ever entering the country for the same reason. Hochhuth called Ivring a truly great and very serious historian and judged the accusations against him as “idiotic”

When confronted with Ivring’s statement, that less people died during the Holocaust than on the backseat of Edward Kennedy's car, (one) and that there were no gas chambers in Auschwitz, Hochhuth defended Ivring as a great historian and called all this black humour, probably provoked.

Paul Spiegel, the President of the Central Jewish Council in Germany,  stated that Hochhuth himself is denying the Holocaust with these statements. . After weeks of uproar, Hochhuth finally issued a weak apology.

I think this passage needs serious cleanup; there seems a point in here but it seems to have become a bucket for misc slander of the author rather than a clear expression of the idea referred to in the title.--Xris0 (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I endorse the removal of this content. It should go in the Hochhuth article, and not this one, as it has no direct relevance to the play in question. Savidan 00:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Bias
The right-wing "Cold War"-era anti-communist hysteria of this article is beyond belief. I have no read anything like this in a generation, and that stuff usually was a generation old.

As for the National Review being a respected source, it is a biased, ideologically based periodical that is involved in disseminating right-wing propaganda.

The idea that the play was praised by critics who were predominantly left-wing, fellow-travelers and communists is specious. How does one report an article for bias?Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 06:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Confessional bias III
This article is consequently being instrumentalized by one editor who wants to make it another tessera within Pope Pius XII' beatification process. The Vatican's current agenda to beatify Pope Pius XII. with all means at hand (major exhibitions on Pius XII in Berlin and Munich, producing the expensive movie Sotto Il Cielo Di Roma through Catholic funded film companies such as Lux Vide and Tellux-Film, PR campaigns of the controversial Pave the Way Foundation) form the background of user Mamalujo's edits in this article about an unconvenient piece of literature that first led the world to discuss the role of Pope Pius XII' during WWII.

The unreliable character of Mamalujo's edits and his disinterest in serious encyclopedic work can be seen in several details. He uses non-reliable and non-scientific sources such as biased right-wing media to back his cold-war theories and to tamper with German literature history. Mamalujo eliminated well-known facts from the article that did not comply with his view of Hochhuth's drama (e.g. that it won the 1964 Tony Award® when being produced on Broadway). He reinserted a completely redundant sentence duplication twice into the article instead that had been taken out ("It has been translated...") until administrator Stephan Schulz stopped him.

Finally, user Mamalujo does not comment on any of the objections against his biased edits on this discussion page. He does refrain from it for a good reason. If he could provide any serious scientific German or English source to back his claims, it would be possible to work out a compromise. However, within the broad amount of reputable research literature available on this drama not one single piece exists that backs Mamalujo's conspiracy theories. I wonder how long a user (whose name is an akronym for the four evangelists) should be allowed to further pursue his manipulative confessional mission. --Diggindeeper (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, let me get this straight. The Times of London, The Jewish Ledger, News Weekly (one of Australia's oldest news magazines), German historians, the Jewish president of the Pave the Way Foundation, and lil' ol me, are all tools of the Vatican's plot to "use all means at hand" to accomplish their nefarious goals, or should I say "manipulative confessional mission". And I'm the one with "conspiracy theories"? So much for assuming good faith. The problem is that many reliable sources say KGB's operation Seat 12 is fact and that it produced The Deputy. Wikipedia's standard for inclusion is met, despite your continued attempts to delete it because you just don't like it. Well that ain't sufficient, confessional mission or no. In the future, please do other editors the courtesy of avoiding ad hominems and argue the issue not the man. Mamalujo (talk) 02:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It would help the quality of this article if you would confine yourself to factual arguments on this discussion page. Thank you. There were more votes on this page who called on you to back down and to comply with the NPOV policy. Are you trying to imply that the Vatican is not advancing the beatification process for Pius XII currently, that it has not been doing a travelling exhibition on Pius XII in Europe in 2009, that it were not Catholic funded film companies that produced the film on Pius XII Sotto Il Cielo Di Roma (2010)? Why are passages from this article being deleted in this context that report well known facts such as that The Deputy won the 1964 Tony Award® when being produced on Broadway?


 * The assembly of media you are presenting (all of which just reprinted pieces from a 2007 "National Review" issue) is remarkable. Hundreds of newspapers worldwide reported on The Deputy. You determine that, of all things, the small Jewish Ledger and an Australian mag are the ones that count here? The NR article's author Pacepa is one of dictator Ceauşescu's ex-Securitate generals. A reliable source? By which standard? Even the citation of the speculation of a German historian is none. “Pave the Way”'s opinion paper does not even state a single source. All of us are obliged to stick to Wikipedia's guidelines. Please don't insert any more potentially libellous material into this article on the work of a living author. --Diggindeeper (talk) 11:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, if I accidentally removed the referrence to the Tony award, mea culpa. Times of Lonon, the Australian, Forbes, etc., all have fact checkers and are known as reliable sources. Mamalujo (talk) 02:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The KGB influence is sourced to Times London, Forbes, The Australian, National Review, The Jewish Ledger, British Intelligence, U. Miss. Law Prof. Ronald Rychlak and historian Michael F. Feldkamp, it should not be deleted. Mamalujo (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's WP:UNDUE weight to a conspiracy theory, written in a way that violates WP:NPOV. In addition, your statement is inaccurate; what you claim is sourced to the "Times London" and "The Australian", for example, is simply an article by John Follain about Mihai Pacepa's claims. What you claim is sourced to "Forbes" is actually sourced to an opinion piece by travel writer Melik Kaylan. The "Pave the Way" opinion paper by the lawyer Rychlak has been legitimately dismissed above, as have been the other sources. At least four editors have now objected to this material; the reign of POV-pushing on this article has now come to an end; discuss, but do not re-insert. Jayjg (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not a conspiracy theory. It is merely you who says so. The Times, The Australian, News Weekly, and Forbes did publish these matters. Each has fact checkers, and none is in the habit of publishing conspiracy theories. How is it that Rychlak's work has been dismissed legitimately? I certainly can't see that it has been done. Feldkamp has not been dismissed either. Neither has the British intelligence report. Noted historians (I just added Michael Burleigh's position to the section) and law school deans, not to mention noted news sources, don't usually go about spouting conspiracy theories. That position is totally without merit. Mamalujo (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd like to point further discussion related to this edit war towards the 3RR page. Note that any involved editors are henceforth barred from editing the page while mediation is in effect. Thanks, m.o.p  02:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should not give undue credence to unsubstantitated conspiracy theories. Sources such as the National Review should be rejected altogether.  Since these claims are fairly old, it should be possible to find serious sources that have analyzed them.  TFD (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just read Ion Mihai Pacepa's bio - no serious writer would comment on anything he wrote. He said that Russia ordered Oswald to kill Kennedy!  TFD (talk) 05:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What's your point? You obviously have very little knowledge about the Soviet Union and the KGB. Pacepa's story should not be ignored and should absoulutely be acknowledged. Since the evidence does back up his story it should be thoroughly discussed and included in the article. Dwain (talk) 06:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The fact is newspapers and magazines aren't terribly reliable sources for anything other than current events (if that). A peer-reviewed scholarly book would be a reasonable source.  I doubt one can be found for this silly conspiracy theory.  Newspapers and magazines exist to sell copies.  They quite frequently print sensational tripe to produce sales.  This is an article about a play.  A play is a set of words and they say what they say.  As the Spiegel opined...Hochhuth was perfectly capable of producing an entirely one-sided account with there being a communist plot.  Perhaps as much effort should be put into getting the article to tell people what the play is about as is going into producing a conspiracy theory to get people not to watch or read it.  Dump the conspiracy section or make it its own article.  It hasn't been established as a fact, and there are people who think it is crap.  The article as written is trying to get from the fact that some people think the play was the result of a KGB plot (true), to presenting the KGB plot as some kind of fact (dubious).  Ekwos (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your comment is laughable. It is interesting how to try and diminish the damning information by Pacepa you start talking about conspiracy theories. What a pitiful argument to subvert information. Dwain (talk) 06:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Some errors
This article is full of fundamental errors emanating from the one-sided agenda of one agitated editor (who, interestingly enough, seems to think that "literature" is among the bigger threats to the Holy See and the integrity of our Western societies, and that flashy little "alarm signs" might be a good cure, at least on user pages).

Let me mention a few quite characteristic misconceptions:
 * "The play was first performed at east Berlin's Freie Volksbühne [...] on February 20, 1963 [...]." - Oh, really? Never ever (no matter what scholar Stephen Whitfield may believe to know). The "Freie Volksbühne Berlin" has been located in Schaperstraße 24, West-Berlin. The "Freie Volksbühne" has not at all been identical to the Volksbühne Berlin on Rosa-Luxemburg-Platz in East-Berlin. Why? The Freie Volksbühne was created by the anti-communist exponents of the old Volksbühne movement who had to continue their work in West-Berlin after their original theatre was out-of-reach in East-Berlin after 1945 and could not be used by them any more. If you care for the truth, ask the people of Berlin.
 * "The play toured the Eastern Bloc and then proceeded to tour the free world." Oh, really? Never ever (no matter what journalist Melik Kaylan believes to know). Like it or not, it was vice versa. As the original, unaltered article already stated, the play toured the Western world first. When author Rolf Hochhuth (who is known as an anti-communist) after almost three years allowed his play to be performed in Eastern Europe as well, the "Deutsches Theater" in East-Berlin took its chance and produced it in January February 1966.
 * Ion Pacepa's inventive "KGB collaboration in the play" fantasy is certainly nothing that an encyclopedia has to extensively reflect upon (as long as academia does not approve of it). Broadway und U.S. press were widely infiltrated by communists in 1964? My impression so far had been that McCarthy era thinking had lost its appeal to a majority of Americans. Rolf Hochhuth "was particularly opposed to priestly celibacy". Oh, really? That's exactly the way many Catholics think today. I repeat myself: this paragraph is misplaced here.

What has been done to this article in recent months is throwing a bad light on the intentions of a minority of Wikipedia editors. What has happened to our ability to create an equilibrium even in representing controversial contents? Ion Pacepa was one of the military figureheads of Stalinist Romania. For a historical pope who shall enter the next step of the canonization process and who depends on apologists like Pacepa now, may well apply what Dante Alighieri conceived as that famous Gate Inscription: "Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate!"

I know, we on Wikipedia (and the same seems to apply to some editors of "The Times") are big-hearted and bear no enmity (or exaggerated caution against the sophisticated PR methods of ex-Stalinist intelligence officials). I still believe, in this case we can do much better. --Diggindeeper (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Production history of The Deputy
To clarify recurring misconceptions on the production history of The Deputy (regarding the misleading claim "The play toured the Eastern Bloc and then proceeded to tour the free world."), I attach a comprehensive list of the play's international productions from 1963 to 1966 (data source: Rowohlt publishing house, owner of the copyright, exact dates available):

In contrast to what the article states, productions in Eastern Bloc states started on February 12, 1966 with a staging at the National Theatre in Bratislava. If you count Yugoslavia as part of the Eastern Bloc (after breaking ties with Soviet policy in 1948), one earlier production had occured at the National Theatre in Belgrade in January 1966. My impression: Some editors try to misrepresent well-known historical facts on a play that has become uncomfortable after almost 50 years again. --Diggindeeper (talk) 12:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for assuming good faith ("Some editors try to misrepresent well-known historical facts"). It appears it did premier in West Berlin. But the error couldn't be good faith, no. There's a nefarious plot to misrepresent the facts. The fact that a source says this "The play,  which made the rounds of the Eastern Bloc and then the world" and that the theater in West Berlin where it premiered bore the same name as a theater in East Berlin, are beside the point, aren't they? Mamalujo (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As long as poorly researched columns of travel and leisure journalists are used to create an article on a Holocaust play instead of readily available research literature, it may not become a piece of encyclopedic quality work anytime soon. It would be nice if you could turn more attention on accuracy if the term Freie Volksbühne Berlin sounds identical to Volksbühne am Rosa-Luxemburg-Platz to you. --Diggindeeper (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion from AN/3RR

 * Mamalujo, from what I can see, the others are protesting due to your very limited sourcing here, though I understand that sourcing is tough to find. Everything I see points towards Pacepa as the genesis of this theory. Is he the only root source?
 * Jayjg, why was Rychlak discredited as a source? I noticed that his Wikipedia article was written primarily by Mamalujo (with claims of Rychlak's expertise on Pius unsourced), but his U. Miss. page suggests he did have some knowledge on the Pope.
 * As a final note, I'd like to showcase this source from The Times (which is a highly-reputable paper) that seems to back up Mamalujo's claims. Of course, the edit warring is still a serious offense and is being taken into account, but I'm curious as to why Mamalujo's claims are being dismissed as conspiracy theory.
 * Thanks for your cooperation, all. m.o.p  02:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi MOP. The issue with Rychlak is that he's actually a lawyer and advocate for the Catholic Church, not a historian, and the material from him is essentially self-published. Under WP:SPS, it doesn't really qualify as reliable. As for the article in The Times, as I've pointed out on the article's Talk: page, all the reporter (John Follain) does there is reproduce Pacepa's claims. Note key phrases in Follain's article like "according to the highest-ranking Soviet bloc intelligence officer to have defected to the West" and "according to Pacepa". Mamalujo keeps pretending that The Times has "fact checked" the material or in some way verifies it as true; but all this reporter does is note that Pacepa has made these claims, no more. He also pretends that sources like The Times and The Australian are independent, when all that has happened is that The Australian has syndicated the article from The Times - it even says at the bottom "The Sunday Times". It's all highly deceptive. The Wikipedia article already mentions Pacepa's claims in the "Criticism" section; but to have an additional entire section, 40% the article, devoted to his claims, and stating them as if they are fact, rather that simply Pacepa's claims, is an obvious violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. As various editors have pointed out, if you want to have this kind of strong claim in an article, especially one with BLP implications, then you need to at least have actual historians commenting on it. On top of that, Mamalujo places this section before even the description of the play itself! Jayjg (talk) 07:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I sometimes get carried away. If I had been apprised that I was 3rr, I would gladly have done a self revert. I think it's understandable when an entire section, which is reasonably sourced, is deleted on the bald assertion (no source) that it is a conspiracy. Both the Australian and the Times article are by Follain, but the fact that they both printed it means it met the muster of their fact checkers. The News Weekly article authored by Joseph Poprzeczny is also reliable. Joseph Poprzeczny is an historical researcher and a reputable writer, author of Odilo Globocnik, Hitler's Man in the East. News Weekly, is one of Australia's oldest news magazines, founded nearly 3/4 a century ago. In addition the information was published in Forbes and National Review, both reputable publications with diligent fact checkers. On top of that, the assertions are stated as fact by three academics of note (an American, a Brit and a German), two of them prominent historians. As to everything being sourced from Pacepa, that is not the case. British intelligence suspected the connection long ago and the knowledge of the connection to the Eastern bloc disinformation campaign predates Pacepa's disclosure. One of the reasons why the historians regard the connection as historical fact is that after the fall of the Eastern bloc, the KGB's campaign against the Vatican was clearly established as fact and more information on the campaign continues to be discovered in archives of former communist nations. For example an Italian parliamentary commision concluded in 2006 that “beyond any reasonable doubt” the Soviets were behind the assasination attempt against John Paul II in 1981. Recent discoveries from the Eastern bloc show that the Vatican archives had been compromised and that the Eastern bloc had moles in both the Second Vatican Counsel and in the Curia. It has also been discovered that the KGB had a disinformation and provocation campaign against John Paul II. So, as the historians have noted, operation Seat 12 was not at all incredible but was consistent with what is known about communist intelligence and the Vatican. And the reason for deletion - a blithe assertion of "conspiracy theory" with absolutely no sourcing. And of course there is the offensive ad hominem argument on the talk page of "confessional bias", which of course holds no weight. Quite frankly if the "confessional bias" was the Jewish faith, I think there might have been some uproar. It is not appropriate to impugn editors or sources based on "confessional bias" - the very term stinks of bigotry. Not surprisingly, many of the defenders of Pius against slanders have been Jewish, including the great historian Martin Gilbert and Rabbis David Dalin and Eric Silver, to mention a few. Mamalujo (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If its "hot" news then maybe there is no time for the broadspectrum of Holocaust scholars to digest the information. Perhaps they would not be too interested since at least the 1960's the play had been treated with contempt by scholars who were no admirers of Pius's diplomancy. If the sources above are unbaissed then they would probably also include previously published views that the Catholic Nazi Bishop Hudal was a prime source for the play after Pius sidelined him because he was making too obvious the Vaticans involvment with rat-lines to help escaping Nazi war criminals. ma&#39;at (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Rychlak may have personal bias, I'm not quite sure he'd qualify under SPS; after all, SPS doesn't state that self-published material isn't ever acceptable. In this case, given that he's claimed to be an expert on the Pope, I see no reason to discredit him as a source. Of course, he's also going on Pacepa's claims. I wouldn't use Rychlak as a primary source, but as a secondary source, why not? I agree that, again, he may be biased, but this is inherent in every piece of work. We can't automatically discredit a source because the source happens to be related to the cause it is defending. That being said, the proposed addition is very large in comparison to the rest of the page, and relies very heavily on Rychlak; slimming it down and putting the reliable sources first (i.e. The Times) might help.
 * I do agree that it isn't very intuitive to place Mamalujo's section above the main body of the page - something like that is setting quite the negative tone. Would it be an acceptable compromise if Mamalujo's section was moved to 'Criticism', cut down a bit, and used to flesh out the criticism section? m.o.p  23:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes of course; if the material only used truly reliable sources, was cut down in accord with WP:UNDUE, worded in accord in WP:NPOV, and moved to the correct location, it would be perfectly reasonable. Jayjg (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright. Mamalujo, does this sound reasonable? m.o.p  04:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly agreeable with moving the section. But what do we mean by using only truly reliable sources? What would be deleted? With regard to Rychlak, the material sourced here may be in his 2010 book, which is not self-published. And as far as undue weight, I think this material deserves substantial weight. It is a credible assertion of great import to the subject. I think editing for neutrality is fine. I think that would best be done by published criticism of Pacepa's revelation. I know Peter Gumpel. S.J., the relator for Pius XII cause expressed some doubt about Pacepa's motivation and credibility (Of course the criticism I saw was in 2007 - since then more has surfaced about the communist connections of others involved in the play). I think we should keep in perspective though that Hochhuth has lost a defamation case, when he libeled a living person in another "historical" play, that he defended his friend and collaborator, Holocaust denier, David Irving's assertion that more people died at Chapaquidick than in the Holocaust, and that his friend Irving, in defending him, admitted that Hochhuth was naive and may have been fed information. In light of Hochhuth's lack of credibility, this info has more weight. The circumstantial evidence, communist affiliation of so many involved in the play as well as the fact of the anti-Vatican disinformation campaign, are what give Pacepa's claims greater weight. As do historians, Feldkamp and Burleigh. I think it could be trimmed some. But I think it should be accorded substantial weight. I'd definitely object to it being bowdlerized. Mamalujo (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * All of this can be true without a silly KGB conspiracy. As some German press opined...Hochhuth was perfectly capable of giving a one-sided account without a KGB conspiracy.  The evidence for the conspiracy comes from a disreputable source.  The article would be better served with a commentary on Hochhuth's play that doesn't boil down to a dubious conspiracy.  The conspiracy theory looks exactly like the kind of right wing trash you expect.  It addresses the character and motives of the person and ignores the content of the work.  It is, in short, an elaborate ad hominem...and an unenlightening one.  Why can't we have an actual informative critique of the content of the work, instead of an attack on the origin of the work?  Ekwos (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

We can't use Rychlak as a primary source if we don't even know where he's being quoted from - I don't think that would fly with other editors. How about this; Jayjg, do you mind writing out a version you'd be OK with here? Use whatever sources you feel are appropriate. Then we'll see what Mamalujo thinks. m.o.p 20:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll create a new version of the material. I'm also going to copy this to the article talk page, this discussion doesn't belong here. Jayjg (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just as a note, this page isn't allowing new revisions until the end of the discussion. I don't want to stop legitimate or new editors from contributing, but I don't want anybody edit warring. m.o.p  07:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Trial? Ekwos (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Meant to say discussion. Said trial instead. Freudian slip. Must consider myself power-hungry dictator. Anyway, let's keep discourse moving on this thing and get a compromise settled. m.o.p  19:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion looks moribund. Ekwos (talk) 03:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I do intend to come up with a policy-compliant version, but it will take me a couple more days. Jayjg (talk) 05:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble figuring out what was decided. What are you planning to do?  Ekwos (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

KGB Conspiracy Theory
I'm not buying the devotion of so much space to a conspiracy theory. I tried to participate in the discussion related to this, but that appeared to have frittered out, and nothing came of my attempts. I deleted it again. If you want it included it needs to be toned down substantially. Ekwos (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did plan to write a brief version that didn't violate WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV, but got distracted. The article already mentions the conspiracy theory, though, so it's not really a huge loss to see this paragraph go. Jayjg (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The idea that it is a conspiracy is just editor POV. A complete deletion of the section based on nothing but an editor's opinion is not warranted. I plan to reintroduce the deleted section with additional sourcing and some modifications. Mamalujo (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I admit I haven't yet had the time (or fortitude) to dig into this, but it's clear that the topic would never justify more than a short paragraph at best, per WP:REDFLAG, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE. Jayjg (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree it merits some mention, so it's unfortunate that all that's been going on in complete deletion versus complete reinsertion. It needs to be rewritten in a neutral voice and better sourced. Savidan 18:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The conspiracy theory is based on the memoirs of Ion Mihai Pacepa Anatoliy Golitsyn who, among other things, claimed that Harold Wilson was a KGB informer, Lee Harvey Oswald was working for the KGB and the CIA had been infiltrated by the KGB.  TFD (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is already mentioned, in an NPOV way, in the "Criticism" section. Two-thirds of that section is devoted to it. Jayjg (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory is presently mentioned twice in the article:


 * The play has been dismissed by some as the product of KGB disinformation campaign to discredit the anti-communist Pope.


 * In 2007, Ion Mihai Pacepa, a former Romanian spymaster, alleged that the play was part of a larger KGB campaign to discredit Pius XII.[11] A leading German newspaper opined "that Hochhuth did not require any KGB assistance for his one-sided presentation of history.[12][13]

These statements are true. In fact, I think the second one is basically sufficient. How much more details of the conspiracy theory need to be included is another question. I would argue a single sentence and a link to the dubious source is sufficient. The details do nothing to tell us about the play (the subject of the article). In fact the way the article is presently written puts the conspiracy theory up front in an attempt to discredit the play (the subject of the article) before the reader gets a chance to learn about it. Arguably that was the point of the conspiracy theory in the first place. Ekwos (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit baffled that this strange theory is mentioned in the introduction. Just this night, the film based on the play was aired on German ARD, which is more or less the German state television. Hard to believe that this would be done for a KGB propaganda piece. --Pjacobi (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * And I just removed Category:Communist propaganda, that's just silly. No other single play or novel is categorized there, not even those who are really proselytizing for communism. --Pjacobi (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It was started by conservative Catholics who idolized Pius XII and backed his canonization. They felt the play made him look bad.  Ekwos (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of unencyclopedic content
I have re-removed the unencyclopedic content from this article. The play does not weigh rival assessments of the pope's complicity or innocence in the holocaust--if it did, then the article could justifiably describe its subject as "claimed failure to take action". The play asserts that failure and that is how it ought to be described in the article. The subject of this article is the play by Hochhuth, not a discussion of whether or not the pope was guilty. If you want the consipiracy theory concerning the KGB to appear in the article, then you will need to provide a citation from a reliable, mainstream academic source that takes that claim seriously. If mainstream scholarship does not take the claim seriously, then neither should wikipedia. This is not a forum for conspiracy theories nor propaganda. The same goes for the article in the external links, which reproduces the consipiracy theory. If it is substantiated by mainstream academia, that's fine. If not, it has no place here. That is how we establish NPOV. Material that promotes crank theories has no place in an encyclopedic article on a work of art and will be deleted.  • DP •  {huh?} 19:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is a separate subject from the KGB connections to the play, which section was deleted wholesale without justification. It will be reintroduce. As to "claimed", that is necessary because otherwise the article is misleading. It otherwise suggests the failure to act is an historically recognized fact, which it is not. The article from the news magazine is appropriate because it addresses the play. Whether or not the play weighs assesments of the pope's purported role, the play is recognized as one of the first (after the communist propaganda - and perhaps as part of it) assertions that the pontiff did not act rightly with regard to the holocaust. Indeed, today the play is most notable for that fact. It is not often discussed for its dramatic merits, but for its role in this issue. Mamalujo (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken and have failed to engage with the issues involved. You are mistaken to claim that "the play is most notable" for asserting the pope's complicity. On the contrary, it forms part of the canon of 20th-century drama and is discussed in, for example, Brocket's History of the Theatre (which is the standard text in this academic field in the US) and The Cambridge Guide to Theatre (which occupies an analogous position in the UK). The Encyclopedia of Holocaust Literature describes it as "one of the most important plays of the 20th century." I see also that there is a detailed discussion of the play in Christopher Bigsby's recent book, Remembering and Imagining the Holocaust (2006), which you can examine for yourself on Google Books. Bigsby is a well-respected, mainstream academic in this subject area. None of these texts, nor any other mainstream sources of which I am aware, support the conspiracy theory you are attempting to promote. Unless you can support your claims with citations from mainstream theatre or literary scholarship, they will be deleted. If you persist in this behaviour, you will be blocked from editing. I see from your contributions history that rebutting criticism of the Catholic Church is an ideological agenda that you actively pursue across many other articles. This article is not a forum for you to express your allegeance to a religious leader but an encyclopedic account of a work of art. Regardless of how the play's subject may or may not make you feel, this article is not an appropriate place for you to promote crank theories. Neither descriptions of the play's subject in the two standard critical works that I have mentioned describe its subject as "claimed" or "alleged", because that would not be appropriate. Such a description would only be appropriate in an article that addressed the allegations (which is not the subject of this article). Brockett gives: "which seeks to place much of the blame for the extermination of Jews on Pope Pius XII's refusal to take a decisive stand against Hitler's policies" (483). Banham gives: "a closely printed 226-page indictment of Pope Pius XII for complicity in the Holocaust" (490). Neither account qualifies the description with "claimed" or "alleged" or the like. On reflection, I agree that the adjective "controversial" is warranted in describing the play; I was being overly cautious when I removed it, having been alarmed at the poor state of the article. The justification for the deletion of the crank theory is precisely that it is not supported by mainstream academic scholarship on the subject of this article. If you can prove otherwise, then the material may be restored and you will have contributed to the improvement of this article and receive my thanks. If not, then your actions undermine the integrity of Wikipedia and will not be tolerated. If you restore the material without providing the kind of reliable sources that I have indicated are neccessary for what is, no doubt, a contentious issue, you will be reported and blocked in due course.  • DP •  {huh?} 20:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The conspiracy theory is given a reasonable amount of space and attention in this article; as at least a half dozen editors have pointed out, the paragraph Mamalujo keeps trying to insert violates WP:UNDUE among other things. The conspiracy theory gets its whole own article, Seat 12, which Mamalujo created soon after this issue erupted, and which is linked appropriately from this article. It shouldn't be repeated here. Jayjg (talk) 04:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes - that it appears in this article at all is generous - the reliable, mainstream literary/theatre studies sources do not, to my knowledge, mention it at all, which indicates its lack of notability.  • DP •  {huh?} 12:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Simply calling it a "conspiracy theory" does not make it so - that is complete bunk. Three notable scholars have recognized this as factual or at the very least credible. And no the current state is not sufficient. That was not were we were with this when we were dealing with a disinterested admin. I have no problem with reasonable trimming to account for reasonable bjections to undue weight but gutting the section is unacceptable and seems to be a POV I JUST DON'T LIKE IT sort of edit. Mamalujo (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @DP There are mainstream historical sources considered highly reliable which do give great credence to the matter. Mamalujo (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Responding to a general 3O request by Mamalujo, I think the large deletion is not completely justified given that it was referenced, and seems to pertains to the subject. I reinstated it, but trimmed it back since it seemed to repeat what the article said. It does need a paragraph so it is not lost in the woods, given that it pertains to the topic. But there is no point in repeating the entire other article here. People can click on the Main anyway. Also the title needs to be less assertive, so I think we need to say "possible relationship" given that there is a rumor that the KGB people did not always tell the truth. Also some of the refs are weblinks that are not as strong as the Times articles, etc. so I would suggest getting rid of some of those and using the better refs that are already there. History2007 (talk) 10:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion on Pius XII' attitude towards the Holocaust has been going on for some 48 years now. Sadly enough, some Wikipedia users think that this debate should and could be stalled after all those years by referring to the same untrustworthy Stalinist source again and again (Ion Pacepa).
 * Smear campaigns against renowned authors do not pay off, though. This very Sunday, May 15, 2011, author Rolf Hochhuth was a guest in Germany's most popular talk show "Anne Will" at Germany's biggest TV network ("the world's largest public broadcaster") ARD. Just as in previous TV shows with Hochhuth participating, Mr. Pacepa's allegations were not even mentioned once. The simple reason: Mr. Pacepa lacks credibility in Europe.
 * And DionysosProteus is entirely right as well: "the reliable, mainstream literary/theatre studies sources do not mention it at all." In none of the books that have been published on Rolf Hochhuth since 2007, the claims of Mr. Pacepa are mentioned at all. Since no new arguments have been added to this discussion, I object to the recurring insertion of unreliable, single-sourced material. --Diggindeeper (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this play a big deal in the EU? I had not even heard of this play or Pacepa until yesterday, so I do not know. But as I said above it is somewhat well known that the KGB people had a habit of telling less than the truth once in a while, so it is not surprising if people doubt him. On the other hand, secret plans are not always publicized, of course.

Now, by "single source" I assume you mean single human source, because there seem to be multiple references and appearing in the London Times etc. makes the item clearly notable. I am not aware of a WP policy that says what a single person said and the Times printed must be deleted. Is there one? What I think is:


 * If you think Seat 12 is "not encyclopedic" as an item and should not be mentioned in Wikipedia at all, then you should Afd that page. Then you will know if it will pass the notability test.


 * If Seat 12 survives within Wikipedia, then links to and mentions of it can no longer be totally suppressed. So it needs to be mentioned here.


 * It is then a question of how big a mention it gets. And a short paragraph does not seem to be hurting the server's disk space.

By the way, I clicked on the left Navbar and the German, Italian and French Wikipedias all have a paragraph about the Pacepa fellow and the story he told. The sizes vary, from a small paragraph in German to a pretty large one in French. However, I think the way Wikipedia works, you can, and I suggest should, add another paragraph based on what you had above stating that various people have called the KGB fellow less than truthful. That would not surprise people, but if it is referenced, it can be added. History2007 (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue is never "server disk space"; rather, there's a general consensus among editors here that the material violates WP:UNDUE in this article. In any event, your edit was generally fine; there was still a lot of duplication in the text (and duplication of citations), so I copyedited and tightened it. Jayjg (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I know, I know. Given all this talk, talk forever in Wikipedia, the server space was, obviously, a joke given the size of the paragraph compared to the talk page about it. But perhaps a joke too obscure. In any case, I see no problem with your newly edited paragraph, given that it uses even less disk space.... Wink. History2007 (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Mediation and promoting one-sided bargaining are different things. --Diggindeeper (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * So? From what I see you and Mamalujo are at the opposite ends of the spectrum, so balance is as usual found somewhere between the two views. A long section is not necessary, in view of a Main, but total deletion is not justified given that the item has appeared in the Times, etc. as above. Regarding your assertion that it is libel, then you are free to pursue the London Times for that - British libel laws are pretty strict. I personally recommend this law firm which I hear has just opened a London office. I am sure they will give you a reasonable quote for starting the case. History2007 (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia's principle was to treat fringe theories equal to mainstream positions to create a balance, then you would be right. To my knowledge, Wikipedia works differently, though. As someone new to this discussion you may not be familiar with the fact that none of the German mainstream media have supported Pacepa's claims from 2007. The large TV networks and even the biggest conservative papers FAZ and Welt have dismissed it as implausible. Of course we could go on and further demolish Wikipedia's credibility by giving space to just a little more fringe theory.
 * Actually, your suggestion to finally focus on the other paragraphs of this article appeared more reasonable to me. In recent months I have been the only one to work on other paragraphs, though, while other editors took the liberty to broadly elaborate merely on fringe theory. If you want to advocate quality work taking place here, it would be more useful to support editors familiar with the relevant literary research instead of providing a forum for fringe theory. How about that for a change? --Diggindeeper (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, if you have a reference that says no one in Germany supports this Pacepa fellow, why not add that with the ref? It is simple. And again, this is by its nature a muddy issue with agents and spooks and the whole bit. Most readers will not form firm conclusions from anything any of these people say anyway. So I do not know what the big deal is. History2007 (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Doing the math, following consensus
The way I see it:


 * In this edit, I significantly shortened Mamalujo material and created a short paragraph about the Seat 12 article.
 * In this edit Jayjg made it shorter, and I accepted his change on the talk page, and joked abut server space.
 * In this edit Mamalujo extended it, but later, in this edit accepted that version as "a less than perfect compromise" but agreed to it.

I think it is appropriate to include what the "leading German newspaper opined" as Sparafucil recently added. But apart from that my rusty math tells me that we have 3 users (namely myself, Jayjg and Mamalujo) who endorse the short Jayjg paragraph version last stabilized in this edit. But we have Diggindeeper and Sparafucil who do not like that version of the paragraph. Am I right? So it seems to me, based on that math that there is "no consensus" to change this edit. So Diggindeeper and Sparafucil are editing against consensus, and said edit should be restored. Am I right, or am I right? History2007 (talk) 00:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the current version, including what the "leading German newspaper opined". Mamalujo obviously wants to lengthen it, and in particular state Pacepa's allegations as fact. Diggingindeeper wants to pretty much remove it altogether. So, this seems like a reasonable enough compromise. Jayjg (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, let us go with that. End of text discussion. That is almost what we had before, except that the section head "Reception" has now been changed and the Seat 12 item does not seem to fit along with "Reception". So those two small paragraphs should probably be separated. Then can we all go away and have separate picnics without talking about plays? History2007 (talk) 07:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * We get into undue weight problems by gutting the pre-2007 reception history and many other controversies around the play; thanks to Jayjg it looks better now. What article is this supposed to point to? Sparafucil (talk) 23:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not know about that link. History2007 (talk) 07:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Who is "Hochmuth?"
The text of this article makes a passing reference to "Huchmuth." Is that simply a typo, or is there someone so named? 71.175.131.77 (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Typo - fixed. TFD (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

In hora mortis meae voca me: A Translation Error
In summarizing Act V, the article discusses the protagonist's last words, "in hora mortis meae voca me." These words are taken from the Anima Christi, a traditional Latin Catholic prayer. The author claims that these words are "modally ambiguous: one could read subjunctive :'in the hour of my death may He call unto me' or imperative 'in the hour of my death, call unto me!'" This is incorrect; only the latter reading is acceptable. A subjunctive, as the author suggests, would read "in hora mortis meae vocet me" (may he call unto me), or perhaps "voces me" (may you call unto me). "Voca," however, can only possibly read as the imperative of "voco, vocare" (to call). This is in keeping with the general character of the Anima Christi, which is formulated as a series of imperative statements (e.g. "sanctifica me," "salva me," "exaudi me" - "sanctify me," "save me," "hear me").

It is possible that the author has here confused the Latin "voca" with the Italian. In Italian, "voca" can be either the imperative, as in the Latin, or the third-person present indicative, that is, "you call." Regardless, there is no possible Latin reading of the phrase "in hora mortis meae voca me" as an optative subjunctive; it can only be imperative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.242.40.87 (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)